Business Related Article
The Role of Synergies in M&A; Reliable to Warrant a Premium Over Market Value?
Chris Lee Susanto, Founder at Re-ThinkWealth.com
25 May 2018
Today, I want to talk about the role of synergies in M&A. And is it reliable enough for companies to pay a premium over market value because of it?
I for one think that this is a very important topic to discuss for both investors and business people alike. Simply because people tend to be over optimistic of the future and overpay for many things – especially in good times when things are looking all bright and sunny.
I think it should not be the case.
Let’s talk about M&A and synergies first.
Mergers and acquisitions may sound like a big word and something that is very complex – especially for the layman.
But it doesn’t have to be.
What are merger and acquisition?
Merger and acquisition is simply a process of a company buying over or merging with another company to become one new company.
A merger usually occurs when two companies have different strengths in which if combined, it would be a 1+1=3 instead of 1+1=2.
The additional 1 happens because of synergies. I will explain more on synergies later on.
If I own company A and you own company B and my company A wants to buy your company B at X price, that is an acquisition offer and your company B is the target. My company A is the buyer.
After the acquisition, there are two possible outcomes:
- Your company B may stay as a separate entity after the acquisition – easier for me to sell off company B at a profit in the future as company A do not have to disintegrate the accounting, operations etc again for the future potential sale.
- Or your company B may come under the umbrella of my company A and no longer exist as a separate entity – would be good in the long run as it is easier to manage and execute potential synergies successfully.
There will be many reasons why a company will choose to want to do M&A, but it seems like a lot of times, they cite synergies as one of the reasons.
What are synergies?
Synergy is simply an immediate advantage – usually, in monetary terms such as cost savings or potential growth opportunities – a company can have by merging or buying over another company.
Based on a research by McKinsey for 1,640 deals from 2010 to 2017, they found that on average, companies have been paying a premium of 40% or more – than their target’s market value. Reason being due to potential synergies from the deal.
So from McKinsey’s research, we would notice that synergies are a reason to pay a premium to buy over or merge with another company. Which also means that potential synergies = premiums over market value = goodwill reflected in the balance sheet of the acquirer.
There are commonly three types of synergies:
1. Cost (eg: from lower headcounts needed to run operations)
2. Revenue (eg: being able to sell more products thus increasing the sales)
3. Financial (eg: higher economies of scale hence lower cost of borrowings).
But how reliable are synergies for people to pay a premium?
First, let’s establish the fact that M&A is important for companies to continuously grow and become a better company over time. So M&A is good.
M&A is also good because it allows the buyer to have a “shortcut” that is less risky than building the business from scratch. After which, the buyer simply integrates the new company into their existing operations.
In good times, you see more companies doing M&A because it is easier to borrow money – easier to do financing activities – banks have more confidence in lending you money.
In bad times, there are less M&A activities, people get retrenched and valuations get lower so sellers usually do not want to sell because of the fear that they are selling at the bottom.
Synergies or potential synergies are commonly used as a reason for a company to pay a premium during M&A.
For example, if there are three companies competing to buy the same company, the company that is willing and can pay more would probably be the company that expects to have the most synergies out of the other three.
These expected synergies would already be reflected in the buyer’s M&A team analysis when offering a buy price. So the accuracy of these financial model is very important for the buyer because expected synergies are after all still “expected”, if it is not realized and not practical, they would be over-paying for the target company.
There are successes and failures across many companies and many sectors in terms of how successful they are in realizing these so-called synergies.
Usually, a company that acquired another company in the industry that is more closely related to their current core business would be more successful than a company that acquires another company in a totally unrelated industry.
Cost synergies such as using lesser manpower or consolidation of facilities for operations would be more easily realized as compared to say, revenue synergies. Simply put, when we have one company, we only need 1 CEO, CFO, marketing department etc than two – so this is an immediate cost reduction.
Revenue synergies, on the other hand, are sales growth opportunities derived from the combination of the two businesses. For example, if I have a company that has a good number of product offerings but no retail distribution channel, another company might want to acquire my company to sell my products via their distribution channel. This would result in higher revenue if executed successfully.
Based on an article by Simon Kucher, it agrees that cost synergy is easier to achieve than revenue synergy but revenue synergy is more powerful than cost synergies. The article mentions that a company would need to reduce its cost using cost synergies by at least 16% to achieve the same margin impact of a 3% price increase through revenue synergies.
Although Simon Kucher mentions that revenue synergies are more important than cost synergies, the market and the economy is unpredictable in my opinion. And when it does not happen, the buyer would have already paid that extra premium for nothing.
There are always risks in execution.
But besides that, I think there are 3 factors, in summary, to consider, whether the acquisition warrants a premium and how reliable does it warrant that premium for the acquisition:
- Current market condition – if the market condition is good, a premium is warranted.
- Type of synergies expected to be realized – cost synergies is more reliable than revenue synergies.
