外文文献
Mergers and Acquisitions Basics :All You Need To Know Introduction to Mergers and Acquisitions
The first decade of the new millennium heralded an era of global mega-mergers. Like the mergers and acquisitions (M&As) frenzy of the 1980s and 1990s, several factors fueled activity through mid-2007: readily available credit, historically low interest rates, rising equity markets, technological change, global competition, and industry consolidation. In terms of dollar volume, M&A transactions reached a record level worldwide in 2007. But extended turbulence in the global credit markets soon followed.
The speculative housing bubble in the United States and elsewhere, largely financed by debt, burst during the second half of the year. Banks, concerned about the value of many of their own assets, became exceedingly selective and largely withdrew from financing the highly leveraged transactions that had become commonplace the previous year. The quality of assets held by banks through out Europe and Asia also became suspect, reflecting the global nature of the credit markets. As credit dried up, a malaise spread worldwide in the market for highly leveraged M&A transactions.
By 2008, a combination of record high oil prices and a reduced availability of credit sent most of the world’s economies into recession, reducing global M&A activity by more than one-third from its previous high. This global recession deepened during the first half of 2009—despite a dramatic drop in energy prices and highly stimulative monetary and fiscal policies—extending the slump in M&A activity.
In recent years, governments worldwide have intervened aggressively in global credit markets (as well as in manufacturing and other sectors of the economy) in an effort to restore business and consumer confidence, restore credit market functioning, and offset
deflationary pressures. What impact have such actions had on mergers and acquisitions? It is too early to tell, but the implications may be significant.
M&As are an important means of transferring resources to where they are most needed and of removing underperforming managers. Government decisions to save some firms while allowing others to fail are likely to disrupt this process. Such decisions are often based on the notion that some firms are simply too big to fail because of their potential impact on the economy—consider AIG in the United States. Others are clearly motivated by politics. Such actions disrupt the smooth functioning of markets, which rewards good decisions and penalizes poor ones. Allowing a business to believe that it can achieve a size ―too big t o fail‖ may create perverse incentives. Plus, there is very little historical evidence that governments are better than markets at deciding who should fail and who should survive.
In this chapter, you will gain an understanding of the underlying dynamics of M&As in the context of an increasingly interconnected world. The chapter begins with a discussion of M&As as change agents in the context of corporate restructuring. The focus is on M&As and why they happen, with brief consideration given to alternative ways of increasing shareholder value. You will also be introduced to a variety of legal structures and strategies that are employed to restructure corporations.
Throughout this book, a firm that attempts to acquire or merge with another company is called an acquiring company, acquirer, or bidder. The target company or target is the firm being solicited by the acquiring company. Takeovers or buyouts are generic terms for a change in the controlling ownership interest of a corporation.
Words in bold italics are the ones most important for you to understand fully;they are all included in a glossary at the end of the book. Mergers and Acquisitions as Change Agents
Businesses come and go in a continuing churn, perhaps best illustrated by the ever-changing composition of the so-called Fortune 500—the 500 largest U.S. corporations. Only 70 of the firms on the original 1955 list of 500 are on today’s list, and some 2,000 firms have appeared on the list at one time or another. Most have dropped off the list either through merger, acquisition, bankruptcy, downsizing, or some other form of corporate restructuring. Consider a few examples: Chrysler, Bethlehem Steel, Scott Paper, Zenith, Rubbermaid, Warner Lambert. The popular media tends to use the term corporate restructuring to describe actions taken to expand or contract a firm’s basic operations or fundamentally change its asset or financial structure.
···································································································
Synergy
Synergy is the rather simplistic notion that two (or more) businesses in combination will create greater shareholder value than if they are operated separately. It may be measured as the incremental cash flow that can be realized through combination in excess of what would be realized were the firms to remain separate. There are two basic types of synergy: operating and financial.
Operating Synergy (Economies of Scale and Scope)
Operating synergy comprises both economies of scale and economies of scope, which can be important determinants of shareholder wealth creation. Gains in efficiency can come from either factor and from improved managerial practices.
Spreading fixed costs over increasing production levels realizes economies of scale, with scale defined by such fixed costs as depreciation of equipment and amortization of capitalized software; normal maintenance spending; obligations such as interest expense, lease payments, and long-term union, customer, and vendor contracts; and taxes. These costs are fixed in that they cannot be altered in the short run. By contrast, variable costs are those that change with output levels.
Consequently, for a given scale or amount of fixed expenses, the dollar value of fixed expenses per unit of output and per dollar of revenue decreases as output and sales increase.
To illustrate the potential profit improvement from economies of scale, let’s consider an automobile plant that can assemble 10 cars per hour and runs around the clock—which means the plant produces 240 cars per day. The plant’s fixed expenses per day are $1 million, so the average fixed cost per car produced is $4,167 (i.e., $1,000,000/240). Now imagine an improved assembly line that allows the plant t o assemble 20 cars per hour, or 480 per day. The average fixed cost per car per day falls to $2,083 (i.e., $1,000,000/480). If variable costs (e.g., direct labor) per car do not increase, and the selling price per car remains the same for each car, the profit improvement per car due to the decline in average fixed costs per car per day is $2,084 (i.e., $4,167 – $2,083).
A firm with high fixed costs as a percentage of total costs will have greater earnings variability than one with a lower ratio of fixed to total costs. Let’s consider two firms with annual revenues of $1 billion and operating profits of $50 million. The fixed costs at the first firm represent 100 percent of total costs, but at the second fixed costs are only half of all costs. If revenues at both firms increased by $50 million, the first firm would see income increase to $100 million, precisely because all of its costs are fixed. Income at the second firm would rise only to $75 million, because half of the $50 million increased revenue would h ave to go to pay for increased variable costs.
Using a specific set of skills or an asset currently employed to produce a given product or service to produce something else realizes economies of scope, which are found most often when it is cheaper to combine multiple product lines in one firm than to produce them in separate firms. Procter & Gamble, the consumer products giant, uses its highly regarded consumer marketing skills to sell a full range of personal care as well as pharmaceutical products. Honda knows how to enhance
internal combustion engines, so in addition to cars, the firm develops motorcycles, lawn mowers, and snow blowers. Sequent Technology lets customers run applications on UNIX and NT operating systems on a single computer system. Citigroup uses the same computer center to process loan applications, deposits, trust services, and mutual fund accounts for its bank’s customers. Each is an example of economies of scope, where a firm is applying a specific set of skills or assets to produce or sell multiple products, thus generating more revenue.
Financial Synergy (Lowering the Cost of Capital)
Financial synergy refers to the impact of mergers and acquisitions on the cost of capital of the acquiring firm or newly formed firm resulting from a merger or acquisition. The cost of capital is the minimum return required by investors and lenders to induce them to buy a firm’s stock or to lend to the firm.
In theory, the cost of capital could be reduced if the merged firms have cash flows that do not move up and down in tandem (i.e., so-called co-insurance), realize financial economies of scale from lower securities issuance and transactions costs, or result in a better matching of investment opportunities with internally generated funds. Combining a firm that has excess cash flows with one whose internally generated cash flow is insufficient to fund its investment opportunities may also result in a lower cost of borrowing. A firm in a mature industry experiencing slowing growth may produce cash flows well in excess of available investment opportunities. Another firm in a high-growth industry may not have enough cash to realize its investment opportunities. Reflecting their different growth rates and risk levels, the firm in the mature industry may have a lower cost of capital than the one in the high-growth industry, and combining the two firms could lower the average cost of capital of the combined firms.
