兼併，收購和合資企業

什麼，如果任何影響，美國和大陸航空公司合併的合併將有廉價機票和廉價的度假套餐，還有待觀察。

兩家航空公司將繼續運作，直至2012年年中分開。

以下是事情的立場，因為美國大陸控股公司接管了兩家航空公司去年十月的更新：

• 83機場的服務站開始允許旅客檢查或者航空公司的航班在5月18日。
• 美國芝加哥奧黑爾機場的舊標識已經取代美國與大陸的全球象徵的名稱。 這種變化是逐步在所有機場。
• 聯合國提供額外的腿部空間，它收取保費的教練席。 “經濟艙座位預計不會對大陸飛機，直到2012年年初出售。
• 美國已宣布它將保留美國的三個服務類，至少在未來幾年內的國際航班和大陸的兩個服務類。
• 航空公司希望提供2012年3月合併預訂系統（大陸現行制度的基礎上）。
• 常旅客可以連接美國和大陸帳戶，並結合英里。
• 遊客可以檢查出的航班，收到席位分配，無論是美國或大陸的網站上檢查飛行狀態，無論他們飛的航空公司。
• 兩家航空公司開始提供相同的菜單上購買食品，在5月1日的教練，雖然商務艙的菜單仍然不同。
• 現在這兩家航空公司之間的相同的行李費，航班變更，待機的要求，和無人陪伴的未成年人的處理。

關於作者

www.cheapfares.com員工喜歡寫作和分享旅遊資訊，讓他們參與，並相信別人會覺得有趣的文章。

的短語兼併和收購 （略中號和一個），是指企業戰略，企業融資和管理，處理的購買方面，銷售和不同的公司，可以幫助融資或幫助一個增長的公司特定行業增長迅速而不相結合創建另一個業務實體。

收購
（“目標”）收購，由另一個。 合併是兩家公司有機結合在一起，形成一個新的公司共有的。 收購可能是私人或公共的，這取決於被收購公司或合併公司是否是或不是在公開市場上市。 可能是友好或敵意收購。 無論是購買被看作是一個友好或敵對取決於它是如何傳達給目標公司的董事，員工和股東的董事會收到。 雖然併購交易通信在一個所謂的“保密泡沫”，使信息流，由於保密協議限制（哈伍德，2005年），這是很正常的。 在友好的交易的情況下，公司合作，在談判中的收購目標是在一個敵對協議的​​情況下，不願購買或目標板沒有提供事先知識。 敵對收購，並經常做，打開友好的結束，作為收購方保護被收購公司董事會的認可交易。 這通常需要在改善要約的條款。 收購通常指的是一個較小的公司購買一個較大的。 但是，有時候，一個較小的企業將獲得一個更大或更長的時間建立的公司的管理控制，並保持其名稱，合併後的實體。 這就是所謂的反向收購。 另一種類型的收購是反向併購，使一家私營公司，在很短的時間內得到公開上市交易。 反向併購發生時，一家私營公司，具有較強的應用前景是急於籌集資金購買上市的空殼公司，通常沒有業務和資產有限。 實現收購成功已被證明是非常困難的，而各種研究表明，50％的收購是不成功的。 收購過程十分複雜，影響其結果的許多方面。 在確保控制的公司，有不同的稅收和監管影響的資產結構也有多種：

*買方購買的股份，因此，控制，目標公司被收購。 所有權控制的公司依次傳達對公司的資產的有效控制，但因為該公司收購作為一個持續經營的完整的，這種交易形式進行，而該業務累計超過其過去所有的負債和所有該公司在它的商業環境中面臨的風險。
*買方購買目標公司的資產。 目標是從拋售接收現金向股東支付股息或通過清算。 這種類型的交易目標公司留下一個空殼，如果買方購買整個資產。 買家往往作為資產購買“櫻桃採摘”，它希望的資產，並離開了，它並沒有資產和負債的交易結構。 這可能是特別重要的，在可預見的負債可能包括未來，無法量化的，如那些可能產生對有缺陷的產品，員工福利或終止，或環境損害的訴訟的損害賠償。 這種結構的缺點是，許多國家，尤其是美國以外的，對個別資產轉讓，而股票交易常可作為免稅或稅收中性的同類交易所或其他安排結構的稅買方和賣方的股東。

術語“分拆”，“分拆”和“分拆”有時用來表示一家公司分成兩個分割的情況下，產生了第二家公司分別在證券交易所上市。
兼併和收購之間的區別

雖然經常使用同義，合併和收購的意思略有不同的事情。 當一個公司接管另一個明確規定作為新的所有者，購買的是所謂的收購。 從法律的角度來看，目標公司將不復存在，“燕子”買方業務和買方的股票繼續交易。

在純粹意義上的術語，合併發生時，兩家公司同意作為一個單一的新公司，而不是單獨擁有和經營的。 這種行動是更準確地稱為“對等合併”。 企業往往差不多大小。 兩家公司的股票是自首，並發出新公司的股票是在它的地方。 例如，在1999年葛蘭素威康和史克必成合併，兩家公司已不再存在時，他們的合併，創建一個新的公司，葛蘭素史克，。

