企业并购文献综述及外文文献资料

国外并购文献综述并购是企业的一项重要决策，对企业未来的成长和发展具有重要意义。

本文通过归纳和整理国外并购领域的重要研究成果，为了解企业的并购实际提供了指导意义，也为从我国的制度背景下研究企业并购提供了一定的借鉴。

标签：企业并购；公司治理；并购绩效一、引言并购是企业的重大决策。

来自Wind金融数据库的数据显示，我国企业的并购活动呈显著上升的趋势。

随着并购活动的飞速发展，并购领域的相关研究也得到国内外学者的重视。

本文整理了国外并购研究的几项重要成果，包括并购公司高管的壕沟行为，并购企业间的关联董事、并购定价问题、并购双方的谈判能力、跨国并购、并购活动中的资本结构等问题。

对这些问题的理解，有助于我们了解企业并购的实际，并有助于指导国内的并购研究。

二、文献综述Harford、Humphery-Jenner和Powell（2012）研究了从公司合并高管具有壕沟行为的视角来研究合并后价值降低的原因。

他们利用Gompers，Ishii and Metrick（2003）的GIM指数将公司划分为独裁公司（GIM≥10）和民主公司（GIM<10and CBRD=0）。

然后观察从1990年到2005年各年的收购情况。

总体而言，独裁公司的收购数目偏多，交易规模偏大，但是5天内CAR值反映较差。

并从合并者特征、被合并者特征以及交易特征三个方面比较了独公司和民主公司两者的差别，两者在公司规模、自由现金流、财务杠杆、成立时间、CEO两职合一、董事会规模、CEO持股等合并者特征方面存在显著差异；被合并者的规模也存在显著差异；此外，两者在交易特征方面也存在显著差异：独裁公司的交易类型更不可能是高科技型公司，更倾向于是多元化企业或企业集团。

独裁公司更可能成为连环收购者但是他们的收购溢价低于民主公司。

Harford等研究发现：（1）“壕沟”管理层会尽可能的合并公众公司，尽量避免合并私人企业之前的研究表明合并私人企业会导致价值上升而合并公众公司则很可能导致价值降低。

企业并购外文翻译文献(文档含中英文对照即英文原文和中文翻译)外文:Mergers and Acquisitions Basics :All You Need To KnowIntroduction to Mergers and AcquisitionsThe 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 shouldfail 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 AgentsBusinesses 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. ···································································································SynergySynergy 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 c an 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 averagefixed 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 orto 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.DiversificationBuying firms outside a company’s current prima ry 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 itsultimately 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 RealignmentThe strategic realignment theory suggests that firms use M&As to makerapid 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 ChangeThose 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 eachother’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 ChangeTechnological 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 boosttrading 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 petition 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 rat io 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 NorthAmerica. 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。

企业连续并购绩效研究的理论基础及国内外文献综述目录企业并购绩效研究的理论基础及国内外文献综述 (1)1.1概念界定 (1)1.1.1并购 (1)1.1.2连续并购 (2)1.1.3并购绩效 (2)1.2理论基础 (2)1.1.1协同效应理论 (2)1.1.2市场势力理论 (3)1.1.3经济增加值理论 (3)1.1.4托宾Q值理论 (3)1.3文献综述 (4)1.3.1连续并购 (4)1.3.2连续并购动因 (5)1.3.3连续并购绩效 (7)1.3.4连续并购绩效的评价方法 (8)1.3.5文献述评 (9)参考文献 (10)1.1概念界定1.1.1并购并购是兼并（Merger）与收购（Acquisition）的总称。

其中兼并（Merger）含有吸收合并、吞并之意，是指具有优势地位的企业吸收吞并另外一家或多家企业，获取目标公司的控制权并使其丧失法人资格的行为。

《国际财务报告准则第3号-企业合并》指出1，收购（Acquisition）则是指一家企业，即购买方支付对价购买另一方企业的股票或资产，以获得对该企业资产的所有权，或对该企业的控制权的行为。

总的来说，并购是指一家企业通过单次或分阶段运作，以获得其他企业控制权的经济活动。

根据并购双方在业务种类与市场地位方面的联系，并购可以分类为横向并购、纵向并购与混合并购。

其中，横向并购目的在于追求规模效应、扩大市场份额、提升企业行业地位等，并购双方往往有着相似的主营业务产品或服务；纵向并购的并购双方多位于同一产业链的上下游，彼此之间关系与联系密切，纵向并购的目的往往在于完善产业链、形成行业壁垒；混合并购则是指很少有业务或服务联系的企业之间的并购活动，可以帮助企业进入新行业，实现企业产品与服务的多样化。