Diversification
Buying firms outside a company’s current primary lines of business is
called diversification, and is typically justified in one of two ways. Diversification may create financial synergy that reduces the cost of capital, or it may allow a firm to shift its core product lines or markets into ones that have higher growth prospects, even ones that are unrelated to the firm’s current products or markets. The extent to which diversification is unrelated to an acquirer’s current lines of business can have significant implications for how effective management is in operating the combined firms.
·················································································A firm facing slower growth in its current markets may be able to accelerate growth through related diversification by selling its current products in new markets that are somewhat unfamiliar and, therefore, mor risky. Such was the case when pharmaceutical giant Johnson &Johnson announced its ultimately unsuccessful takeover attempt of Guidant Corporation in late 2004. J&J was seeking an entry point for its medical devices business in the fast-growing market for implantable devices, in which it did not then participate. A firm may attempt to achieve higher growth rates by developing or acquiring new products with which it is relatively unfamiliar and then selling them in familiar and less risky current markets. Retailer JCPenney’s acquisition of the Eckerd Drugstore chain or J&J’s $16 billion acquisition of Pfizer’s consumer health care products line in 2006 are two examples of related diversification. In each instance, the firm assumed additional risk, but less so than unrelated diversification if it had developed new products for sale in new markets. There is considerable evidence that investors do not benefit from unrelated diversification.
Firms that operate in a number of largely unrelated industries, such as General Electric, are called conglomerates. The share prices of conglomerates often trade at a discount—as much as 10 to 15 percent—compared to shares of focused firms or to their value were they broken up. This discount is called the conglomerate discount or
diversification discount. Investors often perceive companies diversified in unrelated areas (i.e., those in different standard industrial classifications) as riskier because management has difficulty understanding these companies and often fails to provide full funding for the most attractive investment opportunities.Moreover, outside investors may have a difficult time understanding how to value the various parts of highly diversified businesses.Researchers differ on whether the conglomerate discount is overstated.
Still, although the evidence suggests that firms pursuing a more focused corporate strategy are likely to perform best, there are always exceptions.
Strategic Realignment
The strategic realignment theory suggests that firms use M&As to make rapid adjustments to changes in their external environments. Although change can come from many different sources, this theory considers only changes in the regulatory environment and technological innovation—two factors that, over the past 20 years, have been major forces in creating new opportunities for growth, and threatening, or making obsolete, firms’ primary lines of business.
Regulatory Change
Those industries that have been subject to significant deregulation in recent years—financial services, health care, utilities, media, telecommunications, defense—have been at the center of M&A activity because deregulation breaks down artificial barriers and stimulates competition. During the first half of the 1990s, for instance, the U.S. Department of Defense actively encouraged consolidation of the nation’s major defense contractors to improve their overall operating efficiency.
Utilities now required in some states to sell power to competitors that can resell the power in the utility’s own marketplace respond with M&As to achieve greater operating efficiency. Commercial banks that have moved beyond their historical role of accepting deposits and g
ranting loans are merging with securities firms and insurance companies thanks to the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, which repealed legislation dating back to the Great Depression.The Citicorp–Travelers merger a year earlier anticipated this change, and it is probable that their representatives were lobbying for the new legislation. The final chapter has yet t o be written: this trend toward huge financial services companies may yet be stymied by new regulation passed in 2010 in response to excessive risk taking.
The telecommunications industry offers a striking illustration. Historically, local and long-distance phone companies were not allowed t o compete against each other, and cable companies were essentially monopolies. Since the Telecommunications Act of 1996, local and long-distance companies are actively encouraged to compete in each other’s markets, and cable companies are offering both Internet access and local telephone service. When a federal appeals court in 2002 struck down a Federal Communications Commission regulation prohibiting a company from owning a cable television system and a broadcast TV station in the same city, and threw out the rule that barred a company from owning TV stations that reach more than 35 percent of U.S.households, it encouraged new combinations among the largest media companies or purchases of smaller broadcasters.
Technological Change
Technological advances create new products and industries. The development of the airplane created the passenger airline, avionics, and satellite industries. The emergence of satellite delivery of cable networks t o regional and local stations ignited explosive growth in the cable industry. Today, with the expansion of broadband technology, we are witnessing the convergence of voice, data, and video technologies on the Internet. The emergence of digital camera technology has reduced dramatically the demand for analog cameras and film and sent household names such as Kodak and Polaroid scrambling to adapt. The growth of
satellite radio is increasing its share of the radio advertising market at the expense of traditional radio stations.
Smaller, more nimble players exhibit speed and creativity many larger, more bureaucratic firms cannot achieve. With engineering talent often in short supply and product life cycles shortening, these larger firms may not have the luxury of time or the resources to innovate. So, they may look to M&As as a fast and sometimes less expensive way to acquire new technologies and proprietary know-how to fill gaps in their current product portfolios or to enter entirely new businesses. Acquiring technologies can also be a defensive weapon to keep important new technologies out of the hands of competitors. In 2006, eBay acquired Skype Technologies, the Internet phone provider, for $3.1 billion in cash, stock, and performance payments, hoping that the move would boost trading on its online auction site and limit competitors’ access to the new technology. By September 2009, eBay had to admit that it had been unable to realize the benefits of owning Skype and was selling the business to a private investor group for $2.75 billion.
Hubris and the “Winner’s Curse”
Managers sometimes believe that their own valuation of a target firm is superior to the market’s valuation. Thus, the acquiring company tends to overpay for the target, having been overoptimistic when evaluating synergies.Competition among bidders also is likely to result in the winner overpaying because of hubris, even if significant synergies are present. In an auction environment with bidders, the range of bids for a target company is likely to be quite wide, because senior managers t end to be very competitive and sometimes self-important. Their desire not to lose can drive the purchase price of an acquisition well in excess of its actual economic value (i.e., cash-generating capability). The winner pays more than the company is worth and may ultimately feel remorse at having done so—hence what has come to be called the winner’s curse. Buying Undervalued Assets (The Q-Ratio)
The q-ratio is the ratio of the market value of the acquiring firm’s stock to the replacement cost of its assets. Firms interested in expansion can choose to invest in new plants and equipment or obtain the assets by acquiring a company with a market value less than what it would cost to replace the assets (i.e., q-ratio＜1). This theory was very useful in explaining M&A activity during the 1970s, when high inflation and interest rates depressed stock prices well below the book value of many firms. High inflation also caused the replacement cost of assets to be much higher than the book value of assets. Book value refers to the value of assets listed on a firm’s balance sheet and generally reflects the historical cost of acquiring such assets rather than their current cost.
When gasoline refiner Valero Energy Corp. acquired Premcor Inc. in 2005, the $8 billion transaction created the largest refiner in North America. It would have cost an estimated 40 percent more for Valero to build a new refinery with equivalent capacity.
Mismanagement (Agency Problems)
Agency problems arise when there is a difference between the interests of incumbent managers (i.e., those currently managing the firm) and the firm’s shareholders. This happens when management owns a small fraction of the outstanding shares of the firm. These managers, who serve as agents of the shareholder, may be more inclined to focus on their own job security and lavish lifestyles than on maximizing shareholder value. When the shares of a company are widely held, the cost of such mismanagement is spread across a large number of shareholders, each of whom bears only a small portion. This allows for toleration of the mismanagement over long periods. Mergers often take place to correct situations in which there is a separation between what managers and owners (shareholders) want. Low stock prices put pressure on managers to take actions to raise the share price or become the target of acquirers, who perceive the stock to be undervalued and who are usually intent on removing the underperforming management of the target firm.
