Suppose that Panasonic Electronics (maker of phones) and MCI (long distance telephone services) decide to merge. What argument would tell the United States Justice Department that it may be socially beneficial for the merger to take place?
RATIONALE OF ACQUISITIONS
One plus one makes three: this equation is the special alchemy of a merger or acquisition. The key principle behind buying a company is to create shareholder value over and above that of the sum of the two companies. Two companies together are more valuable than two separate companies--at least, that's the reasoning behind M&A.
Mergers are strategic in that they are thought to have secondary effects beyond the simple effect of the profitability of the target company being added to the acquiring company's profitability. For example, an acquiring company may decide to purchase a company that is profitable and has good distribution capabilities in new areas which the acquiring company can utilize for its own products as well. A target company might be attractive because it allows the acquiring company to enter a new market without having to take on the risk, time and expense of starting a new division. An acquiring company could decide to take over a competitor not only because the competitor is profitable, but in order to eliminate competition in its field and make it easier, in the long term, to raise prices. Also a takeover could fulfill the belief that the ...
This provides social benefits of the merger