1《国际财务报告准则》（International Financial Reporting Standards，IFRS），是由国际会计准则理事会（International Accounting Standards Board，IASB）制定的《财务报表编制与列报框架》及其它准则、解释公告。

本文档包括改专题的：外文文献、文献综述一、外文文献Financial synergy in mergers and acquisitions. Evidence from Saudi ArabiaAbstractBusinesses today consider mergers and acquisitions to be a new strategy for their company's growth. Companies aim to grow through increasing sales, purchasing assets, accumulating profits and gaining market share. Thus; the best way to achieve any of the above-mentioned targets is by getting into either a merger or an acquisition. As a matter of fact, growth through mergers and acquisitions has been a critical part of the success of many companies operating in the new economy. Mergers and acquisitions are an important factor in building up market capitalization. Based on three structured interviews with major Saudi Arabian banks it has been found that mergers motivated by economies of scale should be approached cautiously. Similarly, companies should also approach vertical mergers cautiously as it is often difficult to gain synergy through a vertical merger. Firms should seek out mergers that allow them to acquire specialized knowledge. It has also been found that firms should look for mergers that increase market power whilst avoiding unrelated mergers or conglomerate mergers.Keywords: Synergy, Mergers and Acquisitions, Saudi Arabia 1. IntroductionThere is a major difference between mergers and acquisitions. Mergers occur between similarly sized companies and the collaboration is "friendly" between both companies. However, Acquisitions often occur between differently sized companies and the partnership is usually forced and hostile.Wheelen and Hunger (2009) define a merger as a transaction involving two or more corporations in which stock is exchanged but in which only one corporation survives. In other words, the two companies become one and the name for the corporation becomes composite and is derived from the two original names. Furthermore, an acquisition is the purchase of a company that is completely absorbed as an operating subsidiary or divisionof the acquiring corporation (Wheelen and Hunger, 2009). The authors also state thathostile acquisitions are called takeovers.The main reason for firms entering into mergers and acquisitions (M&A) is to grow, andcompanies grow to survive (Akinbuli, 201 2). Growth strategies expand the company's activities and add to its value since larger firm have more bargaining power than smaller ones. A firm sustaining growth will always have more opportunities for advancement, promotions and more jobs to offer people (Wheelen and Hunger, 2009). In general, mergers and different types of acquisitions are performed in the hope of realizing an economic gain. For such a business deal to take place, the two firms involved must be worth more together than each was apart.A few of the prospective advantages of M&A include achieving economies of scale, combining complementary resources, garnering tax advantages, and eliminating inefficiencies. Other reasons for considering growth through acquisitions contain obtaining proprietary rights to products or services, increasing market power by purchasing competitors, shoring up weaknesses in key business areas, penetrating new geographic regions, or providing managers with new opportunities for career growth and advancement (Brown, 2005).Many firms choose M&A as a tool to expand into a new market or new area of expertise since it is quicker and cheaper than taking the risk alone. Furthermore, M&A happen when senior executives feel enthusiastic and excited about a potential deal ; the idea of successfully pursuing and taking over another company before the company s competitors are able to do so. Competition in a growing industry drives firms to acquire others. In fact, a successful merger between companies increases benefits for the entire corporation.However, failures also occur in M&A as indicated by Haberbserg and Rieple (2001) and Akinbuli (2012). They showed that 50% of acquisitions are unsuccessful; they increase market power but do not necessarily increase profits. Brown (2005) explains the reasons for the high failure rate of M&A as follows:(a)Over-optimistic assessment of economies of scale. Economies of scale are usually achieved at certain business size. However, expansion beyond the optimum level results in disproportionate cost disadvantages that lead to various diseconomies of scale.(b)Inadequate preliminary investigation combined with an inability to implement the amalgamation efficiently. Resistance to change and the inability for the acquired company to manage change well is a main reason for failure due to the resistance of the employees and management of both companies involved.(c)Insufficient appreciation of the personnel problems, which will arise, is due mainly to the differing organizational cultures in each company.(d)Dominance of subjective factors such as the status of the respective boards of directors.Therefore, drafting careful plans before and after the merger is a necessity that should not be overlooked. Some companies find the solution in hiring a change manager who will add value and better manage the transition of the "marriage between both companies" (Brown, 2005).2.Synergy in M&A and financial synergyThis section discusses the literature review in order to identify the importance of acquiring financial synergy in the M&A.2.1Synergy in M&ASynergy, as defined in the business dictionary, is the state in which two or more agents, entities, factors, processes, substances, or systems work together in a particularly fruitful way that produces an effect greater than the sum of their individual effects. Synergy is the magic force that allows for enhanced cost efficiencies of the new business. Synergy takes the