Agency problems also contribute to management-initiated buyouts, particularly when managers and shareholders disagree over how excess cash flow should be used.Managers may have access to information not readily available to shareholders and may therefore be able to convince lenders to provide funds to buy out shareholders and concentrate ownership in the hands of management.
From: Donald DePamphilis. Mergers and acquisitions basics:All you need to know America :Academic Press. Oct，2010，P1-10
外文文献中文翻译
并购基础知识：一切你需要知道的
并购
新千年的第一个十年,预示着全球大规模并购时代的到来。如同在20世纪80年代和90年代的并购狂热，有几个因素推动着这一活动持续至2007年中期：容易获得信贷，利率处于历史低位，股市兴起，技术变革，全球竞争和行业整合。在成交金额方面，2007年在全球范围内并购交易达到创纪录的水平。但是，持续的全球信贷市场动荡随后而来。
今年下半年，在美国和其他地方，主要依靠债务融资的投机性住房泡沫破灭。银行由于担心自己的多种资产价值，变的非常有选择性，基本上取消了高杠杆交易的融资，而前一年此融资行为已经司空见惯。银行在欧洲和亚洲持有的资产的质量也开始遭到质疑。反映了信贷市场的全球性质。由于信贷枯竭，萎靡不振蔓延在全球高杠杆的并购交易的市场中。
到2008年，创纪录的高油价和减少信贷供应量让世界上大多数国家的经济陷入了衰退，全球并购活动从以前的高量减少了三分之一以上。在2009年上半年，尽管能源价格大幅下降以及高刺激性的货币和财政政策出台，全球衰退更加严重， 使得并购活动持续低迷。 近年来，世界各国政府已积极介入全球信贷市场（以及在制造业和其他经济领域），努力恢复行业和消费者信心，恢复信贷市场的运作，并抵消通缩压力。这些措施对并购有什么影响，尚言之过早，但其影响可能是显着的。
并购是一种将资源转移到最需要的地方以及去除表现不佳的经理人的重要的手段。然而政府决定拯救一些企业，同时允许一些企业破产可能会破坏这一过程。这样的决定往往是基于一些企业仅仅是太大而不能倒闭的观念，因其对美国经济的潜在影响（如美国的AIG）。而其他人显然是出于政治动机。这些措施扰乱市场优胜劣汰的平稳运作。让企业相信，它可以达到“太大而不能倒闭”规模，可能会造成反常的动机。此外，很少有历史证据表明，政府比市场能更好的决定谁应该失败，谁应该生存。
在本章中，您将了解在相互联系日益紧密的世界的背景下的并购的基本动态。本章首先讨论了在企业重组背景下并购作为变革推动者的议题。重点是并购活动以及他们发生原因，简要考虑其他增加股东价值的替代方法。还将向您介绍
各种用于重组公司的法律结构和策略。
在这本书中，一个公司试图收购或与另一家公司合并称为收购公司，收购方或投标方。目标公司或目标公司是被收购公司请求收购的公司。接管或收购是改变控制一家公司的所有权的通用术语。
粗体斜体字是你需充分了解的最重要的部分，他们都包含本书结尾部分的词汇表里。
企业并购作为变革的推动者
各企业你方唱罢我登场，所谓的“财富”500强（美国500家最大公司）的构成变化也许是最好的说明。只有70家在1955年500强名单上的公司仍出现在名单上，大约2000家企业在曾经在名单上出现过。大部分公司通过兼并，收购，破产，裁员，或一些其他形式的企业重组已经不在名单上。例如：克莱斯勒，伯利恒钢铁公司，斯科特纸业，天顶，乐伯美，华纳兰伯特。大众媒体倾向于使用企业重组这个词来描述企业为扩大或缩小企业的基本业务或从根本上改变其资产或金融结构而采取的措施。
······································ 协同效应
协同效应是相当简单的概念，即两个（或更多）企业组合会创造比他们分开经营的更大的股东价值。它可以通过资金流量净增额衡量，资金流量净增额为合并后的资金流量超出独立经营的资金流量的量。有两种基本类型的协同效应：经营性的和财务性的。
经营协同效益（规模经济）
经营协同效应包括规模经济和范围经济，这是可以为股东创造财富的重要决定因素。效率的提高可以来自任何一个因素以及管理的改善。
将固定成本分摊到更大的产量上，则实现规模经济，规模由固定费用界定如设备的折旧，资本化软件的摊销，正常维护费用；其他义务如利息，租赁费，以及长期协会，客户，供应商合同和税收。这些成本是固定的，在短期内不会改变。与此相反，可变成本是指那些随产量变化而变化的成本。因此，对于特定规模和数量的固定成本，每单位产量和每单位收益的固定成本费用随着产量和销售的增加而降低。
为了说明从规模经济的潜在利润改善，让我们考虑一个每小时可生产10辆车、且昼夜不停运转的汽车厂，这意味着该工厂每天生产240辆汽车。工厂每天
的固定费用是 100万美元，因此，生产每辆汽车的平均固定成本为$4,167（即$1,000,000/ 240）。现在想象一个改进的组装生产线，可以使工厂每小时组装20辆，或每天480辆。每天每车的平均固定成本下降为2083美元（即$1,000,000/ 480）。如果每车可变成本（如，直接劳工）不增加，每辆汽车的售价相同，由于平均固定成本降低，每天每车的效益增加为2084美元（即， $4,167 - $2,083）。
固定成本占总成本百分比高的企业将比低的企业将会有更大的盈利变化。让我们考虑年收入10亿美元和年营业利润5000万美元的两家公司。在第一家公司的固定成本占总成本的100％，但在第二家公司的固定费用只占总成本的一半。如果在这两家公司的收入增加了5000万美元，第一家收入将增加到1亿美元，正是因为所有费用都是固定的。在第二家公司的收入将仅增加到7500万美元，因为增加的5000万美元的收入的一半用于支付增加的可变成本。
使用特定的技能或现有的资产生产特定产品或服务来生产其他的产品，则实现了范围经济。当在同一公司内综合具备多种生产线比在不同公司生产更为经济时，这种方式最为常见。消费产品生产巨头，宝洁公司，利用其高度重视消费者的营销技巧销售全系列的个人护理产品和医药产品。本田知道如何提升内燃机性能，所以在除了汽车，该公司开发了摩托车，割草机和吹雪机。 Sequent科技公司可以使客户在同一电脑系统上运行UNIX和NT操作系统的应用程序。花旗集团使用同一计算机中心处理其银行客户的贷款申请，存款，信托服务，和共同基金帐户。每一个例子都是范围经济，公司使用特定的技能或资产来生产或销售多种产品，从而获得更多的收入。
财务协同效应（降低资本成本）
财务协同效应是兼并和收购对收购公司或对由兼并或收购而成立的新公司的资本成本的影响。资本成本是促使投资者或借贷方购买公司股票或借款给公司的必要最低回报。
从理论上讲，，如果合并后的公司的现金流量未接连上下波动（即，所谓的共同保险），就可以降低资金成本，可从较低有价证券保险和交易成本实现金融规模经济或，或实现投资机会与内部资金之间的更好匹配。存在过多现金流的公司与内部现金流不足以为投资机会融资的公司合并会产生较低的借贷成本。成熟行业内的工资经历缓慢的增长会产生过多的现金流，超过其有效投资机会需求。高速发展的行业内的公司可能不具备足够的现金来捕捉投资机会。考虑到其不同的增长率和风险等级，成熟行业内的公司的资本成本比高速增长行业的低，合并
这两个公司会降低合并后公司的平均资本成本。
多元化
收购本公司主要业务范围外的公司称为多元化，由两种方式之一证明合理的。多元化可能会产生减少资本成本的金融效应或允许公司转变其核心生产线或者市场，从而具备更高增长前景，这些生产线或市场甚至与公司当前产品和市场没有联系。与收购方当前业务范围无关的多元化的范围可明显折射出合并后的公司的运营如何有效的管理。
