Home / NEWS LINE / Biggest Merger and Acquisition Disasters

Biggest Merger and Acquisition Disasters

The helps of mergers and acquisitions (M&A) include, among others:

If a merger goes OK, the new company should appreciate in value as investors anticipate synergies to be actualized, fathering cost savings and/or increased revenue for the new entity.

However, time and again, officials face major stumbling blocks after the deal is consummated. Cultural squabbles and turf wars can prevent post-integration plans from being rightly executed. Different systems and processes, dilution of a company’s brand, overestimation of synergies and absence of understanding of the target firm’s business can all occur, destroying shareholder value and slackening the company’s stock price after the transaction. This article dole outs a few examples of busted deals in recent history. (Learn what corporate restructuring is, why bands do it and why it sometimes doesn’t work in The Basics Of Mergers And Acquisitions.)

New York Middle and Pennsylvania Railroad

In 1968, the New York Central and Pennsylvania railroads coalesced to form Penn Central, which became the sixth largest corporation in America. But unbiased two years later, the company shocked Wall Street by filing for bankruptcy refuge, making it the largest corporate bankruptcy in American history at the time. (For agnate reading, see An Overview Of Corporate Bankruptcy.)

The railroads, which were cutting industry rivals, both traced their roots back to the early- to mid-nineteenth century. Control pushed for a merger in a somewhat desperate attempt to adjust to disadvantageous looks in the industry. Railroads operating outside of the northeastern U.S. generally enjoyed immutable business from long-distance shipments of commodities, but the densely populated Northeast, with its concentration of dark industries and various waterway shipping points, had a more diverse returns stream. Local railroads catered to daily commuters, longer-distance fares, express freight service and bulk freight service. These oblations provided transportation at shorter distances and resulted in less-predictable, higher-risk coin of the realm flow for the Northeast-based railroads.

Problems had been growing throughout the decade, as an increasing million of consumers and businesses began to favor, respectively, driving and trucking, handling the newly constructed wide-lane highways. Short-distance transportation also confused more personnel hours (thus incurring higher labor costs), and firm government regulation restricted railroad companies’ ability to adjust take to tasks charged to shippers and passengers, making post-merger cost-cutting seemingly the only way to definitely impact the bottom line. Of course, the resultant declines in service just exacerbated the loss of customers.

Penn Central presents a classic pack of cost-cutting as “the only way out” in a constrained industry, but this was not the only factor contributing to the its demise. Other pretty pickles included poor foresight and long-term planning on behalf of both societies’ management and boards, overly optimistic expectations for positive changes after the amalgamation, culture clash, territorialism and poor execution of plans to integrate the throngs’ differing processes and systems. (Learn why a merger and acquisition advisor is over the best choice when selling companies in Owners Can Be Deal Slayers In M&A.)

Quaker Oats and Snapple

Quaker Oats successfully managed the considerably popular Gatorade drink and thought it could do the same with Snapple’s acclaimed bottled teas and juices. In 1994, despite warnings from Rampart Street that the company was paying $1 billion too much, the players acquired Snapple for a purchase price of $1.7 billion. In addition to overpaying, top brass broke a fundamental law in mergers and acquisitions: Make sure you know how to run the train and bring specific value-added skills sets and expertise to the operation. In only just 27 months, Quaker Oats sold Snapple to a holding visitors for a mere $300 million, or a loss of $1.6 million for each day that the public limited company owned Snapple. By the time the divestiture took place, Snapple had takings of approximately $500 million, down from $700 million at the control that the acquisition took place. (Read Mergers And Acquisitions: Violate Ups to learn how splitting up a company can benefit investors.)

Quaker Oats’ directorate thought it could leverage its relationships with supermarkets and large retailers; anyway, about half of Snapple’s sales came from smaller leads, such as convenience stores, gas stations and related independent distributors. The receiving management also fumbled on Snapple’s advertising, and the differing cultures moved into a disastrous marketing campaign for Snapple that was championed by directors not attuned to its branding sensitivities. Snapple’s previously popular advertisements became water down with inappropriate marketing signals to customers. While these demands befuddled Quaker Oats, gargantuan rivals Coca-Cola (KO) and PepsiCo :PEP) boated a barrage of competing new products that ate away at Snapple’s positioning in the beverage supermarket. (Read about the importance of memorable advertising in Advertising, Crocodiles And Moats.)

Oddly, there is a auspicious aspect to this flopped deal (as in most flopped deals): The acquirer was clever to offset its capital gains elsewhere with losses generated from the bad proceeding. In this case, Quaker Oats was able to recoup $250 million in majuscule gains taxes it paid on prior deals, thanks to losses from the Snapple getting. This still left a huge chunk of destroyed equity value, how on earth. (To learn how to offset capital gains at the individual level, read Pursue Out Past Losses To Uncover Future Gains.)

America Online and Occasion Warner

The consolidation of AOL Time Warner is perhaps the most prominent fusing failure ever. Warner Communications merged with Time, Inc. in 1990. In 2001, America Online come by Time Warner in a megamerger for $165 billion – the largest business emulsion up until that time. Respected executives at both companies requested to capitalize on the convergence of mass media and the internet.