然而，在實踐中，實際兼併等於不經常發生。 通常，一家公司購買另一，作為交易的條款的一部分，只是允許被收購公司宣布，他們的行動是一個平等的合併，即使是技術上的收購。 被收買了，往往帶有負面的含義，因此委婉描述作為合併交易，交易者和高層管理人員嘗試使收購更得人心。 這方面的一個例子是由戴姆勒 - 奔馳收購克萊斯勒在1999年被廣泛稱為當時合併。

購買交易也將稱為合併時，老總都同意，聯合起來，在他們的公司的最佳利益。 但是，當交易是不友好的（即當目標公司不希望購買）總是被視為收購。

企業評估

五個最常見的方法計價業務

*資產評估，
*歷史盈利估值，
*未來維護的盈利估值，
*相對估值（可比公司及可比交易），
*現金流量折現（DCF）的估值

的專業人士計價的企業一般不使用這些方法之一，但一個他們中的一些組合，以及可能其他未提及以上，以獲得更準確的值。 在資產負債表或損益表中的信息是通過三個會計措施之一：“讀者”，審查參與或審計公告。

準確的業務估值是併購一個這樣的估值將有上的業務將被出售的價格產生重大影響的最重要的方面之一。 這個信息是最常見的值（LOV）的意見的時候，企業正在為利益的緣故計價的信中表示。 還有其他更詳細的方式表達一個企業的價值。 儘管這些報告普遍得到更詳細的和貴公司增加的大小，這是不是總是這樣，因為有許多複雜的行業，需要更注重細節，無論大小。

融資中號和一個

有別於收購兼併一般都是部分在他們的融資方式，部分公司的相對規模。 融資併購交易有很多種方法：

現金

以現金支付。 這類交易通常稱為收購，而不是併購目標公司的股東，因為從圖片中刪除，並根據投標人的股東（間接）控制目標。

股票

支付收購公司的股票，在一個​​給定的的比例成正比，後者估值被收購公司的股東發出。

專家M＆A諮詢公司

雖然目前大部分的併購顧問是提供全方位服務的投資銀行，近年來在突出的專業併購一個顧問，只提供併購諮詢（而不是融資）上升。 這些公司有時也被稱為過渡的企業，協助企業在美國要執行這些服務通常被稱為“企業轉型”。顧問必須是持牌經紀交易商，並受證券交易委員會（FINRA）規例“。 M＆A諮詢公司的更多信息，提供企業諮詢。

掛上等號，M＆A

用來解釋併購活動佔主導地位的理由是，收購公司尋求更好的財務業績。 下面的動機是認為，以改善財務業績：

*經濟規模：這是指事實上，合併後的公司往往可以降低固定成本，通過消除重複的部門或業務，降低公司的成本相對相同的收入流，從而提高利潤率。
*範圍經濟：這是指主要需求方的變化相關聯的效率，如增加或減少市場營銷和分銷的範圍，不同類型的產品，。
*增加收入或市場份額：這是假設，買方將吸收的主要競爭對手，從而提高其市場力量（通過捕捉市場份額的增加）設置價格。
*交叉銷售：例如購買股票經紀，銀行可以出售其股票經紀的客戶的銀行產品，而經紀人可以註冊為經紀賬戶銀行的客戶。 或者，製造商可以收購和銷售互補產品。
*協同作用：例如，如更多的機會管理專業化的管理經濟。 另一個例子是由於增加的訂單規模和相關的大宗購買折扣購買經濟。
*稅務總局：一個賺錢的公司，可以買一個虧損，減少他們的稅務負擔，以此作為自己的優勢目標的損失。 在美國和其他許多國家，規則是在限制盈利的公司，以“店”虧損公司，限制收購公司的稅收動機的能力。 節稅策略包括購買一個不良公司的資產和即期稅項負債減少下唐納白PLLC不良資產恢復計劃。
*地理或其他多樣化：這是設計的，順利的公司，長期平滑的一家公司的股票價格，讓保守的投資者在投資公司更有信心業績。 然而，這並不總是提供價值向股東（見下文）。
資源轉移資源分佈不均，跨企業（巴尼，1991年）和目標的互動和收購企業的資源可以創造價值無論是克服信息不對稱或稀缺的資源相結合。
*垂直整合：垂直整合發生時，上游和下游企業的合併（或收購其他）。 有幾個原因出現。 其中一個原因是外部性問題內部化。 一個常見的例子是這種外部性的雙重邊緣化。 雙重邊緣化發生時，上游和下游企業的壟斷力量，每個企業都降低了輸出從競技水平的壟斷水平，創建了兩個無謂損失。 通過合併垂直整合的公司，可以收集一個無謂的損失，由下游企業的設置輸出的競爭水平。 這增加的利潤和消費者剩餘。 創建一個垂直整合的公司合併，可以是有利可圖的。
*單一管理下的同類業務的吸收：由兩個不同的共同基金（阿赫桑拉扎汗，2009年）即美國貨幣市場基金和美國的增長和收入基金投資組合類似，造成吸收到美國的增長和收入的美國貨幣市場基金的管理基金。