······························公司在当前市场中发展缓慢，可能会通过相关的多元化在有些陌生的市场中销售新产品加速发展，由此也带来更多风险。2004年制药巨头强生公司宣布其试图收购佳腾公司最终未果，就是这种情形。强生公司为其医疗设备在快速增长的植入设备的市场中寻求切入点，最终未能进入。公司可通过开发或获得其相对陌生的新产品并在其熟悉的和风险较小的当前市场中销售来获得较高的增长率。实现更高的增长率。零售商JCPenney的收购爱克德连锁药店或强生公司于2006年以$160亿美元收购辉瑞消费保健品生产线就是相关多元化是两个例子。在每个实例中，公司承担了额外的风险，，但如果已经为新市场开发新产品，其风险较非相关多元化小。有大量证据表明，投资者未能从非相关多元化中受益。
公司经营一些的很大程度上不相关的行业，如通用电气（General Electric），被称为多元化企业。与专业性公司的股价或与其分散经营的公司的股价相比，多元化企业的股价往往交易折扣高达10％至15％。此折扣称为多元化企业折让。投资者通常认为多元化企业风险更大，因为管理者往往难以把握这些公司，经常无法为最有吸引力的投资机会提供充足资金。另外，外部投资者可能会难以理解如何判定高度多元化业务的不同部分的价值。研究者也对于企业多元化折让是否被夸大上意见不一。
尽管有证据表明，公司追求更专业性的企业战略有可能获得最好也业绩，但仍有例外。
战略调整
战略调整的理论表明，公司利用并购做出迅速的调整应对其外部环境改变。尽管变化会来自多个方面，此理论只考虑在调控环境下和科技创新下的变化，这两个因素在过去20年的时间是创造新的发展机会，威胁或淘汰公司基本业务的主要力量
调控变化
近年来，金融服务，医疗保健，公用事业，媒体，电信等行业面临的管制明显减少，这些行业处于并购活动的中心，因为放松管制打破了人为障碍并刺激竞争。例如，20世纪90年代上半叶，美国国防部积极鼓励整合全国主要的国防承包商，以提高其整体运营效率。
现在，要求一些州的公用事业将电力出售给能够在公用事业的自行销地区再次出售的竞争者，以取得更好的运营效率。由于1996年颁布的《金融服务现代化法案》（此法案撤销了可回溯到大萧条时期的立法），商业银行也超出了其存贷款的历史角色 与证券公司和保险公司合并。一年前合并的花旗集团与圣保罗旅行者保险公司预见到这一点，有可能他们的代表对此立法进行了游说。最后的篇章还未揭开，组建大金融服务公司的趋势会受到2010通过的新法规的阻碍，此法规的通过是由于考虑到所承担的过多风险。
电信行业提供了一个鲜明的例子。以往不允许本地和长途电话公司许互相竞争，电缆电报公司实质上处于垄断地位。1996年《电信法》颁布，积极鼓励本地和长途电话公司，进入对方的市场、展开竞争，电缆电报公司也提供互联网和本地电话服务。2002年，联邦上诉法院驳回了联邦通信委员会的禁止公司在同一城市内同时拥有有线电视系统和电视广播站的规定，废除了禁止公司拥有能影响到美国35%的家庭电视台的规则，鼓励最大的媒体公司之间的合并或并购较小的广播公司。
技术变革
技术进步产生新的产品和行业。飞机的发展催生了客运航空公司，航空电子设备，卫星工业。区域和地方电缆工业的卫星传送的出现引发了爆炸性增长。今天，随着宽带技术的发展，互联网上汇集了声音、数据和视频技术。数码相机技术的出现，模拟相机和胶卷的需求急剧下降，使得家喻户晓的柯达和宝丽来仓促应对。卫星广播的发展增加其在无线电广播广告市场的份额，蚕食传统广播电台。
更小，更灵活的参与者展现出很多更大，更官僚作风的公司无法匹及的速度和创造力。由于缺乏技术人才，产品使用周期缩短，这些较大公司缺少足够的时间和资源来创新。因此，他们可能会将并购视为快速，有时更为经济的获得新的科技和专利技术的方式，以弥补其当前产品组合的不足，或者进入了全新的行业。获取技术，也可以作为避免重要的技术落入竞争者之手的防御性措施。。在2006年，eBay以31亿美元现金、股票和业绩偿付方式收购互联网电话提供商Skype
科技，希望此举将推动其在线拍卖网站的交易和限制竞争对手获得此项新技术。 2009年9月，eBay不得不承认，它一直无法实现拥有的Skype带来的利益，正将此业务以27.5亿美元出售给私人投资集团。
骄傲自大和“赢家的诅咒”
经理人有时会认为自己对目标公司的估价是优于市场的估价。因此，收购公司容易为目标公司支付过多，评估协作效应时过于乐观。投标人之间的竞争，由于骄傲自大，也可能导致花冤枉钱，即使存在显着的协同效应。在投标人参与的拍卖环境中，为目标公司的出价范围可能相当广泛，由于高层管理者容易形成激烈竞争，有时妄自尊大。他们不想失败的意愿会推动收购价格超过其实际经济价值（即现金产生能力）。胜出者的付出超过公司的价值，最终可能会感到懊悔，由此称为赢家的诅咒。
购买被低估的资产（Q比例）
Q-比例是收购公司的股票的市值与其资产的重置成本之间的比值。希望扩张的公司可以投资新厂和设备或者收购市值小于资产重置成本的公司（即Q比例小于1），获得资产。此理论有助于解释20世纪70年代的并购活动，当时的高通货膨胀和利率压低了很多公司股票价格，使其低于账面价值。高通货膨胀率也使得资产重置成本远高于其账面价值。账面价值是指公司的资产负债表上列出的资产的价值，一般反应了获得以上资产的实际成本，而不是当前的成本。
当汽油炼油商瓦莱罗能源公司于2005年收购Premcor公司，此价值8亿美元的交易创建了北美最大的炼油企业。估计瓦莱罗建立一个新的具有同等能力的炼油厂将多花费40%。
管理不善（代理问题）
代理问题是由现任经理人（即那些目前管理公司的人）和公司股东之间的利益产业引起的。当管理层拥有该公司已发行股份的一小部分时会发生这种情况。这些作为股东代理人的经理人可能会更倾向于关注自己的工作安全和奢侈的生活方式，而不是股东价值最大化。当一个公司的股票被广泛的持有，这样的管理不善成本分散于大量的股东，每个人只承担一小部分。这样的经营不善会被长期容忍。当经理人和股东之间的需求产生分离时，往往会采取并购来纠正这种情形。低的股票价格迫使经理人采取措施提升股价或成为收购方的目标，收购者意识到股价下跌且通常意图去除目标公司表现不佳的经理人。
代理问题也会引起管理层发起的收购，尤其是当经理人与股东在对超额现金
流的使用不一致时，经理人可能获得对股东不易获知的信息，因此可能说服贷款人提供资金购买股权及将所有权集中在管理层手中。
来源：唐纳德· 德帕姆菲利斯 . 并购基础：一切你需要知道的，美国：学术出版社.2010年10月，P1-10
外文文献
Mergers and Acquisitions Basics :All You Need To Know Introduction to Mergers and Acquisitions
The first decade of the new millennium heralded an era of global mega-mergers. Like the mergers and acquisitions (M&As) frenzy of the 1980s and 1990s, several factors fueled activity through mid-2007: readily available credit, historically low interest rates, rising equity markets, technological change, global competition, and industry consolidation. In terms of dollar volume, M&A transactions reached a record level worldwide in 2007. But extended turbulence in the global credit markets soon followed.
