Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 4


Biggest Merger and Acquisition Disasters

By Marv Dumon
Related Searches: Diversification, Exit Strategies, Retrenchment, Handing over to Joint Venture Partner, What Are the Advantages
of a Divestiture
The benefits of mergers and acquisitions (M&A) include, among others:
a diversification of product and service offerings
an increase in plant capacity
larger market share
utilization of operational expertise and research and development (R&D)
reduction of financial risk
If a merger goes well, the new company should appreciate in value as investors anticipate synergies to be actualized, creating cost
savings and/or increased revenue for the new entity.
However, time and again, executives face major stumbling blocks after the deal is consummated. Cultural clashes and turf wars
can prevent post-integration plans from being properly executed. Different systems and processes, dilution of a company's brand,
overestimation of synergies and lack of understanding of the target firm's business can all occur, destroying shareholder value and
decreasing the company's stock price after the transaction. This article presents a few examples of busted deals in recent history.
(Learn what corporate restructuring is, why companies do it and why it sometimes doesn't work in The Basics Of Mergers And
New York Central and Pennsylvania Railroad
In 1968, the New York Central and Pennsylvania railroads merged to form Penn Central, which became the sixth largest
corporation in America. But just two years later, the company shocked Wall Street by filing for bankruptcy protection, making it the
largest corporate bankruptcy in American history at the time. (For related reading, see Taking Advantage Of Corporate Decline and
An Overview Of Corporate Bankruptcy.)
The railroads, which were bitter industry rivals, both traced their roots back to the early- to mid-nineteenth century. Management
pushed for a merger in a somewhat desperate attempt to adjust to disadvantageous trends in the industry. Railroads operating
outside of the northeastern U.S. generally enjoyed stable business from long-distance shipments of commodities, but the densely-
populated Northeast, with its concentration of heavy industries and various waterway shipping points, created a more diverse and
dynamic revenue stream. Local railroads catered to daily commuters, longer-distance passengers, express freight service and bulk
freight service. These offerings provided transportation at shorter distances and resulted in less predictable, higher-risk cash flow for
the Northeast-based railroads. (Learn about the importance of commodities in the modern market in Commodities That Move The
Short-distance transportation also involved more personnel hours (thus incurring higher labor costs), and strict government
regulation restricted railroad companies' ability to adjust rates charged to shippers and passengers, making cost-cutting seemingly
the only way to positively impact the bottom line. Furthermore, an increasing number of consumers and businesses began to favor
newly constructed wide-lane highways.
The Penn Central case presents a classic case of post-merger cost-cutting as "the only way out" in a constrained industry, but this
was not the only factor contributing to Penn Central's demise. Other problems included poor foresight and long-term planning on
behalf of both companies' management and boards, overly optimistic expectations for positive changes after the combination,
culture clash, territorialism and poor execution of plans to integrate the companies' differing processes and systems. (Learn why a
merger and acquisition advisor is often the best choice when selling companies in Owners Can Be Deal Killers In M&A.)
Quaker Oats Company and Snapple Beverage Company
Quaker Oats successfully managed the widely popular Gatorade drink and thought it could do the same with Snapple. In 1994,
despite warnings from Wall Street that the company was paying $1 billion too much, the company acquired Snapple for a purchase
price of $1.7 billion. In addition to overpaying, management broke a fundamental law in mergers and acquisitions: make sure you
know how to run the company and bring specific value-added skills sets and expertise to the operation. In just 27 months, Quaker
Oats sold Snapple to a holding company for a mere $300 million, or a loss of $1.6 million for each day that the company owned
Snapple. By the time the divestiture took place, Snapple had revenues of approximately $500 million, down from $700 million at
the time that the acquisition took place. (Read Mergers And Acquisitions: Break Ups to learn how splitting up a company can benefit
Quaker Oats' management thought it could leverage its relationships with supermarkets and large retailers; however, about half of
Snapple's sales came from smaller channels, such as convenience stores, gas stations and related independent distributors. The
acquiring management also fumbled on Snapple's advertising campaign, and the differing cultures translated into a disastrous
marketing campaign for Snapple that was championed by managers not attuned to its branding sensitivities. Snapple's previously
popular advertisements became diluted with inappropriate marketing signals to customers. While these challenges befuddled Quaker
Oats, gargantuan rivals Coca-Cola (NYSE:KO) and PepsiCo (NYSE:PEP) launched a barrage of competing new products that ate
away at Snapple's positioning in the beverage market. (Read about the importance of memorable advertising in Advertising,
Crocodiles And Moats.)
Oddly, there is a positive aspect to this flopped deal (as in most flopped deals): the
acquirer was able to offset its capital gains elsewhere with losses generated from the bad
transaction. In this case, Quaker Oats was able to recoup $250 million in capital gains
taxes it paid on prior deals thanks to losses from the Snapple deal. This still left a huge
chunk of destroyed equity value, however. (To learn how to offset capital gains at the
individual level, read Seek Out Past Losses To Uncover Future Gains.)
America Online and Time Warner
The consolidation of AOL Time Warner is perhaps the most prominent merger failure ever.
Time Warner is the world's largest media and entertainment corporation, with 2007
revenues exceeding $46 billion.
The present company is a combination of three major business units:
Warner Communications merged with Time, Inc. in 1990.
In 2001, America Online acquired Time Warner in a megamerger for $165 billion - the largest business combination up until
that time.
Respected executives at both companies sought to capitalize on the convergence of mass media and the Internet. (Read about
how the Internet has changed the face of investing in The History Of Information Machines.)
