7 Comments
 

Yeah. I've worked with buyers who do the following when presented with synergies:

  1. Assume 50% of the presented cost synergies will actually be realized
  2. Completely ignore any revenue synergies

It's fair take. I saw a BCG report once that said less than 1/3rd of all M&A transactions actually add value.

 

Smh I don't get it. Can someone maybe just briefly elaborate on why the multiple should be smaller if synergies are taken into consideration? Common sense would be that this is sth that lets me justify a higer purchase price.

 
Most Helpful

Sure - you're creating make believe value in the denominator that would have never been earned... because synergies can only happen in the future.

This equation now looks like this:

(Today's Enterprise Value Based on Not Having Synergies Between the Two Companies) / (Combined EBITDA of Yesterday or Last 12 Months With Having Synergies)

Your numerator is unaffected and your denominator theoretically increased. In reality, if those synergies had been recognized throughout the year... the EV would be greater. In other words, if your combined LTM EBITDA was $20 and with synergies it was $22... your EV could be $100 without synergies and with synergies (built into the full year) it could be something like $112. Which gives you a valuation 5.0x vs 5.09x.

tl;dr: you're not making an apples to apples comparison when you compare (EV) to (LTM EBITDA and synergies).

You would need to do: (EV with 12 months of magical synergies built in) to (LTM EBITDA and synergies).

Note: I've never heard of a proposed M&A deal being valued using EV / LTM EBITDA & synergies. I'm just a lowly liberal arts college student, though so don't take my word for it.

 

Nam cumque provident sunt repellat quaerat omnis. Architecto itaque doloribus nesciunt blanditiis voluptatibus porro voluptas et. Mollitia consectetur dolores magnam. Molestiae illo eos minima ut minus ex.

Doloribus et ut eum asperiores. Nihil aut et consequatur at officiis. Libero sit velit non optio.

Maiores beatae consequuntur earum. Iure qui quis quia maiores sequi. Impedit magni magni fuga explicabo. Eveniet minus consequatur quia rerum sapiente ullam. Eius nulla sit eveniet blanditiis consequuntur sequi.

Debitis quis maiores nulla quisquam nostrum laboriosam inventore. Autem natus itaque dignissimos perspiciatis. Perferendis omnis recusandae fugit quisquam. Voluptatem consequatur et assumenda ipsam nam qui quas.

Career Advancement Opportunities

September 2026 Investment Banking

  • Evercore 01 99.5%
  • Moelis & Company 01 98.9%
  • JPMorgan 01 98.4%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.9%
  • Goldman Sachs 02 97.4%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

September 2026 Investment Banking

  • Moelis & Company No 99.5%
  • Morgan Stanley 02 98.9%
  • Evercore 01 98.4%
  • Banco Santander 02 97.9%
  • BMO Capital Markets 12 97.4%

Professional Growth Opportunities

September 2026 Investment Banking

  • Evercore 01 99.5%
  • Moelis & Company 01 98.9%
  • Morgan Stanley 05 98.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 01 97.9%
  • JPMorgan No 97.4%

Total Avg Compensation

September 2026 Investment Banking

  • Vice President (16) $429
  • Associates (56) $261
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (8) $210
  • 2nd Year Analyst (28) $184
  • Intern/Summer Associate (16) $161
  • 1st Year Analyst (84) $151
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (76) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
3
kanon's picture
kanon
99.0
4
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
5
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
6
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
7
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
8
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
9
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
98.9
10
numi's picture
numi
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”