The speculative housing bubble in the United States and elsewhere, largely financed by debt, burst during the second half of the year. Banks, concerned about the value of many of their own assets, became exceedingly selective and largely withdrew from financing the highly leveraged transactions that had become commonplace the previous year. The quality of assets held by banks through out Europe and Asia also became suspect, reflecting the global nature of the credit markets. As credit dried up, a malaise spread worldwide in the market for highly leveraged M&A transactions.
By 2008, a combination of record high oil prices and a reduced availability of credit sent most of the world’s economies into recession, reducing global M&A activity by more than one-third from its previous high. This global recession deepened during the first half of 2009—despite a dramatic drop in energy prices and highly stimulative monetary and fiscal policies—extending the slump in M&A activity.
In recent years, governments worldwide have intervened aggressively in global credit markets (as well as in manufacturing and other sectors of the economy) in an effort to restore business and consumer confidence, restore credit market functioning, and offset
deflationary pressures. What impact have such actions had on mergers and acquisitions? It is too early to tell, but the implications may be significant.
M&As are an important means of transferring resources to where they are most needed and of removing underperforming managers. Government decisions to save some firms while allowing others to fail are likely to disrupt this process. Such decisions are often based on the notion that some firms are simply too big to fail because of their potential impact on the economy—consider AIG in the United States. Others are clearly motivated by politics. Such actions disrupt the smooth functioning of markets, which rewards good decisions and penalizes poor ones. Allowing a business to believe that it can achieve a size ―too big t o fail‖ may create perverse incentives. Plus, there is very little historical evidence that governments are better than markets at deciding who should fail and who should survive.
In this chapter, you will gain an understanding of the underlying dynamics of M&As in the context of an increasingly interconnected world. The chapter begins with a discussion of M&As as change agents in the context of corporate restructuring. The focus is on M&As and why they happen, with brief consideration given to alternative ways of increasing shareholder value. You will also be introduced to a variety of legal structures and strategies that are employed to restructure corporations.
Throughout this book, a firm that attempts to acquire or merge with another company is called an acquiring company, acquirer, or bidder. The target company or target is the firm being solicited by the acquiring company. Takeovers or buyouts are generic terms for a change in the controlling ownership interest of a corporation.
Words in bold italics are the ones most important for you to understand fully;they are all included in a glossary at the end of the book. Mergers and Acquisitions as Change Agents
Businesses come and go in a continuing churn, perhaps best illustrated by the ever-changing composition of the so-called Fortune 500—the 500 largest U.S. corporations. Only 70 of the firms on the original 1955 list of 500 are on today’s list, and some 2,000 firms have appeared on the list at one time or another. Most have dropped off the list either through merger, acquisition, bankruptcy, downsizing, or some other form of corporate restructuring. Consider a few examples: Chrysler, Bethlehem Steel, Scott Paper, Zenith, Rubbermaid, Warner Lambert. The popular media tends to use the term corporate restructuring to describe actions taken to expand or contract a firm’s basic operations or fundamentally change its asset or financial structure.
···································································································
Synergy
Synergy is the rather simplistic notion that two (or more) businesses in combination will create greater shareholder value than if they are operated separately. It may be measured as the incremental cash flow that can be realized through combination in excess of what would be realized were the firms to remain separate. There are two basic types of synergy: operating and financial.
Operating Synergy (Economies of Scale and Scope)
Operating synergy comprises both economies of scale and economies of scope, which can be important determinants of shareholder wealth creation. Gains in efficiency can come from either factor and from improved managerial practices.
Spreading fixed costs over increasing production levels realizes economies of scale, with scale defined by such fixed costs as depreciation of equipment and amortization of capitalized software; normal maintenance spending; obligations such as interest expense, lease payments, and long-term union, customer, and vendor contracts; and taxes. These costs are fixed in that they cannot be altered in the short run. By contrast, variable costs are those that change with output levels.
Consequently, for a given scale or amount of fixed expenses, the dollar value of fixed expenses per unit of output and per dollar of revenue decreases as output and sales increase.
To illustrate the potential profit improvement from economies of scale, let’s consider an automobile plant that can assemble 10 cars per hour and runs around the clock—which means the plant produces 240 cars per day. The plant’s fixed expenses per day are $1 million, so the average fixed cost per car produced is $4,167 (i.e., $1,000,000/240). Now imagine an improved assembly line that allows the plant t o assemble 20 cars per hour, or 480 per day. The average fixed cost per car per day falls to $2,083 (i.e., $1,000,000/480). If variable costs (e.g., direct labor) per car do not increase, and the selling price per car remains the same for each car, the profit improvement per car due to the decline in average fixed costs per car per day is $2,084 (i.e., $4,167 – $2,083).
A firm with high fixed costs as a percentage of total costs will have greater earnings variability than one with a lower ratio of fixed to total costs. Let’s consider two firms with annual revenues of $1 billion and operating profits of $50 million. The fixed costs at the first firm represent 100 percent of total costs, but at the second fixed costs are only half of all costs. If revenues at both firms increased by $50 million, the first firm would see income increase to $100 million, precisely because all of its costs are fixed. Income at the second firm would rise only to $75 million, because half of the $50 million increased revenue would h ave to go to pay for increased variable costs.
Using a specific set of skills or an asset currently employed to produce a given product or service to produce something else realizes economies of scope, which are found most often when it is cheaper to combine multiple product lines in one firm than to produce them in separate firms. Procter & Gamble, the consumer products giant, uses its highly regarded consumer marketing skills to sell a full range of personal care as well as pharmaceutical products. Honda knows how to enhance
internal combustion engines, so in addition to cars, the firm develops motorcycles, lawn mowers, and snow blowers. Sequent Technology lets customers run applications on UNIX and NT operating systems on a single computer system. Citigroup uses the same computer center to process loan applications, deposits, trust services, and mutual fund accounts for its bank’s customers. Each is an example of economies of scope, where a firm is applying a specific set of skills or assets to produce or sell multiple products, thus generating more revenue.
Financial Synergy (Lowering the Cost of Capital)
Financial synergy refers to the impact of mergers and acquisitions on the cost of capital of the acquiring firm or newly formed firm resulting from a merger or acquisition. The cost of capital is the minimum return required by investors and lenders to induce them to buy a firm’s stock or to lend to the firm.
In theory, the cost of capital could be reduced if the merged firms have cash flows that do not move up and down in tandem (i.e., so-called co-insurance), realize financial economies of scale from lower securities issuance and transactions costs, or result in a better matching of investment opportunities with internally generated funds. Combining a firm that has excess cash flows with one whose internally generated cash flow is insufficient to fund its investment opportunities may also result in a lower cost of borrowing. A firm in a mature industry experiencing slowing growth may produce cash flows well in excess of available investment opportunities. Another firm in a high-growth industry may not have enough cash to realize its investment opportunities. Reflecting their different growth rates and risk levels, the firm in the mature industry may have a lower cost of capital than the one in the high-growth industry, and combining the two firms could lower the average cost of capital of the combined firms.