然而，平均和整個研究最常用的的變量，收購公司的財務表現不積極改變他們的收購活動的功能。 因此，合併和收購可能不會增加股東價值的其他的動機包括：

*多樣化：雖然這可能對沖個別行業不景氣的一個公司，它未能提供價值，因為它是可能的個人股東實現同樣的對沖其投資組合多樣化比與合併相關的成本要低得多。 （華爾街上的最多的一個在他的書中，彼得林奇難忘的人稱之為“diworseification”。）
*經理的傲慢：有關併購預期的協同效應的經理人的過度自信的一個多繳目標公司的結果。
*帝國建設：管理者有較大的公司管理，因此更多的權力。
*經理的補償：在過去，某些行政機關的管理團隊他們的支付，而不是每股盈利根據該公司的利潤總額，，這會給予團隊一個不正當的激勵，以購買公司增加利潤總額，而減少每股盈利（傷害該公司的業主，股東）;儘管一些實證研究表明，補償是與公司的盈利能力比單純的利潤。

對管理

的經營戰略“雜誌在2008年7月/ 8月發表的一項研究表明，兼併和收購目標公司至少10年的高層管理人員，後處理的團隊領導的連續性破壞。 研究發現，目標公司失去了至少10年的21％，其高管每年收購 - 的兩倍以上非合併後的公司營業額在經歷 [6]如果企業的收購和收購公司，然後重疊這樣的營業額是可以預料的，換句話說，只能有一次一個首席執行官，首席財務官，等等。

短期因素的影響

大合併運動引發的主要短期運行的因素之一是希望保持高價格。 也就是說，許多企業在市場，產品供應仍居高不下。 在1893年的恐慌，需求下降。 當好經典的供應和需求模型所示的瀑布，需求，價格壓低。 為了避免這種價格的下降，公司發現有利可圖勾結和操縱供應計數器在良好需求的任何變化。 這種類型的合作，導致公司之間廣泛的橫向一體化的時代。 批量生產允許企業為重點，以減少單位成本低得多的速度。 這些公司通常是資本密集和高固定成本。 高其次是因為新機大多通過債券，債券的利息支付融資 1893年的恐慌，但沒有一家公司願意接受在此期間的數量減少。

長期運行的因素

從長遠來看，由於保持低成本的願望，這是有利的企業合併和減少他們的運輸成本，從而生產和運輸，而不是不同的公司在過去的各個站點從一個位置。 這直接導致在運輸市場從這個位置。 此外，公司內部的技術變革合併運動前增加植物的有效規模與資本密​​集型的​​組裝線允許規模經濟。 因此，改進技術和運輸大合併運動的先驅。 部分由於上述競爭對手，部分原因是由於政府，然而，許多這些最初成功的兼併最終被拆除。 美國政府於 1890年通過“謝爾曼法”，反對價格壟斷和壟斷設置的規則。 在這種情況下與美國相比Addyston管和不銹鋼有限公司1890年開始，法院的攻擊大公司，運籌帷幄，與他人或自己的公司內實現利潤最大化。 與競爭對手的價格固定為公司創造了更大的動力，團結和合併一個名稱下，使他們不是競爭對手了，技術上沒有固定價格。

資料來源：多個包括維基百科

反向併購被認為是由許多公司的創始人夢想，他們期待著有一天，當他們和未來的年輕的公司，可分為公共股市上市公司的舞台歡迎。

不過，也有不同的方法，民營企業可以用它來吸引資本市場和吸引資金。 最常見的是IPO（首次公開募股）。 首次公開招股時，一個先前密切舉行的私人公司最初提供出售其股票投資大眾。

當一個緊密舉行的民營企業參觀的要求，需要做一個反向併購-有時也被稱為反向收購-與公眾殼公司，它是作為一個進入資本市場，快速，也許給私人公司的董事退出戰略的手段。

在上面的例子中，上市公司是指作為一個“空殼”，因為所有離開原來的公司是企業的組織和交易能力。

在公共殼反向併購一家私營公司購買殼公司的控制股東，與私營公司的合併。 民營企業的股東獲得最大的部分公眾殼公司的股票，從而控制其董事會。

當然，反向併購有關的細節很多，概述公共殼反向併購的性格可能是所有可適用的美國證券和交易委員會的一個深刻的認識與經驗豐富的證券律師應觸及的主題（SEC）的規則。

當考慮一個殼公司反向併購的項目眾多，需要一個響應。 重要的概念，採取中心舞台，如：AIM股票交換，房地產投資信託基金的形成，提交登記報表的SB - 1和SB - 2，規則15c211，做市商，公眾持股量， 兼併和收購 （M＆A），形式為公司小號- 8的股票創始人和董事，經認可的投資者，證券交易委員會的會計實務，戰略規劃，投資銀行，證券交易商協會經紀人 /經銷商，以及證券和交易委員會（SEC）。

最好去公眾意見，然後才考慮反向併購，應尋求，因為許多 CEO的經驗不足，不知道通過一個公共的外殼反向併購上市的陷阱。

一些反向併購一家私人控股公司公共的好處是更好的方法來籌集資金，因為多個來源的資本與一家私營公司可以吸引高得多。 此外，如果有一個足夠高的投資大眾的利益，有關該公司的投資前景增加，它可以提供一個公司的股票發行的二級市場。 該公司還可以繼續提供股票期權的經理。 造成上市公司的證券，也可以受聘為其他企業收購（併購）的貨幣。

