Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 61

Avoid too much yeast when making dough

Confidence in the markets plays an important role in the level of deal activity. It’s like the use of yeast when it comes to bread-making. Too little yeast, and no reaction will occur. Too much, and the end result will be quite different from the original intention. Like baking, there must be a balance of the right ingredients in order to generate value.

There was a shortage of mergers and acquisitions in the aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis. In 2013, confidence started to return, and so too did management’s appetite for deals. This has intensified in 2014, and investors should be watching closely to ensure that the balance between deal activity and value creation is being maintained.

In Australia, the total value of all M&A deals for the first three months of 2014 was $4.5 billion, according to Mergermarket. This is three times the total deal value in the same period last year.

In America, the value of takeovers announced in 2014 hit $1 trillion, according to Bloomberg. This was the fastest pace in seven years. If it continues at this rate, then 2014 would be the second-most active year for M&As ever. The most active year? 2007.

Risk of too much confidence

Investors and management alike can be drawn into the hype of deal activity and lose sight of the underlying value that is being created or destroyed. Indeed, the evidence suggests that companies typically pay a sizeable premium for control of a company, but seldom realise the expected benefits from the deal.

How does this happen? Well, too much confidence certainly has an effect. Amid the excitement that is generated from a buoyant market, management may become more aggressive in order to secure a company, or overestimate their ability to do more with the assets than the existing owners. The more confidence there is in the markets, the less focus there tends to be on the underlying value of the combined entity.

To illustrate the first point, let’s return to 2007 with the acquisition of Coles by Wesfarmers. In that year, Coles reported a profit of about $747 million. In its balance sheet from the same year, Coles reported about $3.6 billion of equity in 2006, and $3.9 billion of equity at the end of 2007. Using only these numbers we can estimate that the return on average equity of Coles was around 19.9%.

Wesfarmers paid $22 billion for Coles, which on this basis would imply a return on equity of about 3.4%. Even if the management team was comprised of brilliant retailers, it is difficult to justify this return as reasonable for many investors.

The other reason combined companies may underperform is the failure to realise expected synergies. Value is created when the acquiring firm can earn a higher return on the existing assets of the acquired firm. This can be done by way of cost reduction or revenue growth.

Eliminating costs is typically easier than growing revenues, as many expenses may be duplicated upon integration, such as call centres and IT systems. Management can demonstrate cost control by picking the easiest fruit first. But when the pipeline of acquisitions slows, it can be difficult to grow the business organically. It’s worth noting that Wesfarmers has gone some way in justifying the synergies implied by the takeover price, as the performance of Coles has improved markedly under new stewardship.

Watch a company’s acquisitions

What should you do when companies that you hold positions in begin to announce acquisitions? For starters, you should understand what the acquired company is worth if it were to continue operating separately from the bidding company. You can then get a sense of the price that is implied for the synergies and the likelihood that they can be realised. Keep in mind that it is easier to integrate a business when it is smaller, has similar operations to the acquired firm, and has a complimentary culture.

With any investment, the price that is being offered must present a sufficient margin of safety. If at the end of this process you believe that the acquisition is unlikely to add value, then it may be prudent to reassess your position.

 

Roger Montgomery is the Founder and Chief Investment Officer at The Montgomery Fund, and author of the bestseller ‘Value.able’

 

  •   9 May 2014
  •      
  •   

 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

7 ways acquisitions add or destroy value

Two companies with clear competitive advantages.

6 checks on whether acquisitions create value

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Why spending more in early retirement can improve lifetime income

Conventional wisdom encourages retirees to preserve superannuation. But if those likely to qualify for the Age Pension later in life spend a little more today, it may deliver higher lifetime income and a more stable retirement.

It’s time for LICs to die

A high-profile dividend cut and a prominent fund manager’s apology have reignited a long-running debate. If investors can access similar exposures more cheaply and efficiently elsewhere, what exactly is keeping LICs alive?

Is it time to bail on Australian stocks?

For generations, Australian investors have backed banks, miners and dividends. But has that loyalty come at a cost? A look at the numbers raises an uncomfortable question about where future returns will come from.

Testamentary trusts survived the trust tax. The drafting battle has just begun.

The fight over testamentary trusts looked settled. Then the draft legislation arrived. Hidden in a technical detail is a question that could force many families to rethink wills they thought were already future-proof.

The new capital gains tax trap for your portfolio

Investors have long accepted one portfolio rule without much question. A major tax shift could change that calculation entirely, forcing difficult trade-offs between risk, discipline and an overlooked cost lurking beneath.

The investing rule that explains the next market crash

What if investment success depends less on picking the right assets and more on understanding the decisions of other investors? A principle borrowed from game theory offers a different perspective on markets.

Latest Updates

Fixed interest

Higher yields are creating opportunities in global bonds

Bond markets are adjusting to a new reality, but not in the ways investors expect. With markets repricing and capital competing for attention, investors may need to rethink where resilience and opportunity lie. 

Economy

Are we in a recession?

What if the warning signs are already everywhere? From supermarket aisles to company failures, investors are being bombarded with recession signals. But most face a different risk that can be just as dangerous for portfolios. 

SMSF strategies

Meg on SMSFs - Division 296 actuarial certificates

The tax bill might be yours, but the event that caused it may not be. A key Division 296 calculation can sometimes attribute earnings in ways that many SMSF trustees won't instinctively expect or fully appreciate.

Property

The first impact of negative gearing reform is not the tax bill

Negative gearing changes formally begin in 2027, but the first consequences may already be here. A subtle shift is quietly influencing who can borrow, how much they can access and which property strategies still stack up.

Economy

The oil market is running out of easy answers

The biggest threat to markets may not be what investors are watching. The numbers have stopped adding up and supply is harder to measure, with forecasts becoming simple guesses. A more fragile reality is being masked.

Investment strategies

The state of investor knowledge in Australia

Australians are investing more than ever, yet a surprising divide is emerging between those building wealth effectively and those making costly mistakes. Surprisingly, the gap has little to do with income, age or starting capital.

Taxation

Complexity and capital gains

A case study shows that the ‘30% minimum CGT’ is a poorly conceived tax that adds significant complexity to an already over-complex system. A less complicated model would create a much fairer progressive tax scale.

Sponsors

Alliances

  • ASA-Logo-RGB-ActiveGreen-web.png

© 2026 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.