Question

DB Mergers and Acquisitions: Pros and Cons

A look at the pros and cons of mergers

• Are mergers in the public interest or are mergers just beneficial for top executives and shareholders?
  • Provide an example of a recent corporate merger and discuss how that merger affected competition, economies of scales, consumer prices, and consumer choice.

Answer 1

A merger involves two firms combining to form one larger company; it can occur due to a takeover or mutual agreement.

The pros and cons in summary:

Advantages of mergers

Economies of scale – bigger firms more efficientMore profit enables more research and development.Struggling firms can benefit from new management.

Disadvantages of mergers

Increased market share can lead to monopoly power and higher prices for consumersA larger firm may experience diseconomies of scale – e.g. harder to communicate and coordinate.

When looking at mergers it is important to look at the subject on a case by case basis as each merger has different possible benefits and costs – depending on the industry and firms in question.

Pros of mergers

1. Network Economies. In some industries, firms need to provide a national network. This means there are very significant economies of scale. A national network may imply the most efficient number of firms in the industry is one. For example, when T-Mobile merged with Orange in the UK, they justified the merger on the grounds that:

“The ambition is to combine both the Orange and T-Mobile networks, cut out duplication, and create a single super-network. For customers, it will mean bigger network and better coverage, while reducing the number of stations and sites – which is good for cost reduction as well as being good for the environment.”

2. Research and development. In some industries, it is important to invest in research and development to discover new products/technology. A merger enables the firm to be more profitable and have greater funds for research and development. This is important in industries such as drug research, where a firm needs to be able to afford many failures.

3. . Avoid duplication

In some industries, it makes sense to have a merger to avoid duplication. For example, two bus companies may be competing over the same stretch of roads. Consumers could benefit from a single firm with lower costs. Avoiding duplication would have environmental benefits and help reduce congestion.

5. Regulation of Monopoly

Even if a firm gains monopoly power from a merger, it doesn’t have to lead to higher prices if it is sufficiently regulated by the government. For example, in some industries, the government have price controls to limit price increases. That enables firms to benefit from economies of scale, but consumers don’t face monopoly prices.

Cons of Mergers

1. Higher Prices

A merger can reduce competition and give the new firm monopoly power. With less competition and greater market share, the new firm can usually increase prices for consumers. For example, there is opposition to the merger between British Airways (parent group IAG) and BMI. (link Guardian) This merger would give British Airways an even higher percentage of flights leaving Heathrow and therefore much scope for setting higher prices. Richard Branson (of Virgin) states:

“This takeover would take British flying back to the dark ages. BA has a track record of dominating routes, forcing less flying and higher prices. This move is clearly about knocking out the competition. The regulators cannot allow British Airways to sew up UK flying and squeeze the life out of the travelling public. It is vital that regulatory authorities, in the UK as well as in Europe, give this merger the fullest possible scrutiny and ensure it is stopped.”

2. Less choice. A merger can lead to less choice for consumers.

A merger can lead to less choice for consumers. This is important for industries such as retail/clothing/food where choice is as important as price

3. Job Losses.

A merger can lead to job losses. This is a particular cause for concern if it is an aggressive takeover by an ‘asset stripping’ company – A firm which seeks to merge and get rid of under-performing sectors of the target firm.

On the other hand, other economists may argue this ‘creative destruction’ of job losses will only lead to temporary job losses and the unemployed will find new jobs in more efficient firms.

4. Diseconomies of Scale.

The new larger firm may experience dis-economies of scale from the increased size. After a merger, the new bigger firm may lack the same degree of control and struggle to motivate workers. If workers feel they are just part of a big multinational they may be less motivated to try hard. Also, if the two firms had little in common then it may be difficult to gain the synergy between the two companies

Evaluation – The desirability of a merger depends upon:

How much is competition reduced by? E.g. A merger between Tesco and Sainsburys would lead to a significant fall in competition amongst UK supermarkets. This would lead to higher prices for basic necessities.How significant are economies of scale in the industry? A merger between Tesco and Sainsburys may enable some economies of scale, but it would be relatively low compared to two oil drilling companies. The fixed costs in oil exploration are much higher. Therefore, there is more justification for a merger in oil exploration than in supermarkets.