私人公司上市的眾多獎勵遠遠抵消了剩下的一個私人的關注替代。 與一家上市公司相關的紀念印是一個福音，提高資本的增長和擴張的優越機會成為一家上市公司完善的考慮。 與上市殼公司的反向收購之間的許多方面，採取了公司上市。

富蘭克林 A.羅伯遜是在企業的金融服務行業的長期跟踪記錄反向併購與企業財務專家;關於羅伯遜先生和反向併購獲得更多的信息。

在今天的商業世界的剪裁和推力，它似乎是家常便飯，兼併和收購。 提到作為一個可能的合併的最新大牌通道四，五。 合併正在看著從 BBC的錢救助生病的甲烷作為替代。

然而故事並提出一個有趣的兼併和收購點，那就是，他們往往採取正確的原因，而不僅僅是一些人認為，純粹是為了擺脫競爭和壟斷某一特定市場。

兼併和收購有一個多姿多彩的過去，至少可以說。 通過在街上的人，他們的商業世界中的大男孩欺負他們的方式變得比其他人公正，簡單明了，追求過多的財富更大的中看到的。 索尼公司的合併與哥倫比亞和三星的圖片，是一個這樣的事件，使這個過程一個壞名聲。 最終索尼註銷了270萬元，整理出所有的法律問題。

但對於每一個情況下，它似乎都被浪費了巨額資金或丟失，有一個收購的實際工作情況。 寶馬和勞斯萊斯之間的夥伴關係有利於雙方和美國在線收購時代華納的平均值，時代華納在長期的時間是能夠經受住完全沒有消失，一些特別惡劣的風暴。

那麼，這一切意味著什麼呢？ 涉及的是什麼？

有細微的差別在併購 。 ，這也被稱為收購，收購發生時由另一家公司買了一間公司。 有兩種類型的收購，這是兩者之間的混淆，往往在惡劣的按結果的過程往往是。

敵意收購的發生，當一個企業不希望被接管。 正是這種類型的合併，人們似乎還記得，作為它往往的故事類型，使文件和接收媒體覆蓋面最。 敵意收購發生因各種原因，但金錢和競爭通常是在心臟的決定。 一個大公司的一個潛在的規模較小的公司可能會感到威脅，採取了一個特定的市場份額。 在這種情況下，較大的公司將被視為使用其權力，恐嚇和不公平地控制市場。

一個友好的收購的談判過程中涉及的大部分時間是對雙方都有利。 一家小公司可能會掙扎，但可用於其他地方的寶貴資源和人才。 在這種情況下，一家大公司可以幫助購買小公司。 過程往往是由規模較小的公司也開始。 很多時候，他們已經達到了一個點，它們所掌握的工具，他們可以去任何進一步需要幫助的擴大和向前。 有時，只有這樣，才能得到這種幫助是通過過程中被一個更大的實體在同一領域收購業務。

合併略有不同，因為它是兩個或兩個以上的公司組合，形成一個完全新的公司收購。 隨著收購的公司涉及保留自己的姓名或消失。 有關各方在合併出現下一個新的旗幟 ，一個新的身份和姓名。 兼併雖然有較好的聲譽比收購仍存在濫用的空間，他們都顯得當局密切合作，以確定他們會對市場產生什麼影響。

因此，在面對它的甲烷和五合併似乎是一個有趣的命題，一個彩電企業的困難時期，幫助其他。 不過，我敢肯定，這將是緊密地看著作出任何決定之前。 只有時間會告訴我們。

除非你是一個世界級的廚師，有必要按照配方，以創建一個烹飪傑作。 正如很難​​難為無配方是不可能的外交處理沒有計劃合併。 兼併和收購需要企業領導人為一個無縫融合的細節特別注意。

然而，人們往往被忽視，他們遠遠比一個細節。 配方提供了一個廚師已經預期的成分是如何相互作用的成分列表一樣，員工評估提供配方為員工，可這種時候有用的情報經理。

合併後的階段，需要調整，必須檢查每一個企業的角度。 人們通常不興奮的變化的想法。 因此，至關重要的是，經理人認為，為員工的調整期合併後的階段。 評估可以緩解調整階段的鬥爭：

- 確定員工的長處和地區發展
- 確定哪些員工會做出一個有效的團隊
- 確定每個員工資質的變化和溝通風格

當管理者可以輕鬆地識別這些元素，他們可以將其僱員的需要，迎合他們的管理風格。 管理者通過溝通，員工的需要，緩解潛在的生產力下降。

評估可以找出員工的長處和短處。 正如依靠成分等成分，口感好，有些員工需要格外教練對我更富有成效。 管理者應該願意執教他們的員工​​;難度在於確定哪些員工需要教練。 一旦員工進行評估，然後他們的經理的識別能力，如僱員自然擅長，並在僱員需要發展。

如果你知道你的員工的長處和短處，合併後，可以決定崗位描述，崗位和團隊。 合併是一個機會，發現從另一家公司已可用的人才，以及新的人才，以及如何將它們結合起來，創造一個更加富有成效的業務。

