Corporate restructuring is as likely to be a

failure as a success. Discuss this statement

with reference to the relevant theory and
empirical evidence on mergers and
acquisitions (M&A).

TABLE OF CONTEXT
INTRODUCTION

NET PRESENT VALUE

FINANCE AND THE CAPITAL MARKET

STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT

ORGANISATIONAL BEHAVIOUR

CONCLUSION

13

REFERENCES

14

APPENDIX A - EXPANDED M&A DEFINITION

18
APPENDIX B - MOTIVES BEHIND
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK OF M&A
THEORIES

19

APPENDIX C- THE INCREASE IN GLOBAL

MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS BETWEEN
2010 TO 2014

20

Introduction
A merger (M) can be defined as when two companies combine to share assets
and achieve a mutual objective (Bersanko 2013) while conversely acquisitions
(A) are when the shares of one business is purchased by another (see appendix
A.) The justification of M&As can be due to synergy motives; profits, market
power, tax advantages, risk diversification etc, bargain-buying merger motives;
undervalued shares and eliminating inefficient management, and managerial
motives (which can lead to the principle-agent problem); power, status, prestige
etc1. It can be viewed that the main goal for M&As would be to increase
shareholder value. Accordingly, due to mergers being a form of investment, they
can be evaluated using Net Present Value (NPV) although there are some
complicating factors such as problematic identification of merger benefits.
Studies undertaken across the last decade on M&As show the failure rate being
around 50%, while the amount that failed to achieve merger goals reaching 83%
(Saat & Himmelsbach 2014). It therefore could be expected that M&A activity
would be avoided by senior managers and board of directors, however the trend
of M&As over the past 20 years have shown to be increasing, and in 2014 there
was a 52% increase over the previous 4 year average (see appendix B). This
paradox has drawn interests from different areas of business and economic
theorists. Therefore the focus of this essay will be to evaluate the factors of
success and failure in M&As, with respect to theoretical and empirical evidence,
from the following perspectives; Finance and the Capital Market, Organisational
Behaviour and Strategic Management.
Figure 1: Motives for Mergers Expanded Increasing against

See figure 1 and appendix B for further explanation for motives for Mergers and Acquisitions

Source: (Liu, T 2010)

Net Present Value

Before we can begin our discussion of how an M&A is likely to success as it is to
fail, we first must briefly discuss how a merger is deemed to be successful. One
such way, mentioned in the introduction is the NPV approach. The use of this
technique rests on the assumption that the aim is to maximise shareholder
wealth (Hwa 2008). This is achieved through investing in M&As that have
positive NPV value after appropriate costs are accounted for. The NPV equation is
constructed as; t=1 to n [ Rt / (1+ i)t ] , Where Rt = Net returns in period t. Under
this simple framework, we can say mergers that are successful will provide
shareholders with value through attained a positive NPV.

Finance and the Capital Market

Success can be quantified by the adjustment in the share rates following the
promulgation of the merger or acquisition, in accordance with economic and
finance researchers (Hitt et al 2001), know as Cumulative Abnormal Returns
(Schoenberg 2006) .For example when Discount travel and ticketing company
Priceline bought OpenTable, the online restaurant reservation business, for
$2.6bn in June 2014, Shares of Priceline rose $5.89 to $1,231.89 in the following
morning trading (Rushe 2014) The notion, relative to this perspective, is
influenced by the value semi-strong market efficiency hypothesis which states,
based on available public information a firms share value is mirrored in an
unbiased manner (Sewell 2012). The belief is that altered prospects relative to a
3

businesss market price is represented through a instantaneous adjustment in

the share cost, foreshowing a long run development. Consequently, success is
characterised if an M&A results in an instant increase in value of shares,
generating shareholder value. Conversely, shareholder loss and failure is
signified when following a merger declaration, engenders a fall in the share
value, for example in 2013, following Microsofts acquisition of Nokia, Microsofts
share price dropped by over 5% (see figure 2).
Figure 2:
Microsofts change
in share value
following
announcement of
Nokia Acquisition
Source: Fiegerman
(2013)

