6 ms·

This is an incredibly short-sighted comment. Two CEOs sit down, culture had better be the #1 thing they discuss before one writes a check to the other for the

This is an incredibly short-sighted comment. Two CEOs sit down, culture had better be the #1 thing they discuss before one writes a check to the other for the better part of half a billion dollars. Good M&A adds tons of value by combining two companies who are better together than separate. Bad M&A (Google's acquisition of Nest comes to mind) means fired CEO, delayed/ruined product launches, and incineration of nine-figure amounts of shareholder value. It all comes down to whether the two companies want the same thing. I won't argue that Atlassian software has no rough edges UX-wise, but that isn't the point. The point is that, when one company buys another, they'd better have roughly the same idea of where they want to go, otherwise you may as well fire up an industrial blast furnace fed by shareholder capital.

riprowan 10y ago
This is all 100% true yet still quite naive. Bad M&As happen all the time. Good ones are the exceptions not the norms. "Companies" are groups of people, and their leadership. What the leadership wants very often has nothing to do with the company's long-term future. This is all observable behavior happening all around us.
- jasode 10y ago
  >Good ones are the exceptions not the norms. Is that really true? Here are lists of acquisitions by Amazon and Google: + https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Amazon.com https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitio... + https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Alphabet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitio... The vast majority of acquisitions are uneventful and added positive value to the acquirer. Maybe you're thinking of high-profile multi-billion dollar failures like Daimler+Chrysler, HP+Compaq, Microsoft+Nokia. It's possible that the amount of negative press those failures receive distorts the perception of the (quiet) successful acquisitions.
  - rhizome 10y ago
    The vast majority of acquisitions are uneventful and added positive value to the acquirer. How many add positive value to the acquired?
    - jasode 10y ago
      Most if not all of them because they were all friendly deals and the acquired wanted the deal to happen. (In other words, the acquired's owners wanted BigCo's money more than they wanted to remain independent.) Most of the targeted businesses were privately owned which means that the big acquirer cannot execute a hostile takeover and buy the company against the Board of Director's wishes. Amazon's acquisitions of Zappos shoes, dpreview camera website, etc were all friendly deals. Same situation with Facebook acquisitions of Whatsapp and Instagram.

riprowan 10y ago

This is all 100% true yet still quite naive. Bad M&As happen all the time. Good ones are the exceptions not the norms. "Companies" are groups of people, and their leadership. What the leadership wants very often has nothing to do with the company's long-term future. This is all observable behavior happening all around us.

jasode 10y ago
>Good ones are the exceptions not the norms. Is that really true? Here are lists of acquisitions by Amazon and Google: + https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Amazon.com https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitio... + https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Alphabet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitio... The vast majority of acquisitions are uneventful and added positive value to the acquirer. Maybe you're thinking of high-profile multi-billion dollar failures like Daimler+Chrysler, HP+Compaq, Microsoft+Nokia. It's possible that the amount of negative press those failures receive distorts the perception of the (quiet) successful acquisitions.
- rhizome 10y ago
  The vast majority of acquisitions are uneventful and added positive value to the acquirer. How many add positive value to the acquired?
  - jasode 10y ago
    Most if not all of them because they were all friendly deals and the acquired wanted the deal to happen. (In other words, the acquired's owners wanted BigCo's money more than they wanted to remain independent.) Most of the targeted businesses were privately owned which means that the big acquirer cannot execute a hostile takeover and buy the company against the Board of Director's wishes. Amazon's acquisitions of Zappos shoes, dpreview camera website, etc were all friendly deals. Same situation with Facebook acquisitions of Whatsapp and Instagram.