下一個方面是，以確定哪些員工將一個有效的團隊。 你不會隨機兩種成分混合在一起，希望最終的結果是，食用，並建立團隊時，應適用同樣的想法。 被重新組合的概念，可以為員工很難，但與評估管理人員的幫助下，可以將基於他們的行為和個性的人，才能使生產力和愉快的團隊。

經理人應該記住，它們的異同基於分組的人不一定是最好的計劃。 正因為人是相似的，並不意味著他們將在同一個團隊的生產。

建設團隊成功​​的關鍵是建立團隊成員之間的的平衡。 評估確定一個人的自然行為傾向和態度。 管理者應該審查每個員工的評估，然後組根據其結果的員工。 每個團隊應該有一個成員，是一個強大的，另一名成員發展的需要。 這將確保必要的細節都被考慮到，群體思維會不會毀掉一個團隊的努力。

合併後的階段 ，可以對員工的壓力。 一次太多的變化感到不知所措，這樣可以降低士氣和生產力。 評估將指示員工如何應對變化。 有些員工會比其他人更需要深入的溝通，以及一些將需要更多的教練，為了成功地過渡到他們的新角色。 評估將揭示員工的需求，並使其更容易為管理者出席這些需求。

合併沒有如人們想像的壓力。 評估是一個偶然的合併的配方。 他們給管理者的工具和進入新角色的轉換員工了解必要的，同時發展他們在同一時間。 員工評估，指導和參與，生意興隆，這將導致一個配方，使管理者創造有利於員工和公司的工作環境。

Many of the best companies in the world grow through acquisitions as a component of their strategic plan. Companies use acquisitions to expand their position in existing markets and venture into new ones. Acquisitions are no different then any other strategic plan; plan the work, and work the plan. Consider the following as a guide if you want to follow a proven and effective strategy of growing your business through acquisition:

Developing Criteria

Before making any inquiries into potential acquisition candidates, develop your set of criteria, which allow you to focus time and energy toward the type of candidates that will best meet your objectives. Consider the following: type of business, minimum (and possible maximum) revenues, minimum earnings, geographical location, geographical coverage, years established, post-merger management in place, ability to relocate the business, turn-around situation (if looking at under-performing companies as possible acquisitions), capital requirements to grow the business further, and product and/or service line complement to your existing business.

財政資源

Prior to proceeding with any conversations, determine your financial resources to acquire the potential candidate. Do you have cash and committed capital on hand or easily accessible or do you have to review each deal on a case-by-case basis? Speed of financing can determine success of the acquisition.

Required Initial Information

Companies are, at times, reluctant to divulge information. Determine in advance the required information you need to make an informed decision. Only deal with companies willing to comply with your realistic requirements; their responsiveness and ability to provide the information you need also is an indicator of how serious the seller is.

通訊

Good communication between both parties moves the transaction forward; poor communication (by either party) hinders success. Before implementing a plan to grow through acquisition, form your internal deal team. Establish who the points of contacts will be when you are searching for and reviewing acquisition contacts. Outline their responsibilities so that you have a strong flow of information and follow up accountability. Make one person the key interface with the acquisition candidates; they should manage the details of your interaction with the business that is being considered. These things are essential in order to have a solid communication plan in place so that suitable acquisition candidates are handled in the most efficient and professional way possible. How the communication is handled between the two companies is important; often the selling company is being pursued by other buyers; an efficient and professional process by you (as a potential buyer of the sellers business) can only increase your chance of success.

Post-Merger Integration Plan

Determine what you are going to do with the business after you have bought it; this is as important as finding the business to buy. The plan will have to be modified and tailored to specific acquisition candidates, but having a template to work from will allow you to integrate your acquisitions more smoothly and leverage acquired assets, technology and techniques to grow both businesses. Without a plan or template you have to identify and manage the integration on the fly and by the seat of your pants. Since the acquisition may represent a sizeable investment of capital, resources and time – it is in your best interest to make the integration go as smoothly as possible.

Acquisition Team

As mentioned above; establishing your deal team is very important from a communication standpoint. Throughout the entire process questions will arise that may be outside your area of expertise; have internal and external team members to cover areas in which you are not proficient. Team members may not just consist of you and your internal management but also outside consultants experienced in areas of need. They can assist in your plan to grow through acquisition, manage the search, coordinate the teams efforts, cover things that are not in your area of expertise and help the entire process become more efficient and productive.

Over-eating or bingeing is detrimental to one's health. Similarly, over-acquisition can cause corporate indigestion such as over-leveraging, post merger integration difficulties, cultural misfits etc. You are what you eat.

While fast growth through acquisition is a thrilling experience in running businesses, it also holds much more risks than meets the eye. When the company is in trouble, some CEOs also go on a shopping spree's acquisition. It is more glamorous and exciting than trying to fix mundane turnaround issues back in the office. It takes shareholders' attention away from the domestic problems and impressed them with expansionary programs. Rapid acquisition done in haste with inadequate homework, wrong timing, egoistic reasons and impatience for success can result in calamity.

Harvard don, Michael Porter studied the success rate of 33 highly regarded companies over a 36-year period of acquisition. His data revealed that over half of the unrelated acquisitions were later divested.

Research by McKinsey & Company found a failure rate of 61% in acquisition programmes, with failure defined as not earning a sufficient return on the funds invested. Sometimes these failures are due to the fact that the merger or acquisition was a mismatch in the first place, with small odds for success.

