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.


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:



Focus on quality yield, not near-term income

It’s the large stocks driving fund misery

A-REITS are looking at M&A activity again


Most viewed in recent weeks

Is it better to rent or own a home under the age pension?

With 62% of Australians aged 65 and over relying at least partially on the age pension, are they better off owning their home or renting? There is an extra pension asset allowance for those not owning a home.

Too many retirees miss out on this valuable super fund benefit

With 700 Australians retiring every day, retirement income solutions are more important than ever. Why do millions of retirees eligible for a more tax-efficient pension account hold money in accumulation?

Is the fossil fuel narrative simply too convenient?

A fund manager argues it is immoral to deny poor countries access to relatively cheap energy from fossil fuels. Wealthy countries must recognise the transition is a multi-decade challenge and continue to invest.

Reece Birtles on selecting stocks for income in retirement

Equity investing comes with volatility that makes many retirees uncomfortable. A focus on income which is less volatile than share prices, and quality companies delivering robust earnings, offers more reassurance.

Welcome to Firstlinks Election Edition 458

At around 10.30pm on Saturday night, Scott Morrison called Anthony Albanese to concede defeat in the 2022 election. As voting continued the next day, it became likely that Labor would reach the magic number of 76 seats to form a majority government.   

  • 19 May 2022

Comparing generations and the nine dimensions of our well-being

Using the nine dimensions of well-being used by the OECD, and dividing Australians into Baby Boomers, Generation Xers or Millennials, it is surprisingly easy to identify the winners and losers for most dimensions.

Latest Updates


Superannuation: a 30+ year journey but now stop fiddling

Few people have been closer to superannuation policy over the years than Noel Whittaker, especially when he established his eponymous financial planning business. He takes us on a quick guided tour.

Survey: share your retirement experiences

All Baby Boomers are now over 55 and many are either in retirement or thinking about a transition from work. But what is retirement like? Is it the golden years or a drag? Do you have tips for making the most of it?


Time for value as ‘promise generators’ fail to deliver

A $28 billion global manager still sees far more potential in value than growth stocks, believes energy stocks are undervalued including an Australian company, and describes the need for resilience in investing.


Paul Keating's long-term plans for super and imputation

Paul Keating not only designed compulsory superannuation but in the 30 years since its introduction, he has maintained the rage. Here are highlights of three articles on SG's origins and two more recent interviews.

Fixed interest

On interest rates and credit, do you feel the need for speed?

Central bank support for credit and equity markets is reversing, which has led to wider spreads and higher rates. But what does that mean and is it time to jump at higher rates or do they have some way to go?

Investment strategies

Death notices for the 60/40 portfolio are premature

Pundits have once again declared the death of the 60% stock/40% bond portfolio amid sharp declines in both stock and bond prices. Based on history, balanced portfolios are apt to prove the naysayers wrong, again.

Exchange traded products

ETFs and the eight biggest worries in index investing

Both passive investing and ETFs have withstood criticism as their popularity has grown. They have been blamed for causing bubbles, distorting the market, and concentrating share ownership. Are any of these criticisms valid?



© 2022 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

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. Any general advice or ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). 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.

Website Development by Master Publisher.