form of revenue enhancement and cost savings (Mergers and acquisitions: Definition, n.d.).Synergy is also expressed as an increase in the value of assets as a result of their combination. Expected synergy is the justification behind most business mergers. For example, the 2002 combination of Hewlett-Packard and Compaq was designed to reduce expenses and capitalize on combining Hewlett-Packard's reputation for quality with Compaq's impressive distribution system (Synergy Business Definition, n.d.).Through research it has been noted that synergy is the concept that two businesses will generate greater profits together than they could separately (Wheelen and Hunger, 2009). Synergy is said to exist for a divisional corporation if the return on investment of each division is greater than what the return would be if each division were an independent business (Wheelen and Hunger, 2009). In order to succeed cooperation between the partners is the basic ingredient for achieving growth through synergy (Rahatullah, 201 0). This requires partners to build trust, commitment, and secure consensus, to achieve their targets (Gronroos, 1997; Ring and Van-de-Ven, 1994).Synergy can take several forms. According to Goold and Campbell (1 998) synergy is demonstrated in six ways: benefiting from knowledge or skills, coordinated strategies,shared tangible resources, economies of scale, gaining bargaining power over suppliers and creating new products or services.M8<A result in the creation of synergies, the sharing of manufacturing facilities, software systems and distribution processes. This type of synergy is referred to as operational synergy and is seen mostly in manufacturing industries. Another motive for forming an acquisition is gaining greater financial strength by purchasing a competitor, which increases market share. The aim of mergers and acquisitions is to achieve improvement for both companies and produce efficiency in most of the company's operations. (Haberberg and Rieple, 2001).However, Brown (2005) summarizes the sources of synergy that result from M8<A underthe following headlines:1.Operating economies which include:(a)Economies of scale: Horizontal mergers (acquisition of a company in a similarline of business) are often claimed to reduce costs and therefore increase profits due to economies of scale. These can occur in the production, marketing or finance divisions.Note that these gains are not expected automatically and diseconomies of scale may also be experienced. These benefits are sometimes also claimed for conglomerate mergers(acquisition of companies in unrelated areas of business) in financial and marketingcosts.(b)Economies of vertical integration: Some acquisitions involve buying out other companies in the same production chain. For example, a manufacturer buys out a rawmaterial supplier or a retailer. This can increase profits through eliminating the middleman in the supply chain.(c)Complementary resources: It is sometimes argued that by combining the strengths of two companies a synergistic result can be obtained. For example, combining a company specializing in research and development with a company strong in the marketing area could lead to gains. Combining the expertise of both firms would benefit each company through the gained knowledge and skills that individually they lack.(d)Elimination of inefficiency: If either of the two companies had been badly managed; its performance and hence its value can be improved by the elimination of inefficiencies through M&A, Improvements could be obtained in the areas of production, marketing and finance.2.Market power; Horizontal mergers may enable the firm to obtain a degree of monopoly power which could increase its profitability. Coordinated strategies between both companies will lead the entire organization in gaining competitive advantage. Gaining bargaining power over suppliers is realized since the company is larger in size after the merger.3.Financial gains; Companies with large amounts of surplus cash may see the acquisition of other companies as the best application for these funds. Shared tangible resources such as sharing a bigger building, more office supplies, equipment, manufacturing facilities and research and design labs will also lead to a reduction in costs translated into better financial performance. McNeil (2012) identifies that the shareholders of a business under M&A process may benefit from the sale of their stocks, this is especially true if the M&A is with a better, bigger and more reputable prospective partner.4.Others; such as surplus management talent, meaning that companies with highly skilled managers can make use of their qualified personnel only if they have problems to solve. The acquisition of inefficient companies allows for maximum utilization of skilled managers. Incorporating the efforts of both management teams will drive the creation of innovative products or services.The synergy factor prevails in the M&A when the firms produce a greater return than the two individual firms owing to reasons such as improvements in efficiency and an increase in market power for the merged or acquired firms (Berkovitch and Narayana, 1993).2.2Financial synergyAs defined by Knoll (2008), financial synergies are performance advantages gained by controlling financial resources across businesses of firms. There exist four types of financial synergies, which are:1.Reduction of corporate risk: Reduction of corporate risk is increasing the risk capacity of the overall firm, which means the ability of the firm to bear more risk. Meaning that by increasing the risk capacity the shareholders will invest more in the company and the firm will gain benefits such as coinsurance effects.2.Establishment of internal capital market: Establishing internal capital gains means that the firm will decrease its