A merger and an acquisition both involve the consolidation of business entities, resulting in a restructuring of their corporate framework to enhance efficiency and competitiveness. Despite their shared goal of achieving synergies, there are distinct differences between mergers vs acquisitions in terms of initiation, process, and outcomes.

What is Merger?

A merger occurs when separate organizations decide to combine forces, forming a new business entity. This decision is typically mutual, with the merged entity adopting a new name, ownership, and management structure that incorporates employees from both merging companies. Mergers often aim to expand market share, enter new markets, reduce operating costs, increase revenues, and broaden profit margins. In this process, there is no exchange of cash, and the merged company issues new shares distributed proportionately among existing shareholders.

For instance, the British multinational enterprise GlaxoSmithKline emerged from the merger of pharmaceutical companies Glaxo Welcome and SmithKline Beecham in 2000.

What is Acquisition?

An acquisition involves one organization acquiring another, requiring the purchase of at least 51% of the target company’s stock for absolute control. Acquisitions typically involve a financially stronger entity taking over a smaller, comparatively weaker one. Unlike mergers, acquisitions may not be mutually agreed upon, and in some cases, they can occur as hostile takeovers. The acquired company usually continues operations under the name of the acquiring company, which may retain or lay off the acquired company’s staff. There is no issuance of new shares in acquisitions.

For example, in 2017, Amazon acquired the American supermarket chain Whole Foods Inc. for $13.7 billion, with Whole Foods still operating under its original name but controlled by Amazon.

Key Differences Between: Mergers vs Acquisitions

While both mergers and acquisitions (M&A) involve the combining of companies, the processes and outcomes differ significantly. Here’s a breakdown of the key distinctions:

Conclusion

Mergers and acquisitions (M&A) are powerful tools for companies seeking growth and strategic advantage. Understanding the key differences between mergers and acquisitions – formation of a new entity, decision-making process, company identity, size and financial strength, and power dynamics – allows businesses to make informed decisions about the best path forward.

Mergers provide a collaborative approach for companies of similar size to combine resources, expertise, and market share. This option fosters innovation and can create a stronger, more competitive entity.

Acquisitions offer a faster route to expansion, allowing a larger company to acquire the technology, talent, or market reach of a smaller one. However, integrating different corporate cultures can be challenging.

Ultimately, the choice between a merger vs acquisition depends on the specific goals and circumstances of each company involved. By carefully considering the various factors and potential outcomes, businesses can leverage M&A strategies to achieve long-term success.

Get merger and acquisition services for your business

The M&A landscape has undergone significant transformations in the last five years, with technology playing a pivotal role. A report from PwC highlights the importance of faster integrations for achieving strategic, financial, and operational goals. M&A business advisors who leverage technology can expedite due diligence and empower informed decision-making, leading to a higher deal success rate.

As technology revolutionizes the landscape of managing intricate transactions, a divide emerges between transaction advisors who adapt swiftly and those who lag behind. Traditional advisors grapple with the challenge of keeping pace, relying on established relationships and experience to stay competitive. However, this reliance is insufficient in the face of the accelerating changes brought about by automation.

With the integration of automation, the diligence process sees a remarkable 50% reduction in time. This transformation enables junior bankers to allocate less time to mundane tasks. Such tasks include creating pitchbooks, monitoring non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), preparing confidential information memorandums (CIMs), and responding to diligence requests. Automation empowers bankers to redirect their efforts toward value-added activities.

For traditional advisors, burdened by clunky management processes and reliance on outdated Excel sheets, progress becomes akin to moving with cement shoes. Their exerted energy proves futile as the modern M&A transaction advisor, embracing technology, not only safeguards deals but also propels forward at a rapid pace.

The contemporary M&A business advisors distinguishes themselves through a centralized process and transparent practices that enhance the client experience. By merging established relationships with robust automation, they excel in making critical decisions. In contrast, outdated advisors hinder their own progress by adhering to data room information that falls short. While they cling to basic analytics, the modern advisor surges ahead.

Modern M&A transaction advisors leverage predictive analytics to anticipate buyer concerns and prepare for meetings, proactively addressing potential issues. They craft engaging diligence experiences for buyers, swiftly identifying risks. Traditional advisors, on the other hand, risk losing deals as they wait for buyers to uncover risks themselves.

As the traditional advisor painstakingly approaches the finish line, the modern advisor has already facilitated a seamless transition. Their buyer utilizes diligence data for post-closing activities and integration. The modern advisor’s approach enables buyers to plan for integration from the outset, reusing diligence data for cost and time savings. Ensuring post-closing success with a seamless handoff becomes a hallmark of their process.

While the traditional transaction advisor may complete the race, their depleted energy leaves them unable to consider the company’s success post-close. In contrast, the modern advisor positions their buyer for sustained success.