Slow M&A Activity
Why has M&A activity been SO low these past few months even for healthy companies?
I understand that there won't be much activity considering the credit crunch, reccession, and financing troubles, but why haven't there been more cash-deals from the companies that still have fairly strong balance sheets?
Wouldn't this be a great time for them to buy some really undervalued companies that STILL have stable cash flows?
Even stock prices for very profitable and growing companies are extremely low right now. I am surprised not more strategic buyers are trying to strike some great deals right now. Once the market and the economy turn around, these companies could be sitting on gold mines.
What are your thoughts? Do you also believe there are great M&A opportunities in the market right now?
The reason for slow M&A activity is twofold:
First of all, even companies with healthy balance sheets are in cash preservation mode. The volatile market environment and deflated stock prices have made companies apprehensive to go out and spend, even if they stand to benefit from an acquisition. Investors would not necesarily support a transaction, even if Accretive, because nobody knows how long this recession could last, and having cash on hand to ride this out is very very important. Moreover, stock transactions are tricky because market swings are so big that setting the proper exchange ratio becomes difficult, and because stock prices are so deflated that a company cannot issue do a stocl-stock deal without seeing huge dilution of its existing shareholder base making companies and their investors even less likely to deal.
The second reason, and probably the bigger catalyst for less M&A activity, is that targets are unwilling to sell at near fire-sale prices. Targets have yet to capitulate, and as a result there is a price expectations gap. Targets are still requesting valuations based on historic multiples, whereas buyers are offering only slight premiums over current valuations.
So its a combination of buyers only looking to spend for bargain basement prices and targets looking to historic valuations to deal. As a result M&A activitiy has completely dried up. I think what we will begin to see in the coming months is mergers of large, IPO-candidate private companies where this expecations gap in valuations isn't as conspicuous.
Great, thanks.
But for your second reason, wouldn't a hostile takeover work in that situation (assuming there are no anti-takeover amendments)?
who has the cash to make hostile takeovers?
There are plenty of firms that still have a lot of cash on their balance sheets and that still generate a lot of free cash flow annualy. The biggest question is wether to use that cash to pay down debt, repurchase stock, invest into new products, expand into new markets, or use for acquisitons (perhaps hostile takeovers).
Look at companies like Apple, Exxon, Cisco, Pfizer, etc.
apparently the government.
We're about to enter a Great Depression. Don't you want a president who's already dressed for it?
Not sure why a hostile takeover would be any better. You still have to convince the shareholders to take a historically low valuation. This is one of the many reasons that the MSFT/YHOO deal failed.
Your list of companies is pretty good, in fact there was an article yesterday I think about how Exxon is likely to pursue some acquisitions soon. Apple definitely has the cash, although I can't think of anyone significant that it makes sense for them to buy—Apple tends to prefer to build things organically, only occasionally picking up a small software company here or there for some specific piece of technology. Cisco I think is bracing for a significant decrease in IT spending over the next few years—when companies are struggling to pay their rent, the last thing they will spend money on is a new firewall. Pfizer I'm not as familiar with, although I know that Healthcare has stayed relatively more active in M&A.
Overall, TechIB has the right logic. The other key factor is to remember that a significant portion of the M&A activity (and related banking activity) in the past few years has been fueled by private equity (i.e. fueled by debt). Even if strategic deals were flat (which they are not), M&A would be down 50%+ just from losing PE deals.
If you actually want deal experience, join the Financial Institutions groups of your respective firms. I'd elaborate, but I think the events of the past few months make my argument more emphatically than I ever could.
Ex molestiae cum at accusantium tempore. Distinctio nemo adipisci aliquid id cum. Tempora libero non sit nam repellat adipisci.
Blanditiis iure voluptate eum consequuntur accusantium adipisci et voluptatem. Qui commodi quisquam doloribus. Ut fugiat facere nihil harum. Corrupti delectus nulla saepe aspernatur autem blanditiis voluptas.
Saepe officia rem nihil non molestiae repellat. Ex inventore fugit eaque aut ut minus. Expedita qui qui error enim. Natus magni illo non qui natus. Velit sunt id ea ea. Assumenda sit officia porro voluptatem natus sed eum et.
Blanditiis maxime nemo qui est in a. Voluptatum est voluptatem debitis. Assumenda quisquam nemo assumenda reprehenderit voluptatem quaerat. Expedita enim sit consequuntur rerum culpa culpa.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...