A high percentage of merger difficulties and failures are the result of defective management. Target companies are strategically sought and stalked, but then the follow-up acts are poorly orchestrated. Often people in both firms will be seriously troubled about how the acquisition may affect their personal careers. A good part of the merger/acquisition planning should be aimed at deciding how these concerns will be addressed. For instance, Novell's merger with WordPerfect caused people in both organizations to experience dismay and the combined company teetered subsequently on the brink of disaster.

After buying WordPerfect for US$855 million, Novell sold it to Corel less than two years later for only US$115 million. Media companies faced similar problems of acquisition binge. The conventional wisdom in the industry that spur such manoeuvre was to grow the business by acquisition. Sony Corporation (Japan) was a case in point of being one of the first to venture aggressively into music and films. The same course of action was adopted by Vivendi Universal (French), Bertelsmann (German) and AOL Time Warner (US). It was believed that a product could be developed, then marketed through a wide range of in-house channels, from compact disks, DVDs, Web sites and even theme parks. This led to a proliferation of businesses requiring different skills and expertise, resulting in the failures of these acquisition ventures.

In their haste to capitalize on the boom years, many companies reckoned that the fastest way to beat the competition was to join in. After all, if you cannot beat it, join it. Thus goes the acquisition spiral. With each new acquisition, it is assumed that revenues automatically jumped up, while margins presumably stayed within acceptable ranges, especially if the deal is accomplished through stock swaps. The growing company acquires not just the market share but the expertise as well. Everything seems to augur well especially from the stock market as long as the company grows and numbers are good. However, therein lies the fundamental flaw with the growth-by-acquisition strategy.

This is what Herb Greenberg of Fortune magazine commented of the US corporate scene: “As with any addiction, the growth-by-bulk acquisition approach necessitates increasing doses of the drug to preserve the high. The only way to keep revenues growing fast enough for Wall Street is to buy ever more companies.” Once the growth curve halts and the stock price plummets to an extent that initiates a vicious downward spiral. The company loses its leveraging ability when capitalization decreases and interest expense increases to service the loan financing for acquisition. In the bid to reduce costs, the company starts trimming corners at the expense of quality, customers, and employees.

Therefore, the adage still holds true, 'Do not bite more than you can chew'. It can become toxic for the company if they go into acquisition binge.

No risk, no reward is one of the oldest adages in business. This formulation of strategic risk was first expressed in written form by the Greek scholar Herodotus in 450 BC

In the realm of corporate mergers and acquisitions, the challenge for many companies is to obtain a highly desirable product or technology while risking as little capital as possible.

While growth through Merger and Acquisition continues to be a highly popular strategy – in 2006 there was a record $3.6 trillion in Merger and Acquisition activity, according to Thompson Financial – many CEOs and CFOs remain wary about making deals. In a recent survey of large corporation executives by Accenture, 45 percent reported their most recent Merger and Acquisition deal had failed to deliver all of the expected results.
One solution to traditional outright purchases is the hybrid Merger and Acquisition model. It is becoming increasingly popular.

In a hybrid Merger and Acquisition deal, a large public corporation takes a stake (typically 10 percent to 50 percent) in a smaller company (public or private). Generally, this equity infusion comes with a call option, a right to purchase the entire company at a later date at contracted valuation metrics.

The hybrid model has been successfully implemented by Cisco Systems, which began using it more than a decade ago. Between 1993 and 2007, Cisco made 119 acquisitions, many of them in start-ups or small companies with limited track records.
There are three key benefits for the equity parent in the hybrid model:

Diversified investments minimize overall risk.

Access to new technologies and products is obtained at minimal cost.

Managed resources are not dissipated.

For example, a corporation willing to spend $250 million could invest it in an outright purchase of one established company or take a dozen $5 million to $25 million stakes in start-up companies.
In the consumer products sector, we can look to Dean Foods, the leading US provider of fluid milk and dairy products, for an example of a very successful hybrid acquisition.

Supermarket shoppers know Dean Foods through its many local brands , including Borden, Pet, Country Fresh, Meadow Gold and Horizon organic.

One of Dean's most successful acquisitions was White Wave, an organic foods company. It was founded in 1976 by Steve Demos, an organic foods pioneer. He introduced Silk soy milk in 1996, just as the organic foods boom was beginning. In 1999, Dean Foods purchased a 25 percent stake for $5 million. Helped by Dean's “smart money,” product sales soared to more than $250 million in 2004, when Dean purchased the remaining 75 percent of White Wave for $224 million.

Dean, acting in the Cisco tradition, left entrepreneur Demos and his management team in place and let the company operate with great autonomy. The result was a win-win outcome. By 2005, Dean Foods had more than $10.8 billion in revenue and was bigger than Kellogg and HJ Heinz.

With successes like this, it may seem surprising we don't see more hybrid deals. The reality is the hybrid concept faces points of resistance on both the seller and buyer side. These include entrepreneurs who are attracted by the glamour of venture capital, and CEOs and CFOs in large corporations who continue to equate ownership with control.

Obtaining an investment from a venture capital firm has great allure to entrepreneurs. Many first-time entrepreneurs believe that getting VC money signifies they have made it to the “big leagues.” What they often overlook are the long odds.