- How much extra premium is the buyer paying for the target – my thinking is that the premium that the buyer is paying for the target, should not exceed cost synergies + (revenue+financial or any other synergies x 10%) X 1.2 if the market is doing good and X 1.1 if the market is doing badly.
The above calculation is derived from my own thinking and opinion on what is deemed as a conservative and well-justified amount of premium that buyer should pay for a target.
But in reality, the amount that a company usually pay for a target is much more than that – and that is a problem. Based on the McKinsey’s research, companies commonly pay 40% premium over market value – which I think is way too high and way too optimistic.
That is why so many M&A deals fail based on a Harvard Business Review article – from 2,500 of such deals, more than 60% destroys shareholder value.
So it’s best to follow my thinking that the premium that the buyer should be paying for the target should not exceed cost synergies + (revenue+financial or any other synergies x 10%) X 1.2 if the market is doing good and X 1.1 if the market is doing badly [which will sum up – from my calculation – to definitely be less than 40% of premium over market value].
Otherwise, walk away – if not, the odds are that that M&A deal that you are overpaying, will destroy shareholder’s value.
Disclaimer: The information provided is for general information purposes only and is not intended to be a personalized investment or financial advice.
Important: Please read our full disclaimer.
Thank you for your time reading. Just want to also take this time to share with you that I have been coaching a number of high-level executives in terms of guiding them and being their main point of contact for important stock discussions in crucial times using value investing and options selling principles with the goal to enhance their overall investment return (capital gain + dividend + options premium). If you are keen to learn more about this service of mine – value investing mentorship, you can WA me now at +65 83946824.
The above image is how the new Re-ThinkWealth logo looks like. As you might have noticed, it is a combination of “R” and “W” which stands for Re-ThinkWealth. At the same time, the shape of the logo embodies the resemblance of how a stock market will behave. The stock market goes down and up […]read more
So basically, I knew that if I cannot beat the S&P 500 return over the long run, it’s better if I just invest in the S&P 500. While the S&P 500 practices in a huge diversification of 500 big companies listed in the U.S., my U.S. portfolio practices concentration of ideas in which I am most certain about […]read more
I am 25 years old this year and I am always fascinated by how a change in our thinking can result in a huge change in our wealth. I am convinced by the notion that how we think creates the wealth that we have. And writing has been an integral part of it all because it gives me an avenue to pen […]read more
Starbucks is a company that needs not much introduction. I am sure that most of us have drunk Starbucks coffee before. And many of us have studied or did some work or caught up with a friend there. Starbucks is a familiar company that is in almost every airport around the world. Their story though started back in Seattle […]read more
I do admit that a business is nothing without goals, hopes, and dreams. A successful business requires the founder to have a vision and to be able to turn that vision into reality. A successful business is one that has managed to turn hopes and dreams into reality. And by reality, I mean cash. Cold hard cash. Think Apple, […]read more
Qualcomm is the company that supplies phone makers like Samsung, Xiaomi, Huawei, Apple chips so that their phone can be a “smartphone.” Different chip suppliers will have different chips. And just by having a different chip, the performance of the phone can vary greatly. I am vested in Qualcomm since 24 January 2018 at an average price of about $53. Here are the […]read more
1. Soccer is very unpredictable – The ball is round. as of 28 of June 2018 in the qualifying round, Germany is out of the world cup. Who could have predicted that? Not UBS and Goldman Sachs, that’s for sure, who predicted Germany would win the cup and go to the final respectively. 2. The more the potential payout, the lesse […]read more
24/3/2017 Was The First Time I Bought GameStop: About Time a Private Equity Firm is Interested in it!
Because the fact is that today, it is reported by Reuters that GME has received buyout interest and is holding talks with private equity firms about a potential transaction. Seems like Sycamore Partners – one of the PE firms that have expressed interest in GME agrees with my conclusion and analysis that GME is mispriced […]read more
Daniel Ek has built a great business with Spotify. Now that it has recently IPO-ed in 2018, is this digital music streaming service of his, invest-worthy? I am sure that by now you would most likely have heard of Spotify before. But I am sure that not many of you know that Spotify was founded and […]read more
But over time, I would like to invest in good businesses at a fair price instead of continuing to invest in an OK business at a cheap price. Due to Facebook’s recent drop in its share price, I took a stake in Facebook during the past few months and right now, it consists of about a quarter of my portfolio.read more
Before we touch on the limitations of Black-Scholes. let’s do a brief recap. In the first part of the article, we talked about how the Black-Scholes model is used to price options. They are commonly known as the options pricing model to know the fair price of the put or call options. There […]read more
The Black-Scholes model was first developed by three economists. Two of them – Myron Scholes and Robert Merton – received a Nobel prize in 1997 for their work in this model. The Black-Scholes model is also commonly known as the options pricing model. And as the name indicates […]read more