financing costs and will increase financialflexibility which results in the company having higher liquidity and the ability to payits creditors easily.3.Tax advantages: Tax advantages by reducing the tax liabilities of the firm using the losses in one business to offset profits in the other business referred to as "profit accounting".4.Financial economies of scale: Financial economies of scale reducing transaction cost in issuing debt and equity securities (Knoll, 2008).3.Methodology and resultsFor this project, the method of interviews was used due to it being the most appropriate way to gather information about the interpretation of events, as to why some mergers produce synergy while others do not; and to understand the reasons why companies enter into mergers. In Saudi Arabia it is difficult to secure responses from senior executives. Approaching such a person is not only difficult protocol wise but there are bureaucratic hurdles. The quantitative analysis is more suitable for large scale data collection (Denzin and Lincoln, 1997). Whereas, qualitative research provides the researcher with the perspective of target audience members through captivation and direct interaction with the people under study (Glesne and Peshkin, 1992). These methods help to comprehend what others perceive of a certain phenomenon, postulates Creswell (1994).The planned interview method was to use a structured interview. In a structured interview, the researcher knows in advance what information is needed and asks a predetermined set of questions (Sekaran and Bougie, 2009). The same questions are asked of all interviewees, which allows for better comparison of the responses than unstructured interviews, where the interviewees are asked different questions. The structured interview process does allow the researcher to ask different follow up or probing questions based on the interviewee's response. This allows the interviewer to identify new factors and gain a deeper understanding of the topic (Sekaran and Bougie, 2009).Since the interviewees were located in different parts of Saudi Arabia the interviews were scheduled in advance and conducted face to face. The data was gathered by taking notes during the interviews, which were not recorded as that may have seemed too intrusive.When conducting interviews it is important to conduct them in a manner that is free of bias or inaccuracies. According to Sekaran and Bougie (2009), bias can be introduced by theinterviewer, interviewee or the situation. Interviewers can introduce bias by distorting the information that they hear so it aligns with their expected responses to the question or through simple misunderstandings. To prevent this, the respondents' answers were summarized back to them before moving on to the next question. Interviewees can introduce bias if they do not like the interviewer or if they phrase the answers to be biased towards what they think the interviewer wants to hear. Since the interviewees were obtained through referrals, it is highly unlikely that they gave false responses. Also, the basic area of research was discussed with the interviewees, but no hypothesis was advance to them, such that they would skew their answers to what they though the interviewer wanted to hear.Three companies were interviewed and asked a specific set of questions (see Appendix). There are numerous reasons to interview three companies in Saudi Arabia. These are the following:*The M&A in Saudi Arabia are normally carried out by large size companies.*It is difficult to reach out to the senior managers to discuss such issues.*The officers are also tied by company confidentiality rules to not divulge information.*The number of M&A is also significantly less in comparison with other countries.*The researchers, using diverse resources including personal contacts and formal requests, were able to reach out to three of the major companies of the Kingdom.An interview was conducted with National Commercial Bank (NCB) NCB is an international bank headquartered in Saudi Arabia and engaged in personal, business and private banking, and wealth management (NCB, 2011 ). Another interview was done with Samba Financial Group. Samba is also an international bank headquartered in Saudi Arabia that is engaged in personal and business banking (Samba, 2011). The third company that was interviewed was Savola Holding Company, which is headquartered in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia and is engaged in the food industry. Through subsidiary companies, Savola is engaged in the manufacturing of vegetable oils, dairy products and food retailing operations both in Saudi Arabia and other international markets. Due to strict confidentiality of the companies interviewed, the names of the people will not be mentioned or their titles. This was the most important condition in order to conduct these interviews.Each of the three companies has been involved in significant mergers. NCB's most significant merger was when it acquired a Turkish bank, Turkiye Finans Katilm Bank in 2008.Samba's most significant merger was its acquisition of Cairo Bank in 1 999. Savola's most significant acquisition was its acquisition of Al-Marai in 1 991.NCB has engaged in four mergers overall and three international mergers. In addition to its acquisition of the Turkish bank, it acquired Estate Capital Holdings, The Capital Partnership Group Limited and NCB Capital. The acquisition oftheTurkish bank was considered its most successful acquisition because it allowed NCB to expand into a new international market with strong growth.While NCB does not consider any of its acquisitions to be a failure, it has recognized losses through goodwill impairment, even in the Turkish bank acquisition. Samba's most prominent M8<A has been with Cairo bank of Egypt.Savola has engaged in about 10 