3 ms·

FWIW, this is also the conclusion that I've come to. Mergers only make markets less competitive, and the mere existence of acquisitions creates perverse incenti

by kibwen 3y ago

FWIW, this is also the conclusion that I've come to. Mergers only make markets less competitive, and the mere existence of acquisitions creates perverse incentives that distort the startup market into utter uselessness. The experiment has failed, ban it all, and ignore the protestations of the get-rich-quick crowd. Of course, to fix the overall market you'll also need to break up all the existing megacorps in the process, and I wish you luck with that.

nl 3y ago
But... mergers really do not only make markets less competitive at all! May mergers of huge companies often have negative impact. Firstly most mergers do not involve multi-billion dollar companies at all, secondly many mergers occur when one company is is trouble, and thirdly good takeovers increase distribution of the smaller companies brand. Good examples of successful mergers/takeovers like this include: Halotop bought by Wells Enterprises Geely buying Volvo SAIC buying MG Most acquisitions by Proctor & Gamble Most acquisitions and mergers in the markup and beauty space.
- throwaway2037 3y ago
  Most acquisitions by Proctor & Gamble That is quite a broad statement. Can you explain more?
  - nl 3y ago
    In the FMCG space that P&G is in most of their takeovers improve distribution for the company that is being acquired, and P&G generally seems to prefer to leave the brand and management of the company alone. I'm sure there have been some that haven't been successful, but most that I'm aware of have gone very well.
- autoexec 3y ago
  > Good examples of successful mergers/takeovers like this include: How are you defining "good" or "successful" here?
  - nl 3y ago
    There hasn't been a significant negative backlash, availability of the products increased, and revenue increased for the acquiring company. The improved availability via better distribution is a win for consumers and the increase in revenue is a win for the company and shareholders.

by kibwen 3y ago

nl 3y ago

But... mergers really do not only make markets less competitive at all! May mergers of huge companies often have negative impact. Firstly most mergers do not involve multi-billion dollar companies at all, secondly many mergers occur when one company is is trouble, and thirdly good takeovers increase distribution of the smaller companies brand. Good examples of successful mergers/takeovers like this include: Halotop bought by Wells Enterprises Geely buying Volvo SAIC buying MG Most acquisitions by Proctor & Gamble Most acquisitions and mergers in the markup and beauty space.

throwaway2037 3y ago
Most acquisitions by Proctor & Gamble That is quite a broad statement. Can you explain more?
- nl 3y ago
  In the FMCG space that P&G is in most of their takeovers improve distribution for the company that is being acquired, and P&G generally seems to prefer to leave the brand and management of the company alone. I'm sure there have been some that haven't been successful, but most that I'm aware of have gone very well.
autoexec 3y ago
> Good examples of successful mergers/takeovers like this include: How are you defining "good" or "successful" here?
- nl 3y ago
  There hasn't been a significant negative backlash, availability of the products increased, and revenue increased for the acquiring company. The improved availability via better distribution is a win for consumers and the increase in revenue is a win for the company and shareholders.