Shortly after the megamerger, however, the dot-com bubble burst, which caused a significant reduction in the value of the
company's AOL division. In 2002, the company reported an astonishing loss of $99 billion, the largest annual net loss ever reported
by a company, attributable to the goodwill write-off of AOL. (Read more in Impairment Charges: The Good, The Bad And The Ugly
and Can You Count On Goodwill?)
Around this time, the race to capture revenue from Internet search-based advertising was heating up. AOL missed out on these
and other opportunities, such as the emergence of higher-bandwidth connections due to financial constraints within the company.
At the time, AOL was the leader in dial-up Internet access; thus, the company pursued Time Warner for its cable division as high-
speed broadband connection became the wave of the future. However, as its dial-up subscribers dwindled, Time Warner stuck to its
Road Runner Internet service provider rather than market AOL.
With their consolidated channels and business units, the combined company also did not execute on converged content of mass
media and the Internet. Additionally, AOL executives realized that their know-how in the Internet sector did not translate to
capabilities in running a media conglomerate with 90,000 employees. And finally, the politicized and turf-protecting culture of Time
Warner made realizing anticipated synergies that much more difficult. In 2003, amidst internal animosity and external
embarrassment, the company dropped "AOL" from its name and simply became known as Time Warner. (To read more about this
M&A failure, see Use Breakup Value To Find Undervalued Companies.)
Sprint and Nextel Communications
In August 2005, Sprint acquired a majority stake in Nextel Communications in a $35 billion stock purchase. The two combined to
become the third largest telecommunications provider, behind AT&T (NYSE:T) and Verizon (NYSE:VZ). Prior to the merger, Sprint
catered to the traditional consumer market, providing long-distance and local phone connections and wireless offerings. Nextel had
a strong following from businesses, infrastructure employees and the transportation and logistics markets, primarily due to the
press-and-talk features of its phones. By gaining access to each other's customer bases, both companies hoped to grow by cross-
selling their product and service offerings. (Read about the ideal outcome of a M&A deal in What Makes An M&A Deal Work?)
Five Chart Patterns you need to know
Soon after the merger, multitudes of Nextel executives and mid-level managers left the company, citing cultural differences and
incompatibility. Sprint was bureaucratic; Nextel was more entrepreneurial. Nextel was attuned to customer concerns; Sprint had a
horrendous reputation in customer service, experiencing the highest churn rate in the industry. In such a commoditized business,
the company did not deliver on this critical success factor and lost market share. Further, a macroeconomic downturn led
customers to expect more from their dollars.
Cultural concerns exacerbated integration problems between the various business functions. Nextel employees often had to seek
approval from Sprint's higher-ups in implementing corrective actions, and the lack of trust and rapport meant many such measures
were not approved or executed properly. Early in the merger, the two companies maintained separate headquarters, making
coordination more difficult between executives at both camps.
Sprint Nextel's (NYSE:S) managers and employees diverted attention and resources toward attempts at making the combination
work at a time of operational and competitive challenges. Technological dynamics of the wireless and Internet connections required
smooth integration between the two businesses and excellent execution amid fast change. Nextel was simply too big and too
different for a successful combination with Sprint.
Sprint saw stiff competitive pressures from AT&T (which acquired Cingular), Verizon and Apple's (Nasdaq:AAPL) wildly popular
iPhone. With the decline of cash from operations and with high capital-expenditure requirements, the company undertook cost-
cutting measures and laid off employees. In 2008, the company wrote off an astonishing $30 billion in one-time charges due to
impairment to goodwill, and its stock was given a junk status rating. With a $35 billion price tag, the merger clearly did not pay off.
(Read about the implications of this label in What Is A Corporate Credit Rating?)
When contemplating a deal, managers at both companies should list all the barriers to realizing enhanced shareholder value after
the transaction is completed.
Cultural clashes between the two entities often mean that employees do not execute post-integration plans.
As redundant functions often result in layoffs, scared employees will act to protect their own jobs, as opposed to helping their
employers "realize synergies".
Additionally, differences in systems and processes can make the business combination difficult and often painful right after the
Managers at both entities need to communicate properly and champion the post-integration milestones step by step. They also
need to be attuned to the target company's branding and customer base. The new company risks losing its customers if
management is perceived as aloof and impervious to customer needs. (Read about the importance of branding to retaining market
share in Competitive Advantage Counts.)
Finally, executives of the acquiring company should avoid paying too much for the target company. Investment bankers (who work
on commission) and internal deal champions, both having worked on a contemplated transaction for months, will often push for a
deal "just to get things done." While their efforts should be recognized, it does not do justice to the acquiring group's investors if
the deal ultimately does not make sense and/or management pays an excessive acquisition price beyond the expected benefits of
the transaction.
For further reading, see The Merger - What To Do When Companies Converge, Trade Takeover Stocks With Merger Arbitrage and
Mergers And Acquisitions - Another Tool For Traders.
Trade Like a Top Hedge Fund
What can technical traders see that you dont? Investopedia presents Five Chart Patterns You Need to Know, your guide to
technical trading like the pros. Click here to get started, and learn how to read charts like an industry veteran.
You May Also Like
Sponsored Content by nRelate
These 7 Things Trigger Alzheimers in
Your Brain. See list.
Newsmax Health
Nuclear Missile Architect Discovers
Invisible Stock Market Patterns
The Most Corrupt Countries in the World
24/7 Wall St.
Business Grads, Land Your Dream Job Patents Are Assets, So Learn How To
Value Them
Economic Moats: A Successful
Company's Best Defense