mergers including a few international mergers. It considers its acquisition of Panda (a supermarket chain) in 1998 to be its most successful because it allowed Savola to gain a major presence in the food retailing market and increases revenues significantly. Savola has had a couple of mergers that it considered to be failures. One such example was when it acquired a real estate company in Jordan. This company was outside Savola's core business and outside its home country. Savola's learning from this failure was not to invest outside its core business in a foreign country as there was no ability to create any value through this merger and it was investing in a country that it did not know as well as its home country. Another failed merger occurred when it acquired an edible oil company in Kazakhstan. This merger failed because even though the acquired company had good fundamentals, the value creation mechanisms were quite different between the two companies.Strategic motivations for mergers were discussed with the companies and Samba provided details. One motivation is to increase lines of business. Another motivation is to move into a new geographic area. In many cases when expanding into a new country, it is easier to acquire an existing business than try to start a new one. Another motivation is to increase market share.Particularly in a mature industry, a company can gain market share quickly through an acquisition, while it is usually a slow process to gain market share organically in an incremental manner.All the companies tried to achieve company growth and synergy in their mergers.The criteria and selection process for mergers were also discussed with the companies. Savola worked with financial institutions to identify acquisition target companies. Savola looked for companies that were among the leaders in their respective markets. Savola believed that companies that were leaders generally had good processes and were well managed, so their operations would be good to acquire. After the failed merger with the real estate company, Savola looked to acquire companies related to its core food manufacturing and sales business. All companies obviously reviewed financial statements closely to assess the financial condition of the acquired firm. Samba noted that sometimes in the banking and financial industry, strong banks will acquire banks that are in a weak financial condition in a rescue operation, often due to political reasons. In reviewing candidates for a merger, Savola engages its operations and technical team to assess the target company's operation, processes and potential fit into the business group.The three interviewed companies use various metrics to evaluate the success of the merger. Savola evaluates the revenue growth of the sector where the acquisition occurred along with the market share and operating cost. The goals are to increase revenue,increase market share or reduce operating cost. Samba evaluated similar metrics of market share and operating cost.Samba noted that it usually takes until the second year after a merger to evaluateits success. In the first year, there are onetime costs associated with integration costs of the merger. It usually takes until the second year to see reduced operating costs from activities such as closing and consolidating branches.The different ways to obtain synergy in a merger were discussed with the companies. Savola looked to obtain synergy through economies of scale, as acquisitions would add to the company's shipment volume, which would allow the company to reduce freight and distribution costs. Samba also looked to obtain synergy through economies of scale and eliminating the duplication of activities. When it acquired Cairo bank, which had previously acquired United Saudi Commercial Bank, Samba was able to cut costs in Saudi Arabia by reducing the number of bank branches and ATMs. NCB was able to gain financial synergies in its mergers by developing a more diversified and lower risk portfolio ofinvestments.From the responses to the questions included in the structured interview, thefollowing findings can be highlighted:A.Mergers to Expand to International Markets:One finding is that firms undertake some mergers to expand into new international markets. In doing so they are gaining the synergy of the acquired firm's knowledge of the market. In these cases, the acquiring firm saves the costs of starting up a business in the new country, gaining the necessary approvals, learning how to do business successfully in the market and building a brand in the country. This is especially true in the bank and finance industry, where the industry is closely regulated. It can be easier to acquire a company that already has all of the necessary regulatory approvals as opposed to trying to gain all of the necessary approvals to conduct business legally in the selected market. Also, building a brand is important in the banking industry, as consumers and commercial customers prefer to do business with a trusted firm. In these mergers, synergy can be gained through the acquired firm's knowledge of the market and the acquiring firm's capital. The new infusion of capital can often allow the acquired firm to grow in the market. The NCB acquisition of the Turkish bank is a good example of this type of synergy.Even when a firm acquires a company within their own market there is the chance to create synergies through knowledge gained and transferred. In many cases, the acquired firm has certain processes in some areas that are better than the acquiring firm, so selecting the best process allows the merged firm to improve its overall processes. Also, the acquiring company usually has some processes that are better than the acquired firm's processes in some areas, which allows the company to improve the newly acquired operations. As