[Milou van der Hoek]

What do you all think? Ive seen many M&A’s fail in the sense that they did not deliver the expected ROI within the expected time frame. However, over time, they did bring a lot of value to the company (just over a much much longer period of time). Is that why they remain so popular despite the depressing statistic?

[Lourdes Felix]

I think part of the issue is how we define “failure.” Many transactions are labeled failures because they do not achieve the projected ROI or synergy targets within the expected timeframe. However, that does not necessarily mean the transaction failed strategically. In my experience, some of the most important benefits of a merger are realized over a much longer period through expanded market access, improved capital formation, stronger management capabilities, and new growth opportunities. I have also seen situations where the transaction rationale was sound, but execution during post-merger integration fell short. In those cases, the issue is often not the deal itself, but the integration process. For that reason, I believe companies continue to pursue M&A because the potential strategic value can be significant when the transaction is structured properly and integrated effectively.

[Finn Staal]

M&A is the obvious alternative to build or partner your way into increasing market share, entering new markets, access to new products or research, or faster access to competencies/talent.
But M&A success does require a clear strategy, the ability to find the best Targets, and to execute the integration phase with full leadership support including to provide the needed resources, time, and execution powwer.

[Amine Imghi]

I would define failure against the objectives approved for the transaction. If the expected ROI is achieved much later than planned, the acquisition may eventually create value, but it still failed to meet its original timing objective. Success should also not be assessed only through synergies. It should include the strategic rationale, financial performance, customer and talent retention, operational stability, regulatory compliance and the successful integration of the organization.

From my experience with large transformation programs in financial services, the expected outcome often depends on many interconnected changes involving people, processes, technology, data, controls and regulatory requirements. These dependencies are frequently underestimated when the deal is approved. Synergies may be identified correctly, but their timing can be too optimistic. The integration may also lack sufficient resources while the organization must continue protecting business-as-usual operations.

This is why solid M&A training combined with practical experience is important. A dedicated IMO can establish the governance, coordinate functional workstreams, manage dependencies and maintain accountability for results. It also requires sustained leadership attention and resources dedicated to the integration. Closing the transaction is only the beginning. The real value is created or lost during integration.

Despite their risks, acquisitions remain attractive because of their potential value. However, realizing that value depends largely on the quality of the integration.

[Author]

Posts