Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 211

7 ways acquisitions add or destroy value

Mergers and acquisitions (M&A) can add material shareholder value to companies that get it right. Conversely, failure to deliver anticipated M&A benefits will either result in destroying shareholder value, or in extreme cases, put the entire company at risk.

Acquisitions require detailed execution and integration plans that identify key issues and focus on the early delivery of synergies. M&A inevitably increases staff workloads and management will need to ensure the existing core business is not overlooked or compromised. Success rates are dramatically improved if a company has a good management team, robust systems and processes and a board with M&A capability and experience. The most successful acquisitions will typically increase earnings per share (EPS), increase the net present value (NPV) per share and provide a short payback period.

Current conditions for M&A

The current environment is generally favourable for M&A as interest rates are low and the economy is expanding slowly, so companies are attracted to opportunities that supplement low organic growth. The main negative is that valuations are comparatively high. In FY16, the value of M&A exceeded $30 billion. Larger deals included:

Over 40% of acquirers were overseas companies with private equity accounting for nearly 20% of overall activity.

Friendly takeovers traditionally result in a completion rate of ~80% compared to hostile bids with a lower success rate of ~50%. Premiums in friendly deals tend to be lower, averaging between 20-30% compared to 50% in hostile bids. Hostile acquisitions are considered higher risk due to the additional price premium and limited due diligence that is typically undertaken.

Case studies show value creation or destruction

1. Justifying the premium paid

Most companies obtain cost or revenue synergies when making acquisitions which allows them to pay a premium. The most common example is the elimination of a target’s financial, legal and other head office functions, which reduce unit overhead costs as they are typically spread over a larger revenue base. This has been a reason given for acquisitions by several companies including G8 Education, although synergies may also be gained from integrating existing systems or operating the additional centres in a cluster managed by an existing staff manager.

2. Cost synergies are more convincing

Significant cost synergy savings are generally available in the financial sector. For example, Westpac’s acquisition of St. George Bank and CBA’s acquisition of Bankwest resulted in significant head office and systems cost reductions as back offices were integrated and branch networks rationalised.

3. Boosting future organic growth

Acquisitions that contribute to future organic growth include Motorcycle Holdings, the top motor-bike seller in Australia, acquiring dealerships as part of its growth strategy. It is the only player of scale with funding in the industry, and it is able to acquire dealerships at low prices. As several dealerships only sell new bikes, it increases acquired dealership profitability by adding second hand bike sales along with accessories, finance and insurance to supplement new bike sales.

National Veterinary Care has made several vet clinic acquisitions since listing. After an acquisition, it typically introduces its ‘Best for Pet’ loyalty program, which generates increased revenue and profitability. It also identifies additional revenue streams such as dentistry and trains vets if they are not already performing this work.

4. Organic growth for both acquirer and target

Telco and software company, MNF, recently acquired Conference Call International (CCI), which provides audio conferencing to 5,000 customers. MNF will obtain organic growth by offering these services to its own customer base as well as offering its own existing products and services to CCI’s customers. MNF will also obtain cost savings by moving CCI’s customers onto its global voice network. MNF has a history of organic and acquisition growth, having delivered double EPS growth over several years and astute acquisitions provide it with a significant future growth runway.

5. Knowing what you’re getting in friendly acquisitions

Steadfast is the largest Australian insurance broker and has been a serial acquirer. A key growth strategy is to acquire interests in insurance brokers, which join its network. Steadfast’s subsequent knowledge of their profitability reduces its acquisition risk as it often consolidates ownership of these brokers.

6. Knowing what’s in the box in hostile acquisitions

Downer made a hostile bid for Spotless after a significant drop in Spotless’ share price. Although Spotless has highlighted new long-term contract wins and renewals, formal due diligence was not permitted. Acquisition risk therefore remains despite Spotless claiming the bid is opportunistic and should be rejected.