Diversification
Buying firms outside a company’s current primary lines of business is
called diversification, and is typically justified in one of two ways. Diversification may create financial synergy that reduces the cost of capital, or it may allow a firm to shift its core product lines or markets into ones that have higher growth prospects, even ones that are unrelated to the firm’s current products or markets. The extent to which diversification is unrelated to an acquirer’s current lines of business can have significant implications for how effective management is in operating the combined firms.
·················································································A firm facing slower growth in its current markets may be able to accelerate growth through related diversification by selling its current products in new markets that are somewhat unfamiliar and, therefore, mor risky. Such was the case when pharmaceutical giant Johnson &Johnson announced its ultimately unsuccessful takeover attempt of Guidant Corporation in late 2004. J&J was seeking an entry point for its medical devices business in the fast-growing market for implantable devices, in which it did not then participate. A firm may attempt to achieve higher growth rates by developing or acquiring new products with which it is relatively unfamiliar and then selling them in familiar and less risky current markets. Retailer JCPenney’s acquisition of the Eckerd Drugstore chain or J&J’s $16 billion acquisition of Pfizer’s consumer health care products line in 2006 are two examples of related diversification. In each instance, the firm assumed additional risk, but less so than unrelated diversification if it had developed new products for sale in new markets. There is considerable evidence that investors do not benefit from unrelated diversification.
Firms that operate in a number of largely unrelated industries, such as General Electric, are called conglomerates. The share prices of conglomerates often trade at a discount—as much as 10 to 15 percent—compared to shares of focused firms or to their value were they broken up. This discount is called the conglomerate discount or
diversification discount. Investors often perceive companies diversified in unrelated areas (i.e., those in different standard industrial classifications) as riskier because management has difficulty understanding these companies and often fails to provide full funding for the most attractive investment opportunities.Moreover, outside investors may have a difficult time understanding how to value the various parts of highly diversified businesses.Researchers differ on whether the conglomerate discount is overstated.
Still, although the evidence suggests that firms pursuing a more focused corporate strategy are likely to perform best, there are always exceptions.
Strategic Realignment
The strategic realignment theory suggests that firms use M&As to make rapid adjustments to changes in their external environments. Although change can come from many different sources, this theory considers only changes in the regulatory environment and technological innovation—two factors that, over the past 20 years, have been major forces in creating new opportunities for growth, and threatening, or making obsolete, firms’ primary lines of business.
Regulatory Change
Those industries that have been subject to significant deregulation in recent years—financial services, health care, utilities, media, telecommunications, defense—have been at the center of M&A activity because deregulation breaks down artificial barriers and stimulates competition. During the first half of the 1990s, for instance, the U.S. Department of Defense actively encouraged consolidation of the nation’s major defense contractors to improve their overall operating efficiency.
Utilities now required in some states to sell power to competitors that can resell the power in the utility’s own marketplace respond with M&As to achieve greater operating efficiency. Commercial banks that have moved beyond their historical role of accepting deposits and g
ranting loans are merging with securities firms and insurance companies thanks to the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, which repealed legislation dating back to the Great Depression.The Citicorp–Travelers merger a year earlier anticipated this change, and it is probable that their representatives were lobbying for the new legislation. The final chapter has yet t o be written: this trend toward huge financial services companies may yet be stymied by new regulation passed in 2010 in response to excessive risk taking.
The telecommunications industry offers a striking illustration. Historically, local and long-distance phone companies were not allowed t o compete against each other, and cable companies were essentially monopolies. Since the Telecommunications Act of 1996, local and long-distance companies are actively encouraged to compete in each other’s markets, and cable companies are offering both Internet access and local telephone service. When a federal appeals court in 2002 struck down a Federal Communications Commission regulation prohibiting a company from owning a cable television system and a broadcast TV station in the same city, and threw out the rule that barred a company from owning TV stations that reach more than 35 percent of U.S.households, it encouraged new combinations among the largest media companies or purchases of smaller broadcasters.
Technological Change
Technological advances create new products and industries. The development of the airplane created the passenger airline, avionics, and satellite industries. The emergence of satellite delivery of cable networks t o regional and local stations ignited explosive growth in the cable industry. Today, with the expansion of broadband technology, we are witnessing the convergence of voice, data, and video technologies on the Internet. The emergence of digital camera technology has reduced dramatically the demand for analog cameras and film and sent household names such as Kodak and Polaroid scrambling to adapt. The growth of
satellite radio is increasing its share of the radio advertising market at the expense of traditional radio stations.
Smaller, more nimble players exhibit speed and creativity many larger, more bureaucratic firms cannot achieve. With engineering talent often in short supply and product life cycles shortening, these larger firms may not have the luxury of time or the resources to innovate. So, they may look to M&As as a fast and sometimes less expensive way to acquire new technologies and proprietary know-how to fill gaps in their current product portfolios or to enter entirely new businesses. Acquiring technologies can also be a defensive weapon to keep important new technologies out of the hands of competitors. In 2006, eBay acquired Skype Technologies, the Internet phone provider, for $3.1 billion in cash, stock, and performance payments, hoping that the move would boost trading on its online auction site and limit competitors’ access to the new technology. By September 2009, eBay had to admit that it had been unable to realize the benefits of owning Skype and was selling the business to a private investor group for $2.75 billion.
Hubris and the “Winner’s Curse”
Managers sometimes believe that their own valuation of a target firm is superior to the market’s valuation. Thus, the acquiring company tends to overpay for the target, having been overoptimistic when evaluating synergies.Competition among bidders also is likely to result in the winner overpaying because of hubris, even if significant synergies are present. In an auction environment with bidders, the range of bids for a target company is likely to be quite wide, because senior managers t end to be very competitive and sometimes self-important. Their desire not to lose can drive the purchase price of an acquisition well in excess of its actual economic value (i.e., cash-generating capability). The winner pays more than the company is worth and may ultimately feel remorse at having done so—hence what has come to be called the winner’s curse. Buying Undervalued Assets (The Q-Ratio)
The q-ratio is the ratio of the market value of the acquiring firm’s stock to the replacement cost of its assets. Firms interested in expansion can choose to invest in new plants and equipment or obtain the assets by acquiring a company with a market value less than what it would cost to replace the assets (i.e., q-ratio＜1). This theory was very useful in explaining M&A activity during the 1970s, when high inflation and interest rates depressed stock prices well below the book value of many firms. High inflation also caused the replacement cost of assets to be much higher than the book value of assets. Book value refers to the value of assets listed on a firm’s balance sheet and generally reflects the historical cost of acquiring such assets rather than their current cost.
When gasoline refiner Valero Energy Corp. acquired Premcor Inc. in 2005, the $8 billion transaction created the largest refiner in North America. It would have cost an estimated 40 percent more for Valero to build a new refinery with equivalent capacity.
Mismanagement (Agency Problems)
Agency problems arise when there is a difference between the interests of incumbent managers (i.e., those currently managing the firm) and the firm’s shareholders. This happens when management owns a small fraction of the outstanding shares of the firm. These managers, who serve as agents of the shareholder, may be more inclined to focus on their own job security and lavish lifestyles than on maximizing shareholder value. When the shares of a company are widely held, the cost of such mismanagement is spread across a large number of shareholders, each of whom bears only a small portion. This allows for toleration of the mismanagement over long periods. Mergers often take place to correct situations in which there is a separation between what managers and owners (shareholders) want. Low stock prices put pressure on managers to take actions to raise the share price or become the target of acquirers, who perceive the stock to be undervalued and who are usually intent on removing the underperforming management of the target firm.