According to Jim Casparie, founder and CEO of the Venture Alliance, the odds of a first-time entrepreneur obtaining venture funding are less than 3 percent. He reports that in 2005, out of 125,000 interested parties making pitches to VC firms, just 2,939 received funding. The average amount worked out to $7.4 million.
When an entrepreneur does catch the eye of a VC firm, he may face punishing valuations, high expenses, and time-consuming reviews by multiple parties.

On the buyer side, resistance to hybrid mergers comes from the traditional culture found in many corporations that equates “ownership” with 100 percent control and a centralized, top-down decision-making process.

However, more and more corporations are coming to understand that in the accelerated world of 21st-century business competition, it is critical to diversify product development by investing in multiple projects. They are also seeing the advantage of fostering an entrepreneurial spirit within the larger corporate structure to improve motivation and boost creative thinking.

A hybrid acquisition can provide a corporation with an efficient vehicle for learning about new products and technologies. It can also serve as a platform for additional acquisitions.

C-level corporate executives, however, must understand that dealing with entrepreneurs requires a special mindset. Many founders are fiercely proud of their company and protective of its products, and they want to maintain a high degree of control.

When both sides understand the benefits of hybrid acquisitions, highly rewarding synergies can take place. As we see more and more hybrid acquisitions pay off, the concept will no longer seem daring but instead will become a basic part of many corporate Merger and Acquisition strategies.

簡介

A merger occurs when one company is legally absorbed into another and the surviving company takes over all of the assets and liabilities of the absorbed company. There cannot be any separate transfer of assets or liabilities to other third parties and a certificate of merger must be filed in the state where the new business will incorporate. The absorbed company shareholders are not “bought out” and therefore the merger is, in essence, treated as a stock transaction for federal tax purposes. The shareholders of both of the merged companies exchange their original stock for new stock in the surviving company. The company's board of directors and shareholders must approve the merger.

Acquisitions can occur in two ways:

• Buy the assets of the company
• Buy the company's shares from the stockholders

Under the acquisition scenario, the shareholders of the company being bought can, in most instances, take their money and “ride off into the sunset.” The terms of the payment can be either in cash or stock of the purchase (which is as good as cash for publicly traded companies). The acquisition is different from a merger in that the selling shareholders do not own stock in a new, combined enterprise. The buyer can select targeted assets or liabilities to take and others to discard which the seller must accomodate. For example, the buyer does not have to assume the debt of the company being bought–although in most cases they do.

In mergers and acquisitions, tax and net income considerations of both the buyer and seller are a major factor in determining how the deal is ultimately structured. The selling shareholders participating in acquisition of asset deals may have to pay significant taxes on gains unless the transaction is structured in a way that allows the taxes to be deferred. Types of tax deferrable transactions include statutory mergers, stock-for-stock swaps, and stock-for-equity swaps. If the purchase price paid for the assets exceeds its fair market value, the excess payment is treated as goodwill under current accounting rules. The goodwill is then amortized over a period of generally 5 to 7 years and the annual amortization amount is taken as a charge against the buyer's net income. Consequently, if a buyer's shareholders are very focused on net income growth, purchasing assets in excess of fair market value presents an obstacle. In addition, the goodwill expense is not deductible for federal tax purposes (unlike other items such as depreciation).

One way to bypass the goodwill amortization issue is to structure the transaction as a “pooling of interest.” The table below shows the difference between the purchase and pooling structure.

Minority vs. Majority Equity Position

The percentage equity ownership that a buyer takes in a target company can have material effect on its reported financial statements. The nature of the impact varies according to the following:

• less than 20% ownership
• greater than 20% ownership, but less than 50%
• greater than 50% ownership

At the less than 20% equity ownership level , the buying company is not required to consolidate any portion of the revenue or net income of the selling company to its financial statements. This can be a very important consideration if the selling company is expected to experience losses at once and in the near future as it grows its business. The buying company does not need to dilute its earnings because of its obligation to consolidate its share of the losses since its investment is a relatively small minority. As an example, NYNEX recently invested $3 million, for less than 10 percent equity position, in VDONet Corp., a maker of compression technology equipment for transmitting video over the internet. NYNEX's goal is to have a competitive edge in multimedia services over standard phone lines.

However, there is an exception to this rule. If the buying company, as a condition of its investment, has significant veto power over key business decisions made by the selling company, then they are deemed to have operating control and would act more like a majority investor.

If the acquirer has an equity interest between 20% and 50% , they are required to consolidate their share of profits or losses from the target company regardless of whether they have veto rights over key operating plans. Most buyers who take this level of equity ownership usually structure the deal to give them a path to control at a later date. This can be the right of first refusal to buy additional equity or a guaranteed future majority share at an agreed upon price or method to calculate the price.

An equity position of greater than 50% most often means the buyer has control of the day-to-day running of the business and, therefore, will consolidate the total revenue of the target company to its financial statements as well as its portion of profits and losses. However, as discussed above, if the minority shareholder(s) are given veto rights that clearly prevent the majority shareholder from exercising full control over the operations of the business, then revenue consolidation is disallowed but the percentage of earnings is not.

