Adjustment -并购模型.pdfVIP

Forthcoming in the Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade 3/12/02 MAs As Adjustment Processes J. Fred Weston Anderson School at UCLA Merger activity measured by total disclosed value in 2001 fell by about 50 percent from the world total in 2000 of about $3.2 trillion, divided approximately equally between the U.S. and the rest of the world. The peaking of this most recent period of heightened merger activity was accompanied by a number of assessments of its significance (Wasserstein, 1998, 2000; Flom, 2000; Lipton, 2001; Holmstrom, Kaplan, 2001; Andrade, Mitchell, Stafford, 2001; Geis, Geis, 2001; Pautler, 2001; Tichy, 2001, 2002). Wasserstein analyzes the business rationale for mergers in a number of industries in which he was involved as an investment banker with a legal background. Flom (Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher Flom LLP) and Lipton (Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen Katz), senior partners in two of the leading U.S. law firms, have been insightful writers on developments leading to merger activity during 1980-2000. Holmstrom, Kaplan focus on the developments on corporate governance supporting increased MA activity during the 20 year period. Andrade, Mitchell, and Stafford develop further the earlier paper by Mitchell and Mulherin (1996) in which a shock theory of mergers is set forth. Geis and Geis build on case studies of leading firms in the high technology area to set forth best practices for strategies and structuring successful deals. Pautler, an economist with the Federal Trade Commission, reviews a wide range of literature on the market power effects of horizontal mergers, finding mixed results. Tichy, in a valuable comprehensive survey, compiles evidence that acquiring firms lose in the long run, but expresses concerns about the anticompetitive effects of mergers.