>> MIM Speaks
PROBLEMS, SUCCESS FACTORS OF M AND A STRATEGIES
MAY 9, 2002 (P.24) -
BUSINESS TIMES
FIRMS usually adopt the merger and acquisition (M and A)
strategy as a means of enhancing their competitiveness and
improve their return to shareholders.
Of late, two major developments have been spurring M and A.
among giant firms in the US, Europe and 'even Asia. One is
globalisation, which stimulates companies to adopt M and A
strategies to achieve economies of scale and strategic
competence in order to compete effectively in fast changing
and cost-sensitive markets and penetrate new markets.
The other is the "Internet fever", which has been driving a
number of acquisitions among information technology (IT)
and telecommunications firms as they scramble to acquire
competencies in the new technology to build competitive
advantage.
Among the acquisitions and mergers which have made the
headlines are the merger of Daimler and Chrysler, the
acquisition of Atlantic Richfield Company by BP Amoco,
Online Inc's acquisition of Time Warner and the recent
Hewlett Packard's acquisition of Compaq Computers.
In Malaysia there have been many acquisition proposals
being made in the financial sector as the companies gear
themselves to meet the entry of giant companies into the
domestic market and the impending relaxation in trade
restrictions.
The shrinking of the number of banks to 10 in Malaysia and
three in Singapore are examples of M and A mania. An
acquisition strategy seeks to increase competitiveness and
return to shareholders. Therefore, it should only be used
when the acquiring firm is able to use the acquired
company's assets to increase its own economic value through
ownership of the acquired company.
However, there are many cases, which show otherwise. For
example, a survey-by KPMG an accounting consulting firm,
showed that about 83 per cent of acquisitions failed to
increase shareholders' value. In fact, 53 per cent of
acquisitions even showed a reduction in shareholders' value
in acquiring companies.
Other research studies have also come out with similar
results, i.e. shareholders of acquired firms often obtain
above-average returns from an acquisition but not the
acquiring company
Even investors in the stock market have shown their
scepticism about acquisitions being able to maintain the
original value of the businesses in question, let alone
increase it. This is understandable in view of the huge
premium paid for acquisitions as shown by the market
selling down on the shares of companies on news that they
are making an acquisition.
This poses the question of why some acquisitions succeed
and some fail. Are there factors which account for the
success of the successful ones? Fortunately, there are
research studies which show that there are differences
between successful and unsuccessful acquisition strategies.
Also, there is a type of decisions and actions which a firm
can take which may enhance their probability of success in
their acquisition strategies. But before we look into these
decisions and actions, we should perhaps look at the
specific reasons why firms acquire other firms and the
reasons for the problems arising in some of these
acquisitions.
Firms often use acquisition strategies to increase their
market power, overcome entry barriers to penetrate as well
as speed up entry to new markets, reduce the cost and risk
of developing new products, and reshape their competitive
scope to enhance their competitiveness and return to
shareholders.
PROBLEMS IN ACHIEVING SUCCESS IN ACQUISITIONS
What have been described above are very sound reasons for
the use of acquisition strategies to increase strategic
competitiveness and improve above-average returns. Millions
of dollars and much top-management time are spent to
implement them.
Yet research findings have shown that less than one in five
M and As is successful. What are some of the problems that
cause an acquisition to fail? Are there factors which a
firm must consider beyond the strategic reasons?
Research studies have been made into cases where
acquisitions made did not result in increasing the
strategic competitiveness of the acquiring firm and in
shareholders of the acquiring firm earning above-average
returns. They show that the causes for the failure were too
little thought given to selecting the right target,
determining the appropriate price to pay for the
acquisition and creating value in the integrating process.
The management of the acquiring firm must realise and
expect that there will be problems and issues to be
resolved not only in integrating the two companies'
corporate culture but also in a host of others. These
include the financial, accounting and IT systems, building
effective working relations between the executives of the
two companies and aligning the compensations, benefits and
status of the acquired company. There must be proper
attention, adequate resources and preparations made to
address the anticipated problems and issues.
Honeywell and AlliedSignal set a six month time frame to
integrate their operations when they merged. To ensure that
the timetable was met, Honeywell organised a team to be
solely responsible for developing and implementing an
integration plan. Cisco System's success with its many
acquisitions has been due to the firm's ability to quickly
integrate the acquisitions to, its existing operations.
It was so effective that the employees of the acquired firm
have been known to feel as though they have been working
for Cisco for years immediately after the acquisition.
Ineffective evaluation of the target company is another
problem which may cause an acquisition to fail.
In order to prevent paying an excessive premium for the
target company, it is crucial that an effective due
diligence process be carried out in areas such as arranging
effective financing for the acquisition, differences in
cultures, management structure, IT and operating system
between the acquiring and target firms, the tax
consequences of the acquisition and the decision that will
be required to merge the two firms after the acquisition
transaction is completed. This is to ensure that the
benefits from the acquisition justify the premium paid.
