Taking Stock of What We Know About Mergers and Acquisitions: A Review and Research Agenda

Strategy & readinessValuation & diligenceIntegrationThe reader who wants the whole field summarized once, properly

Why it is on the shelf. Most claims an owner will hear about acquisitions are asserted with more confidence than the evidence supports. This review consolidates empirical findings across management, economics and finance into one framework of antecedents and consequences, which makes it the single most efficient way to find out whether a claim someone is making to you has support behind it.

The Institute's reading

The value of a review like this is not a verdict but a map. It organizes the research into why acquisitions happen (the characteristics of the deal, the firm, the managers and the environment that predict acquisition activity) and what follows from them, and in doing so it makes visible how much of the literature measures announcement returns rather than whether the combined business actually worked. That distinction matters enormously to a private buyer, for whom there is no announcement return and no market to react.

Read it for the honest catalog of gaps. The authors point to where findings are inconsistent, where measurement has driven conclusions, and where the research has simply not looked. An owner who understands that the field itself is unsettled on several questions is better protected than one who has absorbed a confident summary of it from an advisor.

Key propositions

Acquisition research spans management, economics, finance, accounting and sociology, and had not been consolidated before this review.
Findings can be organized as antecedents of acquisition activity and consequences of it, which separates why deals happen from whether they work.
A great deal of what is known rests on measurement choices, particularly the reliance on short-window announcement returns, and the review flags this as a limitation rather than a settled method.

In practice

When an advisor cites research to support a recommendation, this is the place to check whether the finding is robust or contested.
Discount any claim about acquisition success that rests on stock-market reaction, because your company has no stock market.

Where authorities disagree

The review is a survey rather than an argument, so it does not take the strong positions that Sirower and Damodaran take on this shelf. That is the point of including it: where those authors give you a conviction, this gives you the state of the evidence behind it, including where the evidence is thinner than the conviction.

Related entries

Read at the source