With reference to your own research do you think that takeovers and mergers inevitably improve the performances of the businesses involved?

Mergers and takeovers are similar corporate actions combing two previous separate firms now formed into one legal entity. A takeover revolves around gaining control of something, especially the buying out of one firm/company by another while a merger contrasts as it includes a combination of firms where there is a mutual agreement of two companies to combine and become one entity. At first glance it may be viewed that takeovers and mergers will certainly really benefit all firms and performances of business involved will improve although there are lots of considerable aspects involved in both takeovers and mergers that must be identified and may highlight that businesses will certainly benefit from takeovers and mergers. It is also important to recognise and define what is actually meant by ‘performance’ or firms. Performance or business often revolves around quantifiable terms used to assess how well a firm is achieving its objectives. Many businesses can often measure its performance in terms of obviously its revenue, market share, market capitalism (culminative value of all shares), production, demand and operating efficiency in order to get more sense of how their business is operating and whether and improvements are required but they may also measure the performance of a business in more tangible terms including its innovation, motivation and capability within that business. This really underlines there are a whole variety of methods in which businesses can measure its performances that have to be considered especially in relation to mergers and takeovers. For example, as opposed to quantitative figures, many firms may really prioritise its CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) which really cares and considers the stakeholder’s interests. In Firms and takeover’s businesses should still definitely consider having strong department surrounding CSR because a company with strong reputation of prioritising all stakeholder’s needs will really enhance the firms image however businesses really focusing on CSR may distract them from their long term objectives and keeping investors content and engaged with the business.
A pivotal motive behind takeovers and mergers is that two plus two makes three, this may sound unusual but this term is called a ‘synergy’ which is a fundamental concept in relation to mergers and takeovers in which the performance and value of two companies combined will be greater than the sum of the separate individual parts. Synergies can be extremely beneficial for firms including saving money on establishing the brand, along with gaining access to skilled workers already in the industry which bring invaluable knowledge of expertise in specific markets/industries although these skilled workers are likely to be expensive to acquire and this contradicts one o the primary objectives of both takeovers and mergers, to increase efficiency but also vitally to reduce lower unit costs. A recent example of a progression in a takeover between firms and firms benefitting from a merge/takeover was between Beer giants AB InBev and SABMiller. SABMiller stated it had agreed in principle a £44-a-share offer, after our attempts from InBev. If the deal, worth approximately £70billion, comes to fruition, the newly created firm will make around an astonishing 30% of the world’s beer. Potential reasons behind SABMiller’s takeover include the use of synergies as previously discussed, the ability to exploit new markets, potentially the beer market in Africa. SAB Miller’s African brands are interestingly one o the main reasons AB InBev is so keen for this merge, the African Market is very appealing because the African Middle Class, an army of consumers that all major brewing companies have been keeping an eye on because African beer drinkers have become more prosperous in recent times, crucially they have moved out of the informal home-brewing market and begin to start purchasing branded beer. The collation between AB InBev and SABMiller illustrate just how beneficial a merge can be or businesses involved in them. In addition a considerable advantage of mergers and takeovers is that it can often generate cost efficiency through economies of scale, and this can enhance the revenue gained through market share. A significant advantage of large economies of scale for businesses involved in mergers or takeovers are the reduced cost per unit of production. However it is noteworthy that despite this evident and appealing feature involved in mergers and takeovers ‘diseconomies of scales’ can arise from mergers and takeovers. This concepts refers to a scenario in economies of scale don’t actually work or a firm and rather than having decreased costs per unit of production firms actually see an increase in marginal cost when output increases. This is important for a business to consider because diseconomies of scale can result in increased average costs of production in the long run, which is very short termist and doesn’t share the ambitions of being more efficient that is common with mergers and takeovers.
The contrast in cultures of companies can also be problematic within mergers and takeovers. Culture consists of the long standing shared values, belies and ideologies that influence behaviour, attitudes and meaning on a company. Poor cultures within business can have severe implications, when managers are unethical, employees will emulate this poor behaviour and this unethical environment will certainly not help the performances o the business. Lack of teamwork and collaboration will limit the company’s potential in contrast to if there was strong ethical rules used universally within a business, the positive culture will really help with co-operation and really boost productivity and morale within that business. An example of a merger that was effectively ruined by a contrast in cultures was in 2001 when struggling computing giant Hewlett Packard (HP) announced it would acquire similarly struggling competitor Compaq. The merger was ill-fated from the start, as critics pointed out how the HP engineering-driven culture was based on consensus (general agreements) while the sales-driven Compaq culture on rapid decision making. This poor cultural fit resulted in years of bitter infighting in the new company, and resulted in a loss of an estimated 13 billion dollars. To avoid any possible inflict in relation to a contrast in cultures it is essential for a business to emphasize its core values because businesses are more likely to reach the kind of growth and success they aspire too. A 'Hostile takeover' can also occur which refers to the acquisition of one company that is accomplished by directly targeting the company's shareholders as opposed to coming to an agreement with the target company's management.

In Conclusion while there are certainly positive aspects that benefit and help improve the performance of a business the negative aspects are certainly considerable and therefore highlights that not all businesses involved in mergers and takeovers performances will inevitably improve. Positive Aspects include economies of scale, new broader potential markets and crucially a real focus on synergies which is a pivotal concept behind takeovers because the performance and value of two companies combined will be greater than the total of the individual ones. However there can be too much focus on cost synergies and this can potentially damage growth and negatively impact revenue, along with another considerable potential negative impact of mergers and takeovers that are a contrast in culture that can really hinder the performances of businesses and cause inflict within them, to emphasize my views it is noteworthy that a considerable 65% of mergers ail to benefit from the acquiring company, proving that all businesses involved in a takeover or mergers performances will not inevitably improve.