Agency problems also contribute to management-initiated buyouts, particularly when managers and shareholders disagree over how excess cash flow should be used.Managers may have access to information not readily available to shareholders and may therefore be able to convince lenders to provide funds to buy out shareholders and concentrate ownership in the hands of management.
From: Donald DePamphilis. Mergers and acquisitions basics:All you need to know America :Academic Press. Oct，2010，P1-10
外文文献中文翻译
并购基础知识：一切你需要知道的
并购
新千年的第一个十年,预示着全球大规模并购时代的到来。如同在20世纪80年代和90年代的并购狂热，有几个因素推动着这一活动持续至2007年中期：容易获得信贷，利率处于历史低位，股市兴起，技术变革，全球竞争和行业整合。在成交金额方面，2007年在全球范围内并购交易达到创纪录的水平。但是，持续的全球信贷市场动荡随后而来。
今年下半年，在美国和其他地方，主要依靠债务融资的投机性住房泡沫破灭。银行由于担心自己的多种资产价值，变的非常有选择性，基本上取消了高杠杆交易的融资，而前一年此融资行为已经司空见惯。银行在欧洲和亚洲持有的资产的质量也开始遭到质疑。反映了信贷市场的全球性质。由于信贷枯竭，萎靡不振蔓延在全球高杠杆的并购交易的市场中。
到2008年，创纪录的高油价和减少信贷供应量让世界上大多数国家的经济陷入了衰退，全球并购活动从以前的高量减少了三分之一以上。在2009年上半年，尽管能源价格大幅下降以及高刺激性的货币和财政政策出台，全球衰退更加严重， 使得并购活动持续低迷。 近年来，世界各国政府已积极介入全球信贷市场（以及在制造业和其他经济领域），努力恢复行业和消费者信心，恢复信贷市场的运作，并抵消通缩压力。这些措施对并购有什么影响，尚言之过早，但其影响可能是显着的。
并购是一种将资源转移到最需要的地方以及去除表现不佳的经理人的重要的手段。然而政府决定拯救一些企业，同时允许一些企业破产可能会破坏这一过程。这样的决定往往是基于一些企业仅仅是太大而不能倒闭的观念，因其对美国经济的潜在影响（如美国的AIG）。而其他人显然是出于政治动机。这些措施扰乱市场优胜劣汰的平稳运作。让企业相信，它可以达到“太大而不能倒闭”规模，可能会造成反常的动机。此外，很少有历史证据表明，政府比市场能更好的决定谁应该失败，谁应该生存。
在本章中，您将了解在相互联系日益紧密的世界的背景下的并购的基本动态。本章首先讨论了在企业重组背景下并购作为变革推动者的议题。重点是并购活动以及他们发生原因，简要考虑其他增加股东价值的替代方法。还将向您介绍
各种用于重组公司的法律结构和策略。
在这本书中，一个公司试图收购或与另一家公司合并称为收购公司，收购方或投标方。目标公司或目标公司是被收购公司请求收购的公司。接管或收购是改变控制一家公司的所有权的通用术语。
粗体斜体字是你需充分了解的最重要的部分，他们都包含本书结尾部分的词汇表里。
企业并购作为变革的推动者
各企业你方唱罢我登场，所谓的“财富”500强（美国500家最大公司）的构成变化也许是最好的说明。只有70家在1955年500强名单上的公司仍出现在名单上，大约2000家企业在曾经在名单上出现过。大部分公司通过兼并，收购，破产，裁员，或一些其他形式的企业重组已经不在名单上。例如：克莱斯勒，伯利恒钢铁公司，斯科特纸业，天顶，乐伯美，华纳兰伯特。大众媒体倾向于使用企业重组这个词来描述企业为扩大或缩小企业的基本业务或从根本上改变其资产或金融结构而采取的措施。
······································ 协同效应
协同效应是相当简单的概念，即两个（或更多）企业组合会创造比他们分开经营的更大的股东价值。它可以通过资金流量净增额衡量，资金流量净增额为合并后的资金流量超出独立经营的资金流量的量。有两种基本类型的协同效应：经营性的和财务性的。
经营协同效益（规模经济）
经营协同效应包括规模经济和范围经济，这是可以为股东创造财富的重要决定因素。效率的提高可以来自任何一个因素以及管理的改善。
将固定成本分摊到更大的产量上，则实现规模经济，规模由固定费用界定如设备的折旧，资本化软件的摊销，正常维护费用；其他义务如利息，租赁费，以及长期协会，客户，供应商合同和税收。这些成本是固定的，在短期内不会改变。与此相反，可变成本是指那些随产量变化而变化的成本。因此，对于特定规模和数量的固定成本，每单位产量和每单位收益的固定成本费用随着产量和销售的增加而降低。
为了说明从规模经济的潜在利润改善，让我们考虑一个每小时可生产10辆车、且昼夜不停运转的汽车厂，这意味着该工厂每天生产240辆汽车。工厂每天
的固定费用是 100万美元，因此，生产每辆汽车的平均固定成本为$4,167（即$1,000,000/ 240）。现在想象一个改进的组装生产线，可以使工厂每小时组装20辆，或每天480辆。每天每车的平均固定成本下降为2083美元（即$1,000,000/ 480）。如果每车可变成本（如，直接劳工）不增加，每辆汽车的售价相同，由于平均固定成本降低，每天每车的效益增加为2084美元（即， $4,167 - $2,083）。
固定成本占总成本百分比高的企业将比低的企业将会有更大的盈利变化。让我们考虑年收入10亿美元和年营业利润5000万美元的两家公司。在第一家公司的固定成本占总成本的100％，但在第二家公司的固定费用只占总成本的一半。如果在这两家公司的收入增加了5000万美元，第一家收入将增加到1亿美元，正是因为所有费用都是固定的。在第二家公司的收入将仅增加到7500万美元，因为增加的5000万美元的收入的一半用于支付增加的可变成本。
使用特定的技能或现有的资产生产特定产品或服务来生产其他的产品，则实现了范围经济。当在同一公司内综合具备多种生产线比在不同公司生产更为经济时，这种方式最为常见。消费产品生产巨头，宝洁公司，利用其高度重视消费者的营销技巧销售全系列的个人护理产品和医药产品。本田知道如何提升内燃机性能，所以在除了汽车，该公司开发了摩托车，割草机和吹雪机。 Sequent科技公司可以使客户在同一电脑系统上运行UNIX和NT操作系统的应用程序。花旗集团使用同一计算机中心处理其银行客户的贷款申请，存款，信托服务，和共同基金帐户。每一个例子都是范围经济，公司使用特定的技能或资产来生产或销售多种产品，从而获得更多的收入。
财务协同效应（降低资本成本）
财务协同效应是兼并和收购对收购公司或对由兼并或收购而成立的新公司的资本成本的影响。资本成本是促使投资者或借贷方购买公司股票或借款给公司的必要最低回报。