Furthermore a
belief
acknowledged today, is only shareholders of the firm being acquired benefit (Hitt
et al 2001). This analysis is echoed by a majority of studies that uncover an
adverse association concerning organizational performance and acquisition
premiums, Hayward and Hambrick (1997) furthers this point of the acquiring
business's shareholders on average losing value following the acquisition by
maintaining that the deficit is usually persistent across the long run, indicated
from share returns (Sirower 1997) & also established from measures of
accounting performances such as the return on equity (Krishnan et al. 2007).
From this assessment, the root source for failure is that in comparison with the
value of the acquired business, the premium paid by the acquiring business is
larger, which even with effective management strategies, doesnt correct this
appraisal miscalculation. This assessment is echoed by Goold, Campbell, and
Alexander (1998) emphasising the overpayment by the acquirer hinders value,
thus it becomes challenging to attain sufficient returns. This mistake is identified
by the capital market that responds by the adjustment of the stock price. For
example, the day after AOLs acquisition of Time Warner was revealed, its share
price declined (see below).

Figure 3: Time Warner Stock Price following merger with AOL

Source : Yahoo Finance

Applying this analysis we can determine the price for AOL was too high, resulting
in its shares continuing to fall for a prolonged period following the acquisition.
Similarly, Inkpen et al. (2000) during 1990-1990 period evaluated US M&A's
within the technology sector, established due to higher premiums of 43% paid by
Europeans firms in comparison to premiums paid by US firms (14%), led to the
rate of failure for European acquires being greater. However the capital markets
valuation can make mistakes, i.e. the Daimler-Chrysler merger. Here, following
the merger announcement the stock price increased immediately, yet two years
later, the stock value declined 50 %. However there are instances in which the
over-payment was meaningful. Elcos acquisition of Electra, for instance,
according to the stock value was approximately 30 percent more than the worth,
however it was clear the acquisition was extremely useful in the manufacturing &
sales of air-conditioning components (Baider 2008). The activity of mergers &
acquisitions continues to grow, irrespective of the infrequency of profitability of
the acquiring companies, Figure 1 underlines numerous potential rationalisation:
Figure 4: Explanations why M&As continue to grow

Source: (Liu, T 2010)

Strategic Management
Strategic management tackles a variety of methods indicative of success that
include changes in market stake, competitive capabilities and performance pre
and post of the M&A (Alam et al. 2014). According to advocators of this
approach, these performance indicators are induced through suitability amongst
the firms, indicating the amount of strategic fit amongst the firms is the crucial
characteristic in determining M&A success/failure (Shelton 1988). This 'strategic
fit' model postulates that there is superior potential to generate value through

utilising synergies, established around economies of scope and scale, if the

merging firms are more closely associated relative to their goods, technologies
and markets (Cartwright and Schoenberg 2006), figure 5 shows a basic strategic
framework.
Figure 5: A Strategic Framework

Source: Payne (1987)

Empirical studies demonstrate this approachs recommendation is clear:
endorsing only mergers that are synergetic with avoidance of unrelated mergers
(Seth et al. 2000). One exception of this recommendation is underlined in the
unanticipated findings of Lubatkin (1987) study that examined the association
amongst the relatedness of merging businesses relative to shareholder gains. I
feel this is due to two reasons; for investors the notion of relatedness maybe