The purchase consideration should be based on a thorough
assessment of where, how and when management can derive
performance gains from the acquired firm and not on the
pricing of comparable acquisitions. For example, the
premium that Marks & Spencer paid to acquire Brooks
Brothers~ which work out to 75 times its earnings, worked
against the acquisition becoming a success irrespective of
whatever boom and the hype over the IT companies were
doomed to failure. Why? Because the premiums being paid
bore no beating to the benefits these acquired firms could
deliver to the acquiring firm.
In an acquisition strategy, a firm is purported to develop
a competitive advantage through synergy when the
combination and integration of the acquired and acquiring
firms' assets produce core competence and capabilities
which they cannot produce operating alone or by combining
and integrating either firm's assets with another company.
However, the synergy may be outweighed by the transaction
costs incurred in completing the due diligence and post
acquisition costs such as loss of key managers and
employees and costs that are required to be incurred to
create expected revenue and cost- based synergy.
When firms acquire businesses to diversify their existing
businesses, it is important that their top management have
the scope and depth of information to understand each
business unit's objectives and strategy. This will enable
them to use strategic controls to monitor performance.
In cases where firms become a conglomerate through using
unrelated diversification, their top management may find
themselves lacking the breadth and depth to understand each
of the businesses they have acquired. As a result, they
rely on financial rather than strategic controls to
evaluate managerial performance of each unit.
Such a measure of performance will force individual
business units to focus on short-term results at the
expense of long-term strategic investments. It Will cause
some of the acquisitions to fail to realise the value they
are supposed to bring to the parent company.
Acquisitions increase the size of a firm which should help
the firm gain economy of scale in various functions and
result in increasing its competitive advantage. However, at
some point of time when the new firm gets too large in
size, the additional costs in managing the larger firm may
exceed the economy-of-scale benefits.
Also, when the enlarged firm's operations become
complicated, the firm's top management may install
bureaucratic controls to achieve consistency in decisions
and actions across different units of the firm. Such
bureaucratic controls may lead to reduced flexibility and
innovations, which could adversely affect the firm's
performance in today's rapidly changing environment.
Finally, firms often fail to achieve their acquisition
objective because they overuse debt to finance their
acquisitions. The result is they suffer negative
consequences.
Among these negative consequences are a reduction in or
even stopping of crucial investments in research and
development, and marketing and human resources development.
Or they could even be sued for bankruptcy when they
encounter an economic downturn forcing them to miss out on
their interest payments and principal repayments when they
fall due. The current debt restructuring exercise being
undertaken by Malaysian companies bears testimony to this
problem.
KEY SUCCESS FACTORS
There are certain types of decisions and actions firms can
take to improve the chance for acquisition strategy
success. Research studies also show that there is a pattern
of decisions and actions which firms can take to minimise
failure in their acquisition strategies.
One type of decision that will ensure that competitiveness
is improved is to target a firm whose assets are
complementary to the acquiring firm's since combining
complementary assets are likely to produce unique
capabilities and core competencies that will create
competitive advantages. Acquiring a firm with complementary
assets will also enable the acquiring firm to continue
focusing on its core businesses and leveraging them with
the complementary assets from the acquired firm.
Targeting firms that have a good working relationship with
the acquiring firm will also improve the chance for
success. It will ensure their working with commitment and
less resistance to integrate their operations to minimise
integrating costs and secure expected benefits. This being
the case, firms may do well to build and nurture a good
working relationship with a targeted firm prior to
acquiring it.
Establishing a strategic alliance can also be used to gauge
the possibility of working together to achieve mutual
interests. Corollary to this would be to do friendly
acquisitions so that positive synergy can be achieved and
loss of key personnel in the acquired firm minimised.
To ensure success, an acquiring firm should also conduct an
effective due diligence to carefully select the target firm
and evaluate the terms of negotiation. It should ensure
that the premium paid for the target firm and other terms
are not onerous and the finances in both the acquiring and
acquired firms are not too tight to allow for long-term
strategic investments and financial stability and
flexibility in discretional use of cash flow.
In cases where substantial debt is used to acquire a firm,
the acquiring firm should do well to reduce the debt by
selling off assets that are not complementary to the
acquiring firm businesses or are low performing business.
Also, if the acquiring firm has financial slack it will be
easier and less costly to obtain financing for the
acquisition.
Finally, if the acquiring and acquired firms have managers
who have experiences in managing change and have acquired
skills at adapting their capabilities, they are likely to
be re proficient at integrating the two firm operations.
Over the last two decades and even recently there have been
many reports of actions by firms undertaking restructuring
exercises to remedy the failure of a merger or an
acquisition. They have had to sell off some of their
acquired business, often at great losses.
This has highlighted the importance for firms contemplating
an acquisition strategy to take heed by doing a thorough
due diligence of its decisions and actions to see that they
satisfy the attributes of successful acquisitions. Failure
to do so may find them poorer by their acquisition
strategies.
|