从理论上讲，，如果合并后的公司的现金流量未接连上下波动（即，所谓的共同保险），就可以降低资金成本，可从较低有价证券保险和交易成本实现金融规模经济或，或实现投资机会与内部资金之间的更好匹配。存在过多现金流的公司与内部现金流不足以为投资机会融资的公司合并会产生较低的借贷成本。成熟行业内的工资经历缓慢的增长会产生过多的现金流，超过其有效投资机会需求。高速发展的行业内的公司可能不具备足够的现金来捕捉投资机会。考虑到其不同的增长率和风险等级，成熟行业内的公司的资本成本比高速增长行业的低，合并
这两个公司会降低合并后公司的平均资本成本。
多元化
收购本公司主要业务范围外的公司称为多元化，由两种方式之一证明合理的。多元化可能会产生减少资本成本的金融效应或允许公司转变其核心生产线或者市场，从而具备更高增长前景，这些生产线或市场甚至与公司当前产品和市场没有联系。与收购方当前业务范围无关的多元化的范围可明显折射出合并后的公司的运营如何有效的管理。
······························公司在当前市场中发展缓慢，可能会通过相关的多元化在有些陌生的市场中销售新产品加速发展，由此也带来更多风险。2004年制药巨头强生公司宣布其试图收购佳腾公司最终未果，就是这种情形。强生公司为其医疗设备在快速增长的植入设备的市场中寻求切入点，最终未能进入。公司可通过开发或获得其相对陌生的新产品并在其熟悉的和风险较小的当前市场中销售来获得较高的增长率。实现更高的增长率。零售商JCPenney的收购爱克德连锁药店或强生公司于2006年以$160亿美元收购辉瑞消费保健品生产线就是相关多元化是两个例子。在每个实例中，公司承担了额外的风险，，但如果已经为新市场开发新产品，其风险较非相关多元化小。有大量证据表明，投资者未能从非相关多元化中受益。
公司经营一些的很大程度上不相关的行业，如通用电气（General Electric），被称为多元化企业。与专业性公司的股价或与其分散经营的公司的股价相比，多元化企业的股价往往交易折扣高达10％至15％。此折扣称为多元化企业折让。投资者通常认为多元化企业风险更大，因为管理者往往难以把握这些公司，经常无法为最有吸引力的投资机会提供充足资金。另外，外部投资者可能会难以理解如何判定高度多元化业务的不同部分的价值。研究者也对于企业多元化折让是否被夸大上意见不一。
尽管有证据表明，公司追求更专业性的企业战略有可能获得最好也业绩，但仍有例外。
战略调整
战略调整的理论表明，公司利用并购做出迅速的调整应对其外部环境改变。尽管变化会来自多个方面，此理论只考虑在调控环境下和科技创新下的变化，这两个因素在过去20年的时间是创造新的发展机会，威胁或淘汰公司基本业务的主要力量
调控变化
近年来，金融服务，医疗保健，公用事业，媒体，电信等行业面临的管制明显减少，这些行业处于并购活动的中心，因为放松管制打破了人为障碍并刺激竞争。例如，20世纪90年代上半叶，美国国防部积极鼓励整合全国主要的国防承包商，以提高其整体运营效率。
现在，要求一些州的公用事业将电力出售给能够在公用事业的自行销地区再次出售的竞争者，以取得更好的运营效率。由于1996年颁布的《金融服务现代化法案》（此法案撤销了可回溯到大萧条时期的立法），商业银行也超出了其存贷款的历史角色 与证券公司和保险公司合并。一年前合并的花旗集团与圣保罗旅行者保险公司预见到这一点，有可能他们的代表对此立法进行了游说。最后的篇章还未揭开，组建大金融服务公司的趋势会受到2010通过的新法规的阻碍，此法规的通过是由于考虑到所承担的过多风险。
电信行业提供了一个鲜明的例子。以往不允许本地和长途电话公司许互相竞争，电缆电报公司实质上处于垄断地位。1996年《电信法》颁布，积极鼓励本地和长途电话公司，进入对方的市场、展开竞争，电缆电报公司也提供互联网和本地电话服务。2002年，联邦上诉法院驳回了联邦通信委员会的禁止公司在同一城市内同时拥有有线电视系统和电视广播站的规定，废除了禁止公司拥有能影响到美国35%的家庭电视台的规则，鼓励最大的媒体公司之间的合并或并购较小的广播公司。
技术变革
技术进步产生新的产品和行业。飞机的发展催生了客运航空公司，航空电子设备，卫星工业。区域和地方电缆工业的卫星传送的出现引发了爆炸性增长。今天，随着宽带技术的发展，互联网上汇集了声音、数据和视频技术。数码相机技术的出现，模拟相机和胶卷的需求急剧下降，使得家喻户晓的柯达和宝丽来仓促应对。卫星广播的发展增加其在无线电广播广告市场的份额，蚕食传统广播电台。
更小，更灵活的参与者展现出很多更大，更官僚作风的公司无法匹及的速度和创造力。由于缺乏技术人才，产品使用周期缩短，这些较大公司缺少足够的时间和资源来创新。因此，他们可能会将并购视为快速，有时更为经济的获得新的科技和专利技术的方式，以弥补其当前产品组合的不足，或者进入了全新的行业。获取技术，也可以作为避免重要的技术落入竞争者之手的防御性措施。。在2006年，eBay以31亿美元现金、股票和业绩偿付方式收购互联网电话提供商Skype
科技，希望此举将推动其在线拍卖网站的交易和限制竞争对手获得此项新技术。 2009年9月，eBay不得不承认，它一直无法实现拥有的Skype带来的利益，正将此业务以27.5亿美元出售给私人投资集团。
骄傲自大和“赢家的诅咒”
经理人有时会认为自己对目标公司的估价是优于市场的估价。因此，收购公司容易为目标公司支付过多，评估协作效应时过于乐观。投标人之间的竞争，由于骄傲自大，也可能导致花冤枉钱，即使存在显着的协同效应。在投标人参与的拍卖环境中，为目标公司的出价范围可能相当广泛，由于高层管理者容易形成激烈竞争，有时妄自尊大。他们不想失败的意愿会推动收购价格超过其实际经济价值（即现金产生能力）。胜出者的付出超过公司的价值，最终可能会感到懊悔，由此称为赢家的诅咒。
购买被低估的资产（Q比例）
Q-比例是收购公司的股票的市值与其资产的重置成本之间的比值。希望扩张的公司可以投资新厂和设备或者收购市值小于资产重置成本的公司（即Q比例小于1），获得资产。此理论有助于解释20世纪70年代的并购活动，当时的高通货膨胀和利率压低了很多公司股票价格，使其低于账面价值。高通货膨胀率也使得资产重置成本远高于其账面价值。账面价值是指公司的资产负债表上列出的资产的价值，一般反应了获得以上资产的实际成本，而不是当前的成本。
当汽油炼油商瓦莱罗能源公司于2005年收购Premcor公司，此价值8亿美元的交易创建了北美最大的炼油企业。估计瓦莱罗建立一个新的具有同等能力的炼油厂将多花费40%。
管理不善（代理问题）
代理问题是由现任经理人（即那些目前管理公司的人）和公司股东之间的利益产业引起的。当管理层拥有该公司已发行股份的一小部分时会发生这种情况。这些作为股东代理人的经理人可能会更倾向于关注自己的工作安全和奢侈的生活方式，而不是股东价值最大化。当一个公司的股票被广泛的持有，这样的管理不善成本分散于大量的股东，每个人只承担一小部分。这样的经营不善会被长期容忍。当经理人和股东之间的需求产生分离时，往往会采取并购来纠正这种情形。低的股票价格迫使经理人采取措施提升股价或成为收购方的目标，收购者意识到股价下跌且通常意图去除目标公司表现不佳的经理人。
代理问题也会引起管理层发起的收购，尤其是当经理人与股东在对超额现金
流的使用不一致时，经理人可能获得对股东不易获知的信息，因此可能说服贷款人提供资金购买股权及将所有权集中在管理层手中。
来源：唐纳德· 德帕姆菲利斯 . 并购基础：一切你需要知道的，美国：学术出版社.2010年10月，P1-10