noted by Samba in its interview, the goal is to utilize the optimum processes from both companies to produce synergy from the merger.B.Mergers to Gain Economies of Scale:Firms also seek and gain synergies through economies of scale. Larger businesses can often gain economies in certain business activities including manufacturing, distribution and sales. One of the goals of Samba's mergers was to gain synergies through economies of scale. In their mergers, Savola hoped to gain economies of scale in shipping and distribution activities. Economies of scale can also be achieved in the banking industry since the cost of processing checks or issuing credit cards is likely to decline on a per unit basis with increasing volume; therefore the fixed cost associated with these activities can be spread over a larger volume. The result is reduced costs, which makes the merged firm more profitable and more competitive in the market.C.Eliminating Inefficiencies:Another way to achieve synergy is through elimination of inefficiencies. Removing the duplication of resources can eliminate inefficiencies. In horizontal mergers, it is common for the merged company to consolidate operations, close offices and reduce staff. Samba mentioned that reducing the number of bank branches, ATMs and staff was one of the ways that they drove cost efficiencies after acquiring Cairo Bank. Samba also provided the insight that there is a delay for these cost efficiencies to show up in financial performance, since it takes time to remove the duplication of resources involved and there are one-time costs associated with removing the duplication of resources. The official also pointed out that the success or failure of a merger should not be evaluated until at least two years after the merger.D.Gain More Market Power:Firms also try to achieve synergies through an increase in market power, by controlling a larger share of the market. Discussions with all respondents implied increasing market share to be one of the motivations to enter into a merger. Savola and Samba both mentioned increasing market share as a way to judge the success of a merger. Greater market power can improve profitability through a couple of mechanisms. One such mechanism is greater monopoly pricing power in the market, which allows firms to increase prices due to reduced competition. This is one reason that major mergers have to be approved by government regulators who s objective is to maintain a competitive market. A second mechanism is increased buyer power over suppliers. Since the merged firm represents a greater portion of an industry's business, suppliers to the industry want the merged firm's business more, which gives the merged firm better negotiating power over suppliers. This allows the merged firm to reduce its costs and increase it profits. However, a strategic perspective could be on the supplier side as Porter (1 998) identifies that the stronger the company becomes the weaker the supplier becomes thus reducing their bargaining power.E.Gain Growth:Growth is one of the main reasons that firms undertake mergers, as this was mentioned by all of the companies interviewed. Companies seek growth through mergers because it can allow them to gain market power, which generally leads to increased profits. Mergers are also a way to satisfy investors'/shareholders' expectations for growth. In many cases, itis difficult to grow a business in a mature market organically, so mergers are often the best way to achieve growth.Samba provided a perspective on the use of acquisitions as a growth strategy. Samba believed that within the same industry organic growth was less expensive than growth through acquisition because a premium had to be paid for another company's operations in the same industry. Samba believed that when trying to expand into a different industry, growth through acquisition was less expensive than organic growth because the firm had no knowledge or expertise in the new industry. Samba used this philosophy when formulating their strategic growth plans. If the company simply wanted to expand within their current industry, the focus would be on organic growth initiatives, whereas if the company wanted to grow by expanding into new industries, the focus would be on acquisitions.F.Reducing RisksFirms can gain synergies by reducing their overall risk through diversification and reducing their cost of capital. Generally, this is a weak form of synergy and prone to failures because it often entails firms moving into businesses outside of their core competencies. The businesses are then run without the knowledge of how to run a business successfully in that market. This leads to operational losses or subpar performance in the industry, which negates any synergistic gains from reducing the company's overall risk.This was experienced by Savola, who acquired a real estate company, which was outside its core business of the food market. Consequently, the acquired real estate business produced subpar performance and losses, which negated any gains from reducing risk. Thus, the merger was considered to be a failure because it reduced the overall value of the firm. Due to the difficulties of creating financial synergies through diversification, there are few conglomerate mergers and few conglomerate companies.The companies interviewed look for synergies when considering mergers and try to estimate the potential synergistic gains that could be attained in a proposed merger. The potential synergies gained depend on the industry and the characteristics of the company acquired. In the failed mergers, the firm overestimated the amount of synergy that could be gained through the merger. Savola overestimated the synergy that could be gained through the acquisition of a real estate company because the only synergy that could be gained was。