CIMIC recently acquired Sedgman and United Group opportunistically at the bottom of the cycle. Although these were similar, hostile acquisitions, the acquisition risk was again partly mitigated as relatively low prices were paid. Unfortunately, this can’t be said for Rio after it heavily overpaid for a coal asset in Mozambique and ALS, which bought an oil company at top of the cycle. Both not only destroyed significant shareholder value but also put the companies under pressure due to elevated debt levels. The assets were subsequently divested at much lower prices.

7. ‘Di-worsifying’ by making a large overseas acquisition with a broken business model

Arguably, the worst type of acquisition is ‘di-worsification’, that is, acquiring a new, different, large-scale business, potentially in a new geographic area. Slater & Gordon’s acquisition of Quindell’s Professional Services Division in the UK is an example that went ahead despite questionable management practices, poor profitability and poor cash flow. It paid a high price for the operation which also required a large equity raising. The disastrous result is well known.

Conclusion

M&A done well can be highly shareholder accretive, but healthy scepticism can save investor dollars. Investors should be particularly sceptical of M&A that simply increases earnings that trigger management rewards but does nothing to increase earnings per share or NPV/share.

 

Matthew Ward is Investment Manager at Katana Asset Management. This article is general information only.


 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

Why ASX miners will handily beat banks in the long-term

Focus on quality yield, not near-term income

It’s the large stocks driving fund misery

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

The case for the $3 million super tax

The Government's proposed tax has copped a lot of flack though I think it's a reasonable approach to improve the long-term sustainability of superannuation and the retirement income system. Here’s why.

7 examples of how the new super tax will be calculated

You've no doubt heard about Division 296. These case studies show what people at various levels above the $3 million threshold might need to pay the ATO, with examples ranging from under $500 to more than $35,000.

The revolt against Baby Boomer wealth

The $3m super tax could be put down to the Government needing money and the wealthy being easy targets. It’s deeper than that though and this looks at the factors behind the policy and why more taxes on the wealthy are coming.

Meg on SMSFs: Withdrawing assets ahead of the $3m super tax

The super tax has caused an almighty scuffle, but for SMSFs impacted by the proposed tax, a big question remains: what should they do now? Here are ideas for those wanting to withdraw money from their SMSF.

The super tax and the defined benefits scandal

Australia's superannuation inequities date back to poor decisions made by Parliament two decades ago. If super for the wealthy needs resetting, so too does the defined benefits schemes for our public servants.

Are franking credits hurting Australia’s economy?

Business investment and per capita GDP have languished over the past decade and the Labor Government is conducting inquiries to find out why. Franking credits should be part of the debate about our stalling economy.

Latest Updates

Superannuation

Here's what should replace the $3 million super tax

With Div. 296 looming, is there a smarter way to tax superannuation? This proposes a fairer, income-linked alternative that respects compounding, ensures predictability, and avoids taxing unrealised capital gains. 

Superannuation

Less than 1% of wealthy families will struggle to pay super tax: study

An ANU study has found that families with at least one super balance over $3 million have average wealth exceeding $19 million - suggesting most are well placed to absorb taxes on unrealised capital gains.   

Superannuation

Are SMSFs getting too much of a free ride?

SMSFs have managed to match, or even outperform, larger super funds despite adopting more conservative investment strategies. This looks at how they've done it - and the potential policy implications.  

Property

A developer's take on Australia's housing issues

Stockland’s development chief discusses supply constraints, government initiatives and the impact of Japanese-owned homebuilders on the industry. He also talks of green shoots in a troubled property market.

Economy

Lessons from 100 years of growing US debt

As the US debt ceiling looms, the usual warnings about a potential crash in bond and equity markets have started to appear. Investors can take confidence from history but should keep an eye on two main indicators.

Investment strategies

Investors might be paying too much for familiarity

US mega-cap tech stocks have dominated recent returns - but is familiarity distorting judgement? Like the Monty Hall problem, investing success often comes from switching when it feels hardest to do so.

Latest from Morningstar

A winning investment strategy sitting right under your nose

How does a strategy built around systematically buying-and-holding a basket of the market's biggest losers perform? It turns out pretty well, so why don't more investors do it?

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2025 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.