vague2 or the relatedness may be measure on factors other than relatedness of

markets/products3. Yet, the failure rate is high, even in related mergers (Porter
1987). Research undertook by Porter (1987) observed the proportion of
realisation amongst related mergers amongst 33 major US businesses across a
36-year period (1950 to 1986). The percentage of organisational separation after
a period of 5 years post merger was the criterion of failure rates. Here the
fundamental notion was the aim to retain the target firms for a period long
enough to realise the potential of synergy, within related mergers. However
within this sample the rate of organisational separation was over 50 %. These
discoveries suggested the business after several efforts to relate the
organisations to exploit the synergy, is forced to resell the firm, hence it
vomits out the firm; In 1999 Mattel acquired The Learning Company for $3.5
billion, however Mattels profit fell less than a year later due to the Learning
Company losing $206 million (Doan 2000). By 2000 its stock prices continued
plummeting and Mattel was losing $1.5 million a day. By the end of 2000 the
Learning Company was sold, in order to cut costs Mattel was forced to lay off
10% of its workforce (Doan 2000).
Chatterjee (2007) advocates synergy potential not being realised in its
application as one source of explanation to poor performance of related mergers.
This lack of realisation according to Ting-Kun (2010) is due to two key reasons.
The first is down to a lack of prior planning. Research by Cooper and Lybrand
cited that on a survey for the most commonly cited reasons for failure, 80%
respondents said that failures was due to little planning. Chatterjee (1992) states
the synergy potential can be realised through avoiding unnecessary expenditures
to recognise the key causes of synergy by using prior planning. The subsequent
rationalisations cited, in related mergers, for absence of synergy realisation is
associated with the insufficient attention on human capital; predominantly
executives and employees within the attained firm (Tobin 1996). Debated by
Schoenburg (2006), a dominant cause of worker opposition is conflicting cultures
amongst the acquired and acquiring business, which acts as a critical factor for
M&A failures. Emphasising this point, roughly 67% of managers suggest the key
success factor in M&As is cultural integration (Economist Intelligence Unit 2007).
This reason, organisational behaviour, is the topic discussed next section.
2 Support for this explanation is provide by Kitching (1967)
3 This view is echoed by studies undertaken by Jensen & Ruback (1983), Hopkins (1980) and Porter (1984)
8

Nevertheless, the benefits and actual reality of synergy have started to be

scrutinised, disputed by Haleblian et al. (2009), applying performance indicators,
acquiring-business value wasnt increased through acquisitions, instead they
were discovered to corrode acquiring-business value leading to unstable returns.
Certain research has advocated that synergy is fictitious that during M&As it
doesnt essentially exist as a way of supporting decisions and suggesting the
expected value creation (Gaggiotti 2012). Furthermore, Di Georgio (2002)
disputes there is no logical methodology to the analysis of the area, that could
possible justify the view, that synergy is always a crucial factor for successful
M&As.

Organisational Behaviour
Culture is frequently considered as the basis for cohesion in the organizational
entity (Buono etal. 1985). It is upheld by organizational behaviour academics
that, the absence of thought of the human dynamic throughout the process of
the preparation and execution of the merger, is the primary cause of failure in
M&AS. The role of this issue in success/failure of M&As has produced conflicting
and problematic results4
Figure 6: Areas of difficulty relative to research on the culture-performance
association in M&A

Figure 6 recognises the problematic areas that rationalise the issue of determining a cultureperformance
association (Teerikangas and Very, 2006)

Source: Teerikangas and Very (2006)

On one perspective, throughout the previous two decades, many findings have
discovered verification of cultural disparities resulting in negative influences on
M&A performance (Figure 7).
Author

Publicati

Findings

on Year
Datta

1991

Using Cross-sectional survey of 173 domestic US

acquisitions in manufacturing & mining sectors in
between 1980-1984.
Differentiations in top management varieties
impact negatively the performance of domestic
US acquisitions.