Merger and acquisition transaction types are normally executed in one of the following formats:

• statutory merger
• exchange of stock for stock
• purchase of assets for stock
• purchase of stock for cash
• purchase of assets for cash

Statutory Merger

A statutory merger involves two companies merging their businesses and generally the shareholders receive payment in stock. The deal is non-taxable and can be done as either a purchase or a pooling of interest. Recently, NYNEX and Bell Atlantic, two regional telephone companies merged their businesses into one enterprise that kept the Bell Atlantic brand name after the merger. Consequently, N's shareholders exchanged their original shares in that company for shares in the new Bell Atlantic company. The combination is expected to be treated as a tax-free transaction.

Exchange of Stock for Stock

Exchange of stock for stock deals occur when the selling shareholders sell their company to the buyer and receive shares in the buyer's company as the security for payment. The transaction is usually non-taxable and can be done as a purchase or pooling of interest. For example, Cabletron Systems, a maker of computer networking equipment, agreed to purchase Network Express, a provider of high-speed computer network switches, for $116 million in stock. Cabletron Systems will exchange 0.1388 of its common shares for each of Network Express' 10.7 million shares outstanding.

Purchase of Assets for Stock

In this type of transaction, an asset or a group of assets (such as selected plants and machinery) and not the entire company of the seller is purchased. In some cases, only the corporate shell of the seller remains which can be liquidated at a later date. The currency used to fund the purchase is stock of the buyer's company. This transaction is also non-taxable and can be treated as a purchase or pooling of interest. In May 1996, Ronald Perelman's New World Communications Group, Inc. sold two TV stations to NBC for $425 million. If NBC, a unit of General Electric Co., paid for the stations with stock, then that deal would be an example of a purchase of assets for stock transaction.

Purchase of Stock for Cash

This type of transaction is fairly common and occurs when the shareholders sell their stock for cash to a buyer. The buyer will then have majority or full control depending on the number of shareholders who sell. This type of deal is taxable to the shareholders of the selling company if they realize a gain from selling their shares. This type of transaction is treated as a purchase only and pooling of interest benefits does not come into play. After months of wrangling over price, the US oil giant Mobil Oil acquired the Australian oil and gas producer, Ampolex Ltd., for $1.4 billion in cash.

Purchase of Assets for Cash

This transaction is similar to a purchase of assets for stock, except that the assets are paid for with cash and not stock. This transaction is also taxable to the selling shareholders and can only be done as a purchase and not a pooling of interest.

Mergers are when a company and another decides to join together.

Acquisitions are when company A buys company B.

Alliances are companies whom work together to achieve a goal together. Goals as in, to avoid compeitition in the market or to compete with other companies.

Joint Venture is an entity formed between two or more parties to undertake economic activity together. The parties agree to create a new entity by both contributing equity, and they then share in the revenues, expenses, and control of the enterprise. The venture can be for one specific project only, or a continuing business relationship such as the Sony Ericsson joint venture.

Example of Acquisition (takeover):
Procter & Gamble takeover of Gillette

Example of merger:
AT&T and BellSouth Corporation

Example of Joint Venture:
索尼愛立信

Many startups find that cooperating with stronger and better known companies can help them break into the market faster and secure less costly financing than would otherwise have been available to them.

In the past, joint ventures focused on the representation of companies in various countries or geographic areas. In the past decades, the phenomenon of joint ventures for predefined activities has become more prevalent. An alliance can impart to the company a relative advantage in size or an ability to learn the field faster, or provide a complement to areas in which it is lacking (for instance, an alliance between a startup with an advantage in development and production with a company with proven marketing skills). When the joint venture is performed in a formal manner, by establishing a separate legal entity for it (also known as the joint venture), it is similar in nature to a partial acquisition in consideration for shares. This is because the transaction creates an entity that combines the relative advantages of both parties and ties their futures together, at least with respect to the field in question.

Alliances are costly, not only due to cash leaving the company's hands, but rather due to returns from which it could be denied. First, joint ventures involve the investment of managerial time resources in establishing the venture, managing it, and resolving possible conflicts of interest between the partners over the functioning of the venture. Even when a proper set of contracts, incentive schemes, and various transfer prices from the partners to the joint venture resolve most conflicts, almost no joint venture manages to entirely avoid conflicts between its respective parties.

Moreover, alliances can create indirect costs by blocking the possibility of cooperating with competing companies, thus possibly even denying the company various financing options. For instance, an alliance with Ericsson in the area of cellular communications could reduce the likelihood of contracts with Nokia, thereby putting the company at risk that if Ericsson is weakened, so will be all the companies that depend upon it.

Joint ventures also expose the company to its partners, and the unique technologies that it has are sometimes revealed to its partner company, which could later become a competitor or could utilize the fruits of the venture or the know-how better than the startup itself. In addition, strategic partners may often lead the company in directions that serve the partner company better than they do the company itself.

In my opinion, I find “Joint Venture” is the least risky. When 2 companies or more merges, employees might lose their jobs and prospects/customers might be lost. In acquisition, the purchase must follow the rules of the purchaser (management and so on). In Alliance, all other companies/business that are not in the alliance would suffer. Whereas in Joint Venture, two or more parties undertake economic activity together. Look at Sony Ericsson on how they are doing so well now!