3 ms·

Well, very simplistically, yes it is correct and should be expected to reduce headcount post-acquisition, that is the GCSE ('grade school') business studies ans

by OJFord 3y ago

Well, very simplistically, yes it is correct and should be expected to reduce headcount post-acquisition, that is the GCSE ('grade school') business studies answer: there are core functions which are non-linear in business growth if you like; that have an 'absolute' requirement but without a marginal need to grow as fast as the rest of the company. Thus an acquired company that is well-integrated doesn't need its payroll department any more, say. And you don't buy out a company entirely because you like the way it's running(^) and just want all the profits for yourself. You buy it as a company because you think you have some kind of 'synergy' with it, or as an individual because you think you have better ideas for it; in either case you have some change to make that makes it worth more than it's present market valuation. It would be weird for an acquisition to result in no change. (^So you like everything except think the dividend should be higher, I suppose.)

jamesTee49 3y ago
If there are overlaps, headcount reductions of those overlap make sense. Furthermore the takeover company must have extremely efficient existing staff with maybe 20-40% spare capacity to take over. I have seen multiple takeovers with overworked of inefficient existing staff before takeover. The takeovers destroyed that acquired business within 3-5 years simply because they dont have the people to run it after firing the previous efficient and well-trained staff. In fact their own existing staff quit because felt underpaid with the extra tasks due to let go staff. Double whammy. Overlapped staff like managers and sub-c suites still retained....which could easily cost about 20-30% of the salaries of those retrenched workers. They are also the absolutely most incompetent one that drove the business to failure. After 25years seeing how mergers ended up I come to the conclusions: #1 MBA schools are absolutely wrong about the benefits of mergers (always dont trust MBAs, if they are that good, they run their own business), #2 there is no such thing as companies synergism from mergers (but MBA called it "if realized" which simply doesnt exist in reality but might hinted on paper), and #3 the person approving mergers never have any management education and a lot not even having MBAs but fully trust some MBAs wearing nice suit especially giving off London English or behave like Steve Jobs demeanor.

by OJFord 3y ago

jamesTee49 3y ago

If there are overlaps, headcount reductions of those overlap make sense. Furthermore the takeover company must have extremely efficient existing staff with maybe 20-40% spare capacity to take over. I have seen multiple takeovers with overworked of inefficient existing staff before takeover. The takeovers destroyed that acquired business within 3-5 years simply because they dont have the people to run it after firing the previous efficient and well-trained staff. In fact their own existing staff quit because felt underpaid with the extra tasks due to let go staff. Double whammy. Overlapped staff like managers and sub-c suites still retained....which could easily cost about 20-30% of the salaries of those retrenched workers. They are also the absolutely most incompetent one that drove the business to failure. After 25years seeing how mergers ended up I come to the conclusions: #1 MBA schools are absolutely wrong about the benefits of mergers (always dont trust MBAs, if they are that good, they run their own business), #2 there is no such thing as companies synergism from mergers (but MBA called it "if realized" which simply doesnt exist in reality but might hinted on paper), and #3 the person approving mergers never have any management education and a lot not even having MBAs but fully trust some MBAs wearing nice suit especially giving off London English or behave like Steve Jobs demeanor.