Mark

1982

Differences in organizational cultures lead to

conflicts negatively affecting M&A performance

Datta, Grant 1991

Management culture differences leading to

and

negative performance impact

Rajagopalan

10

Schoenberg

1996

Differences in management styles leading to

negative merger performance

Stahl,

2004

Kremershof,

Organisational culture differences lead to

negative impact on merger performance

and Larsson
Very,

1997

Using cross-sectional survey of 106 European

Lubatkin,

mergers during 1987-1989, it is found after

Calori and

controlling for performance indexes, cultural in

Veiga

compatibility lead to negative merger

performance

Weber

1996

Corporate culture differences after measuring for

performance indexes shown to have negative
impact on merger performance

Figure 7: Empirical studies of when cultural differences lead to negative impact

on M&A performance
One stream of research indicates one cause of this negative impact is due to
distinctions in the culture of management and the resulting consequences on
human factors, i.e parting of key employees and executives from the acquired
company (Lubatkin et al., 1999). One such case is the first year after Creo
acquisition of Scitex in 2000, 80% of Scitex managers left the company, despite
attempts to keep them in the merged company. Here, Dheer (2014) states
distinctions in national culture aggravated the strains. This matter of departing
executives and key employees is particularly worse amongst hi-tech firms (Xielin
2010), where the professional knowledge is held by key personal. The key
motivations for these acquisitions are the endowed workers, specialised
knowledge and innovativeness. Therefore its not startling, if key
employees/managers depart the acquired firm, that such M&As are destined for
failure as relative to what it is has purchased, the acquired firm has lost value.
Several recent studies, conversely, argue cultural differences can result in both
positive and negative consequences on M&A performance (Sarala 2010; Vaara
etal. 2011; Weber etal. ,2011). From the last 20 years the theoretical and
empirical literature advocate the influence of culture differences is crucial

11

relative to post-merger integration success 5. However, in reality, within the M&A

policymaking practice cultural differences appear to be overlooked. Angwin
(2001) finds cultural appraisal to appear to be small, during the due diligence
process, in the priorities of executives. Senior managers time and again
mismanage cultural management in M&As ultimately resulting in failure, which
Kuhlmann and Dowling (2005) highlight in the merger between Daimler &
Chrysler.
To settle this discussion of factors of M&A failure/success table 2 highlights
literature summary on key success features in M&As 6
Table 2: Summary of key success features within M&As

Rockwell (1968)

DiGeorgio (2002)

Gadiesh etal.
(2001)

Epstein (2005)
Steps to a

Rules to follow

successful
merger

Aspects needed to
be completed
1. Aims must be Identify
2. Identify benefits
relative to
shareholders/owners
3. Consider proficiency
and talent of
management
4. Pursue suitable fitting

Significant issues
for deliberation

1st phase: Accurately

picking the correct
aim for M&A
1. Governance and
direction
3. In order for accurate
M&A analysis must have
resources, time and tools
4. Knowledge tools
5. Potential for successful
culture fitting

1st . Validation to
be established:

1st. Strategic
Concept & Fit:

The main strategic

justifications consist
of effective
capitalising,
developing scale,
the expansion of
scope, redefining
commerce, and
redefining
conscientiousness.

Merger validation must

be clearly
communicated, with
attention on achieving
enduring competitive
advantage and devised
for synergies in
magnitude, scope,
consumers, or services.

2nd phase: successful

2nd. Structure of the

Based on the empirical studies of (Chakrabarti et al. 2009 & Brannen and Peterson 2009 & Weber et al.
2009)

Related to the discussed factors of my discussion of how it is possible for mergers to fail.

12

1. Head man must be

consulted
2. Commercial aspect
must be defined
3. Indicators of
performance must be
evaluated
4. Setbacks and
complications must be
dealt with early
5. Expansion in
developments must be
the correct ones.
6. Employees must be
treated with well

incorporation
realising aims

2nd. Permitting the

why apprise the
how:

1. Governance and
direction must be selected
correctly
2. Arranging the
integration group
3. Planning must be
comprehensive consisting
of;
- Strategy for
communication
- Strategy for integration
- Strategy for human
resources

Arrangement and
appraisal of M&A will
be advised with the
accurate planned
validation, which
style of governance
and communication
to implement, and in
what way to
strategise for
integration postmerger.
3rd .
Rapid Coalescing:
Targets must be
clearly set,
accomplishment of
these targets
necessitate dynamic
supervision.
Throughout the
initial phase a
appreciation of
necessity is critical
4th . Clients kept in
the loop:
Groups from both
verges of the deal
have to cooperate
with each other in
order to create a
fresh marketing
proposal
5th .
Visualisation of
the idea:
There is a
requirement of
persuasively sharing
the new firms
concept by
managers, and
stimulate workers in
directing their
dynamisms in the
preferred focus.

Deal:
The manner of funding
for the acquisition and
cost has to not only be
suitable but also
advantageous.
3rd. Appropriate
thoroughness:
Ceremonial
assessment of key
items such as
resources, obligations,
returns, overheads &
valuation of structural
and culture fit.
4th. Pre-Merger
Planning:
Preparation of
important procedures
for integration and
assessments must be
quickly organised and
finalised
5th. Integration PostMerger:
Sensibly combine
procedures that consist
of the HR
management, technical
tasks, and client
relations.
6th. Exterior
influences:
Exterior influences that
harm value of merger
in the long haul are
differentiated against
influences, which
merely harm shorterlived sensitivity
appropriate to
momentary share falls.

6th .

13

Management of
three stages of
integration:
1- Setting the
platform, 2Designing the new
firm, 3- Making the
integration
materialise.

Conclusion
The complex nature of M&A has provided an opportunity for detailed theoretical and
empirical work to be carried out. This essays goal was to examine the factors of
success/failure for M&A, relative to 3 different areas of research Economics and Finance,
Organisational Behaviour and Strategic Management. These approaches conclude,
through empirical studies, that several M&As are depicted by the absence of preparation
(Honore and Maheia 2003), limited synergies (Chatterjee 2007) differences in the
management/organizational culture (DiGeorgio 2002), overpayment (Haransky 1999),
and difficulties in the implementation of strategy (Gadiesh et al. 2001). The findings
throughout this essay is able to demonstrate theoretically, and evidence being provided
through empirical studies, how relative to M&As, corporate restructuring is as likely to be
a failure as a success.

References

Alam, A., Khan, S. and Zafar, F.

(2014). STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT :
MANAGING MERGERS &
ACQUISITIONS. International Journal
of BRIC Business Research, 3(1),
pp.1-3.

value revaluations. McClatchy Tribune Business News Retrieved

from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/
465071703?accountid=17193 .
[Accessed 7 Mar. 2015].

Baider, S. (2008). Electra sees

revenue gains in all four sectors: Net
profit fell compared with the
corresponding quarter when electra
real estate recorded significant fair

Besanko, D. (2013). Economics of

strategy. New York: Wiley.
Buono, A. F., J. L. Bowditch and J. W.
Lewis (1985). When Cultures Collide:
the Anatomy of a Merger, Human
14

Relations, 38(5), pp. 477500.

Brannen, M.Y. and Peterson, M.F.
(2009), "Merging without alienating:
intervention promoting cross-cultural
organization integration and their
limitations", Journal of International
Business Studies, Vol. 40, pp. 46889.
Cartwright, S. and Schoenberg, R.
(2006). Thirty Years of Mergers and
Acquisitions Research: Recent
Advances and Future Opportunities.
British Journal of Management,
17(S1), pp.S1-S5.
Chakrabarti, R., Gupta-Mukherjee, S.
and Jayaraman, N. (2009), "Marsvenus marriages: culture and crossborder M&A", Journal of International
Business Studies, Vol. 40, pp. 21636.
Chatterjee, S. (1992). Sources of
value in takeovers: Synergy or
restructuringimplications for target
and bidder firms. Strat. Mgmt. J.,
13(4), pp.267-286.
Chatterjee, S. (2007). Why is

Datta, D. (1991). Organizational fit

and acquisition performance: Effects
of post-acquisition integration. Strat.
Mgmt. J., 12(4), pp.281-297.
Dheer, R. (2014). Cross-National
Differences in Entrepreneurship:
Impact of Culture and Institutions.
Academy of Management
Proceedings, 2014(1), pp.1016210162.
DiGeorgio, R. M., (2002). Making
mergers and acquisitions work: What
we know and dont know Part I.
Journal of Change Management, 3
(2), 134-128
Doan, A. (2000). Mattel To Ditch The
Learning Company. [online] Forbes.
Available at:
http://www.forbes.com/2000/04/03/m
u5.html [Accessed 13 Apr. 2015].
Economics Intelligence Unit, (2007).
Accenture Newsroom: Executives
Report that Mergers and Acquisitions
Fail to Create Adequate Value.
[online] Available at:
http://newsroom.accenture.com/articl
e_display.cfm?article_id=4364
[Accessed 25 Mar. 2015].

synergy so difficult in mergers of

related businesses?. Strategy &
Leadership, 35(2), pp.46-52.

Epstein, M. J., (2005). The

determinants and evaluation of
merger success. Business Horizons,
48 (1), 37-46

Cox, R. A. K., 2006. Merger and

Acquisition: A Review of the
Literature. Corporate Ownership &
Control, 3 (3), 55-59.

Gadiesh, O., Ormiston, C., Rovit, S.,

Critchlow, J, 2001. The why and
how of merger success. European
Business Journal, 13(4), 187-193.

Datta, D. K., Grant, J. H., &

Rajagopalan, N. (1991). Management
incompatibility and post acquisition
autonomy: Effects on acquisition
performance. Advances in Strategic
Management, 7, 157182.

Gaggiotti, H. (2012). The rhetoric of

synergy in a global corporation.
Journal of Organizational Change
Management, 25(2), 265-282
Goold, M., Campbell, A. and
Alexander, M. (1998). Corporate

15

strategy and parenting theory. Long

Range Planning, 31(2), pp.308-314.
Haleblian , J., Devers , C. E.,
McNamara , G., Carpenter , M. E., &
Davison , R. B. (2009). Taking stock
of what we know about acquisitions
and acquisitions: A review and
research agenda. Journal of
Management, 35, 469502.
Hayward, M., and Hambrick, D.
(1997). Explaining the Premiums Paid
for Large Acquisitions: Evidence of
CEO Hubris. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 42(1), p.103
Hitt, M., Harrison, J., and Ireland, R.
(2001). Mergers and acquisitions: A
Guide to Creating Value for
Stakeholders Oxford: Oxford
University
Hwa, K. (2008). Sources of net
present value gains in the
acquisitions of corporate real estate.
Journal of Corporate Real Estate,
10(2), pp.121-129.
Inkpen , A. C., Sundaram , A. K., &
Rockwood , K. (2000). Cross-border
acquisitions of U.S. technology
assets. California Management
Review, 42, 5071.
Kuhlmann, T., and Dowling, P.,J.
(2005), "Daimler Chrysler: a case
study of a cross-border merger",
Stanford University Press, Stanford,
CA, pages. 351-363.
Krsten, W. (2008). Synergies,
shareholder value and exchange
ratios in valuecreating mergers.
Managerial Finance, 34(4), pp.252261.

Krishnan, H. A., Hitt, M. A., & Park, D.

(2007). Acquisition Premiums,
Subsequent Workforce Reductions
and Post-acquisition Performance.
Journal of Management Studies, 44:
70932.
Lemkau, G. (2014). Goldman Sachs |
Trends in Our Business - Mergers and
Acquisitions. [online] Goldman
Sachs. Available at:
http://www.goldmansachs.com/ourthinking/trends-in-ourbusiness/trends-in-mergers-andacquisitions.html [Accessed 8 Mar.
2015].
Liu, T. (2010). An Empirical Study of
Firms' Merger Motivations and
Synergy from Taiwanese Banking
Industry. International Research
Journal of Finance and Economics,
38(38), pp.13-27.
Liu, X. (2010). Can international
acquisition be an effective way to
boost innovation in developing
countries?. Jnl of Sci and Tech Pol,
1(2), pp.116-134.
Lubatkin, M. (1987). Merger
strategies and stockholder value.
Strat. Mgmt. J., 8(1), pp.39-53.
Maksim, S., and Himmelsbach, J.
(2014). Sustainable Merger and
Acquisition Transactions - Important
Aspects as Part of a Process Model
Especially For Enterprises in the
Service Market. International Journal
of Business and Social Science, 5(1),
pp.65-73.
Marks, M., L. (1982). Merging
Human Resources A Review of
Current Research, Mergers and
Acquisitions, 17(2), pp. 3844.

16

Mashable, (2013). Microsoft Stock

Drops 5% After Nokia Deal. [online]
Available at:
http://mashable.com/2013/09/03/mic
rosoft-nokia-stock/ [Accessed 21 Apr.
2015].
Nakamura, H.R., 2005. Motives,
Partner Selection and Productivity
Effects of M&As: The Pattern of
Japanese Mergers and Acquisition.
Thesis (Ph.D.), Institute of
International Business, Stockholm
School of Economics.
Payne, A. (1987). A European view of
management consulting. European
Management Journal, 5(3), pp.154162.
Porter, M. E.(1987). `From
Competitive Advantage to Corporate
Strategy.' Harvard Business Review.
65(3), 285.
Rockwell, W.F., 1968. How to acquire
a company. Harvard Business
Review, 46 (5), 121-132.
Rushe, D. (2014). Priceline to buy
OpenTable for $2.6bn. [online] the
Guardian. Available at:
http://www.theguardian.com/busines
s/2014/jun/13/priceline-to-buyopentable-for-26bn [Accessed 8 Mar.
2015].
Saat, M., & Himmelsbach, J. (2014).
Sustainable merger and acquisition
transactions - important aspects as
part of a process model especially for
enterprises in the service market.
International Journal of Business and
Social Science, 5(1)

Sarala, R.M. (2010), "The impact of

cultural differences and acculturation

factors on post-acquisition conflict",

Scandinavian Journal of
Management, Vol. 26, pp. 38-56.
Schoenberg, R. (2006). Measuring
the Performance of Corporate
Acquisitions: An Empirical
Comparison of Alternative Metrics.
British Journal of Management, 17(4),
pp.361-370.
Seth, A., K. Song and R. Pettit (2000).
Synergy, materialism or hubris? An
empirical examination of motives for
foreign acquisitions of US firms,
Journal of International Business
Studies, 31, pp. 387-405.
Sewell, M. (2012). The Efficient
Market Hypothesis: Empirical
Evidence. International Journal of
Statistics and Probability, 1(2).
Shelton, L. (1988). Strategic business
fits and corporate acquisition:
Empirical evidence. Strat. Mgmt. J.,
9(3), pp.279-287.
Sirower, M. L. (1997). The Synergy
Trap: How Companies Lose the
Acquisition Game. New York: The
Free Press.
Slangen, A.H.L. (2006), "National
cultural distance and initial foreign
acquisition performance: the
moderating effect of integration",
Journal of World Business, Vol. 41,
pp. 161-70.
Stahl, G. K., Kremershof, I., &
Larsson, R. (2004). Trust dynamics in
mergers and acquisitions: A case
survey. Paper presented at the
Academy of Management
Conference, New Orleans, August 6
11, 2004

17

Teerikangas, S. and P. Very (2006).

The culture performance
relationship in mergers and
acquisitions: From Yes/No to How,
British Journal of Management, 17.
Tobin, J. (1996). Essays in economics.
Cambridge: MIT press.
Very, P., M. Lubatkin, R. Calori and J.
Veiga (1997). Relative Standing and
the Performance of Recently
Acquired European Firms, Strategic
Management Journal, 18(8), pp. 593
614.
Weber, Y. (1996). Corporate Cultural
Fit and Performance in Mergers and
Acquisitions, Human Relations,
49(9), pp. 11811202.
Weber, Y., Tarba, S.Y. and Reichel, A.
(2009), "International acquisitions
and acquisitions performance
revisited - the role of cultural
distance and post-acquisition
integration approach", Advances in
Mergers and Acquisitions, Vol. 8, JAI
Press, New York, NY, pp. 1-17.
Weber, Y., Tarba, S.Y. and RozenBachar, Z. (2011), "Mergers and
acquisitions performance paradox:
the mediating role of integration
approach", European Journal of
International Management, Vol. 5 No.
4, pp. 373-93.
Yahoo! Finance, (2015). Time Warner
Cable Inc.. [online] Available at:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=TWC
[Accessed 17 Mar. 2015].

18

Appendix A - Expanded M&A definition

Source: Nakamura (2005)

19

Appendix B - Motives behind theoretical

framework of M&A theories

20

Source : Cox (2006)

Appendix C- The Increase in Global Mergers and

Acquisitions between 2010 to 2014

Source: Lemkau (2014)

21