Abstract
Mergers and acquisitions continue in spite of an alarming failure rate as they rarely manage to benefit the shareholders. Most completed takeovers damage one party: the company making the acquisition. Many studies conducted have reached similar conclusions: around 65% of takeovers harm the interests of the shareholders of an acquiring company. They do, however, often reward the shareholders of the acquired company. Indeed, most of failed mergers suffer from poor implementation, and in fifty percent of the cases, senior management fails to take into account the different cultures of the companies involved. Most mergers are based on the idea of "let's increase revenues", but the company must have an efficient management team to succeed in that process. The nature of the problem is not so much that there is an open conflict between the two sides. It is that the cultures do not meld quickly enough to take advantage of the opportunities. In the meantime, the market will move on. Many consultants refer to how little time companies spend, before a merger, thinking about whether their organisations are compatible. The benefits of mergers are usually couched in financial or commercial terms: cost-savings can be made or the two sides have complementary businesses that will allow them to increase revenues.