Shortly after the megamerger, how in the world, the dot-com bubble burst, which caused a significant reduction in the value of the South African private limited company’s AOL division. In 2002, the company reported an astonishing loss of $99 billion, the brawniest annual net loss ever reported, attributable to the goodwill write-off of AOL. (Decipher more in Impairment Charges: The Good, The Bad And The Ugly and Can You Count On Goodwill?)

Everywhere this time, the race to capture revenue from internet search-based advertising was earnestness up. AOL missed out on these and other opportunities, such as the emergence of higher-bandwidth influences, due to financial constraints within the company. At the time, AOL was the leader in dial-up Internet access; then, the company pursued Time Warner for its cable division as high-speed broadband kin became the wave of the future. However, as its dial-up subscribers dwindled, Delay Warner stuck to its Road Runner internet service provider degree than market AOL.

With their consolidated channels and business pieces, the combined company also did not execute on converged content of mass mid and the internet. Additionally, AOL executives realized that their know-how in the internet sector did not spell out to capabilities in running a media conglomerate with 90,000 employees. And completely, the politicized and turf-protecting culture of Time Warner made realizing intercepted synergies that much more difficult. In 2003, amidst internal bitterness and external embarrassment, the company dropped “AOL” from its name and simply became recognized as Time Warner. (To read more about this M&A failure, see Use Breakup Value To Encounter Undervalued Companies.)

Sprint and Nextel Communications

In August 2005, Sprint obtained a majority stake in Nextel Communications in a $35 billion stock purchase. The two mingled to become the third largest telecommunications provider, behind AT&T (T) and Verizon (VZ). Whilom before to the merger, Sprint catered to the traditional consumer market, providing long-distance and resident phone connections and wireless offerings. Nextel had a strong following from houses, infrastructure employees and the transportation and logistics markets, primarily due to the press-and-talk columns of its phones. By gaining access to each other’s customer bases, both comrades hoped to grow by cross-selling their product and service offerings.

Happily after the merger, multitudes of Nextel executives and mid-level managers red the company, citing cultural differences and incompatibility. Sprint was bureaucratic; Nextel was multifarious entrepreneurial. Nextel was attuned to customer concerns; Sprint had a horrendous famous for in customer service, experiencing the highest churn rate in the industry. In such a commoditized concern, the company did not deliver on this critical success factor and lost shop share. Further, a macroeconomic downturn led customers to expect more from their dollars.

Cultural matters exacerbated integration problems between the various business functions. Nextel wage-earners often had to seek approval from Sprint’s higher-ups in implementing corrective affrays, and the lack of trust and rapport meant many such measures were not approved or implemented properly. Early in the merger, the two companies maintained separate headquarters, garnering coordination more difficult between executives at both camps.

Sprint Nextel’s (S) heads and employees diverted attention and resources toward attempts at making the union work at a time of operational and competitive challenges. Technological dynamics of the wireless and Internet connections desired smooth integration between the two businesses and excellent execution amid faithful change. Nextel was simply too big and too different for a successful combination with Sprint.

Sprint saw solid competitive pressures from AT&T (which acquired Cingular), Verizon (VZ) and Apple’s (AAPL) wildly fashionable iPhone. With the decline of cash from operations and with squiffy capital-expenditure requirements, the company undertook cost-cutting measures and laid off hands. In 2008, it wrote off an astonishing $30 billion in one-time charges due to enfeeblement to goodwill, and its stock was given a junk status rating. With a $35 billion figure tag, the merger clearly did not pay off.

The Bottom Line

When contemplating a deal, overseers at both companies should list all the barriers to realizing enhanced shareholder value after the dealing is completed.

  • Cultural clashes between the two entities often mean that workers do not execute post-integration plans.
  • As redundant functions often result in layoffs, startled employees will act to protect their own jobs, as opposed to helping their companies “realize synergies.”
  • Additionally, differences in systems and processes can make the concern combination difficult and often painful right after the merger.

Bosses at both entities need to communicate properly and champion the post-integration milestones cautiously by step. They also need to be attuned to the target company’s branding and chap base. The new company risks losing its customers if management is perceived as supercilious and impervious to customer needs. (Read about the importance of branding to hiring market share in Competitive Advantage Counts.)

Finally, executives of the come into possession ofing company should avoid paying too much for the target company. Investment bankers (who manipulate on commission) and internal deal champions, both having worked on a inspected transaction for months, will often push for a deal “just to get dinguses done.” While their efforts should be recognized, it does not do impartiality to the acquiring group’s investors if the deal ultimately does not make sagacity and/or management pays an excessive acquisition price beyond the expected perks of the transaction.

For more postive news, see What Makes An M&A Deal Hold down a post?

Check Also

How do I create a trading strategy with Bollinger Bands® and the Relative Strength Indicator (RSI)?

A: Bollinger Ties are one of the most common volatility indicators used in technical stock …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *