You are on page 1of 8

A Risk Management Model

for Merger and Acquisition

B. S. Chui
Sage International Group Limited, Hong Kong

Abstract In this paper, a merger and acquisition risk in one to the other organization. Moreover, organizations
management model is proposed for considering risk use M&A to penetrate into new markets and new
factors in the merger and acquisition activities. The geographic regions, gain technical/management expertise
proposed model aims to maximize the probability of and knowledge, or allocate capital. Even though business
success in merger and acquisition activities by managing organizations often utilize corporate M&A strategy to
and reducing the associated risks. The modeling of the expand their business, many poorly understood and
proposed merger and acquisition risk management managed M&A result in failure.
model is described and illustrated in this paper. The Systematic corporate M&A research can help to
illustration result shows that the proposed model can understand the M&A activities. However, Sirower (1997)
help to screen the best target company with minimum emphasized the lack of clear understanding of how to
associated risks in the merger and acquisition activity. maximize the probability of success in M&A despite a
Keywords Merger and Acquisition, Risk Analysis, Risk decade of empirical research. Financial economics and
Management strategic management literature are the two main streams
of literature framework to understand the M&A activities
(Datta, D., et al., 1992). Financial economists view M&A
1. Introduction as contests between competing management teams for
the control of corporate entities (Datta, D., et al., 1992).
Driven by globalization, international business looks for a Strategic management researchers use a different
bigger market to achieve the scale of economy, so as to approach by analyzing M&A via examining management
overcome the economic barriers. Many organizations controlled factors, such as: diversification strategies (i.e.,
adopt merger and acquisition (M&A) as a part of their related vs. unrelated diversification), different types of
corporate strategy to achieve their business objectives. acquisitions (i.e., merger vs. tender offer), or different
M&A is a kind of transaction that can upgrade and types of payments (i.e., cash vs. stock). Nonetheless,
optimize the capital structure of companies with a neither of these disciplines provides sufficient
transfer of ownership and property rights. M&A has explanation for the failure of M&A. Therefore, in order to
already been developed with one century of history in the minimize the failure in M&A, a risk management
world and give rise to merger and acquisition waves over perspective is proposed in this paper, i.e. an approach
the world sixth times since the 1990s. Benefits of M&A that attempts to maximize the probability of success in
include increased economies of scale, increased market M&A by managing and reducing the risks that associated
share, enhanced efficient resource allocations, expanded a in the M&A activities. For this reason, this paper attempts
larger asset base, increased reputation or added name to propose a risk management model for the M&A
recognition, and instantly adopted expert talent lacking activities, and is organized as follows. Section 2 discusses

International Journal of Engineering Business Management, Vol. 3, No. 2 (2011)
37 International Journal of Engineering Business Management, Vol. 3, No. 2 (2011)
Vol. 3, No. 2 (2011) ISSN 1847-9790, pp 37-44

. and in a two-country oligopoly in general equilibrium. implications. Madura. Moreover. and Horn and Levinshon (2001) analyzing the economic monetary effects in addition to analyzed the welfare effects of M&A and derive policy the percentage abnormal returns (Bradley. He found statistically significant wealth examined from perspectives such as auction theory and gains for both organizations. Pawaskar (2001) analyzed the post-merger “tariff-jumping” argument that investing via M&A is an operating performance of the acquiring companies and alternative mode to enter other markets or expand the attempted to identify the sources of merger-induced market. R. & showed that following the takeover.. or completing acquisitions where part of the the acquisition was the first major step of the acquirer target was previously owned by the acquirer. R. a number of studies have examined the developed. Head and Ries (1997). et al. and Picou (1994) The M&A research findings from the earlier studies found material variation in acquirer valuation reactions showed that most targets significantly increase in value according to the domicile of the target. The Persson (2004). Lin. Neary (2007) developed a model of mergers There has been a long history for M&A activities. These transactions have been extensively M&A activities. As is appropriate for cross- the “winner’s curse” is an established part of the border acquisitions. Other studies in M&A include and Chaudhuri (1999). These ideas have been formalized in theoretical changes. and reported that the most mergers were determining the distribution of gains between bidders dominated by mergers between companies belonging to and targets in M&A. 2 (2011) www. Desai. the current theories and models of M&A activities in the contrary to the tariff-jumping argument. Vishney.intechweb. The positive issue of equilibrium market & Kim.. 2003). A. Kabiraj (Andrade. Sharma and Ho (2002) reported a decline and Persson (2001).. and their findings motivated by stock market conditions (Schleifer. solvency and liquidity of most of the merged companies Other M&A studies have explained the activity by the declined. no significant strand of literature has investigated the determinants of improvement in profitability was found when comparing international M&A activities from a more industrial the profitability difference between the pre and post organization oriented background.. the understanding of the earlier studies in M&A Barros and Cabral (1994).intechopen. The M&A studies in. Doukas and are about the acquisition of all of a target organization Travlos (1988) found generally insignificant valuation while the remainders are about either partial acquisitions consequences for acquirers with the exception of when of a target. 1988). et al. and the role of hubris (Roll. In these models. they consequences cross-border M&A activities.. extensive series of method-of-payment in M&A studies For the analysis of M&A performance. High trade the M&A risk management model while section 4 costs not only encourage tariff-jumping mergers. The study also revealed that mergers between negative returns to acquirers led to theories pertaining to unrelated companies were gaining ground but mergers agency considerations and free cash flow (Jensen. Furthermore. Rahman and with the acquisition price being determined Limmack (2004) analyzed control-adjusted operating cash endogenously in a bargaining process. 2001. Langhe and Ooghe finance theories have also been put forward to structure (2001) examined the M&A performance of smaller the examination of M&A in which acquisitions are companies involved in the takeover. but also illustrates the mechanism of the proposed model with increase the incentives for domestic mergers as they data. J. M. 2002. R. E. Theoretical work pertaining to M&A the same business group or house with similar product has also been studied. Kang (1993) whereas acquirers typically experience small declines in examined matched-pairs of acquisitions in cross border values.. Subsequent studies have added refinement to of Direct Foreign Investment (DFI). Blonigen. profitability measure. A. thereby increasing the acquisition price domestic 2. Horn M&A activity. Section 3 proposes a theoretical framework for do not necessarily induce cross-border M&A. Behavioral of the sampled companies studied. Bjorvatn (2004) and Norback and in operating performance after M&A activity when Persson (2004) provided theoretical models where foreign carried out studies on the operating performance of 36 organizations may acquire domestic acquisition targets. E. high trade costs literature. D. NorbKack and extensively examined (Heron. mergers had a negative impact on Markusen.. Vol. contributed significantly to asset growth in only one-fifth 1986).. 1986). a conclusion is given in section 5. including the findings of average lines. For example.. flow performance using a sample of Malaysian 38 International Journal of Engineering Business Management. Another the acquirers’ performance. M. & Lie. he placed his analysis in the context literature. In most M&A studies in the literature. Finally. B.. different types of models and theories have been Moreover. Australian companies involved in mergers. The significance of the type of structure via M&A in an international context has been consideration in M&A was noted and has been analyzed by Horn and Persson (2001). into the target’s . reduce the degree of competition in the domestic www. 3. Beena (2000) are succinctly summarized by Bharadwaj and Shivdansi analyzed the significance of mergers and its (2003). Theories and Models of M&A acquirers are prepared to pay for domestic targets. et al. 2002). No... 2003). G. profitability. The study reported that as indicated by all the models in terms of trade costs (Carr et. 2001). They carried out empirical examination in characteristics.

T. which leading to the many causes related to those categories. the second layer is the criterion classified into different types along the branches.Analyze the diagram to identify causes that Identification and Risk Quantization warrant further investigation.Identify the main causes contributing to the effect significant improvements in operating performance. After identify the multilevel structure. The diagram illustrates the main causes and together. The fishbone diagram can 1970s (Saaty. such that the probability of success in M&A can be maximized by managing and reducing the risks that associated in the M&A activities. the design and development of the existing M&A models Step 4 . being studied. the first level is the goal of the effect are then laid out along the "bones".companies involved in M&A activity. and analysis technique by which the relative factors can be immediately sorts ideas into useful categories. it is needed to identify the goal. 3.Identify increasingly more detailed levels of managing and reducing the risks that associated in the causes and continue organizing them under related M&A activities. see it. The study results suggested that Step 1 . Therefore.1 Risk identification with fish bone method 3. takeover performance and suggested that there were no Step 3 .2 Risk quantification with Fuzzy-AHP method Risk identification is to identify the risk factors that exist The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is adopted in the in the M&A activity. ranked and the importance of them can also be figured The fishbone diagram is a tool for analyzing process out. Powell and Stark (2005) Step 2 . it is worth taking to propose a M&A model and theory from a project risk management perspective. The approach of the M&A risk causes or categories.Use a chart pack positioned so that everyone can compared post-takeover performance with combined pre. Further level or risk factors level that is a concrete manifestation causes can be laid out alongside further side branches. as a cause-and-effect diagram. draw the spine and create the effect box. form a multilevel tree structure. 1979) and has been extensively studies identify many possible causes for an effect or problem. a quantitative scale The main goal of the fishbone diagram is to illustrate in a to judge is needed to establish. It is a team weighting selection factors and analyzing the data brainstorming tool used to identify potential root causes collected for the factors. General structure of a fishbone diagram manage the risks arising from the M&A processes so as to maximize the probability of success in M&A by Step 5 . Chui: A Risk Management Model for Merger and Acquisitions 39 .Identify and clearly define the outcome or effect acquisitions led to improvements in the long-run to be analyzed. and is placed at the "fish head". however. In this way.e. it is used to compare each graphical way the relationship between a given outcome factors over another to determine the relative importance and all the factors that influence this outcome. Because of its function it may be referred to of choosing the right strategies can be resolved. 3. in Fig. So of the overall goal or specific guidelines. operating cash flow performance. and it helps to solve decision problem by sub-causes leading to an effect (symptom). Their study for constructing and analyzing a Cause-and-Effect examined whether shareholders’ wealth increased as a Diagram are outlined below: result of takeover. and the overall evaluation.For each major branch. management model is divided into two steps. AHP was developed by Tomas L. the complex problem to problems. The causes of the multilevel tree structure.intechweb. i. AHP links the quantitative and qualitative method dispersion. criteria and diagram. It is very powerful systematic can be used to structure a brainstorming session. the effect is usually a problem needs to be strategy of evaluation. Risk Step 6 . It and refine since then. identify other specific and theories are based on the cost objective function. The steps www. These are the labels for the major branches The M&A studies in the literature are mostly from the of the diagram and become categories under which to list financial and economics perspectives. 1. B. the potential lost or risks result from the M&A activities cannot be reflected. The factors which may be the causes of the effect cost-orientated perspectives can be good for projecting the potential gain/profit from the M&A. In resolved. Saaty in the to identify possible risks. M&A Risk Management Model The M&A risk management model is used to identify and Figure 1.intechopen. the third level is the general structure of a fishbone diagram is presented strategic one that is used to select the suitable partner. the fish bone method is adopted risk factors. In the risk identification of the M&A M&A risk management model to quantify the identified risk management model. In a typical fishbone In the AHP.

using the triangular fuzzy. 2. J. A sample of a quantitative scale Step 2: Construct the fuzzy pair-wise comparison matrix in AHP is illustrated in Table 1. planning. … n. The larger value of adjacent judgments the index μ indicates a higher degree of optimism. where is a n x one over another slightly favor one activity n fuzzy matrix containing fuzzy number and is a over another non-zero n x 1 fuzzy vector containing fuzzy number . the matrix of optimism can be obtained a special fuzzy set . A fuzzy number is While α is fixed. affirmation 2 4 6 8 Intermediate values When compromise is Degree of satisfaction with the judgment matrix is between the two needed estimated by the index of optimism μ. providing a useful mechanism for The triangular fuzzy numbers to are utilized to checking the consistency of the evaluation measures and capture the vagueness and uncertainty of domain alternatives suggested by the team thus reducing bias in knowledge. such as lack of focus. In addition. which ultimately are costly Step 1: Compare the score of the criteria.. comparing alternatives for each criterion. between the scale factors. and is Table 1. 9 Absolute The evidence favoring one importance activity over another is of where . . the triangular fuzzy numbers Scale Definition Explanation 1 Equal importance Two activities contribute equally to the objective Step 3: Solve the fuzzy www. & Li. where x takes its in order to estimate the degree of satisfaction. 3. K. i. 40 International Journal of Engineering Business Management. Vol. the hierarchy. assessing the relative importance of these triangular fuzzy number can be characterized as: criteria. for the synthetic weightings are summarized as follows: participation or ownership.intechopen. It helps capture both subjective and objective evaluation measures. relative strength of each pair of elements in the same hierarchical structure of the modeling framework. and the fuzzy judgment Based on the AHP. A quantitative scale in AHP defined as: to are used to represent the pair-wise synthetic weightings criteria in order to capture the vagueness and uncertainty of the domain knowledge. In the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation. A fuzzy eigenvalue 3 Weak important of Experience and judgment is a fuzzy number solution to . continuous mapping from R to the closed interval [0. By a ≤ b ≤ c under the following triangular-type membership synthesizing the priorities over the optimism matrix and function: by varying the α-value. 2004). The eigenvalue of the pair-wise comparisons decision making. The computational procedures decision making . The triangular distractions that can prevent teams from making the right fuzzy numbers are used to indicate the choice (Yung. and determining an overall raking of the alternatives. the synthetic weightings for the performance parameters and its criteria/ sub-criteria can be obtained. The Fuzzy-AHP is an approach to decision making that involves structuring multiple choice criteria into a Alternatively. j = 1. and the values on the real line R: -∞ < x < +∞ and eigenvector/ maximal eigenvector can also be determined is a by fixing the μ value. the possible order of . A triangular fuzzy number denoted as where Step 4: Determine the synthetic weightings. by defining the confidence level α. 1]. can be further over another elaborated as: 7 Demonstrated One activity is strongly importance favored and its dominance is demonstrated in practice for 0 < α ≤ 1. fuzzy comprehensive evaluation is matrix as follows: further integrated to select the strategies by linking weightings to the relative criterions. 2 (2011) www. 5 Essential or strong Experience and judgment To perform fuzzy multiplications and additions using the importance strongly favor one activity interval arithmetic and α-cut. and determine an overall ranking of the alternatives for each criterion. . No. the Fuzzy-AHP method matrix in the membership function can provide the allows organizations to minimize common pitfalls of weightings for the criteria. The index of optimism is a linear convex combination.

and the fish bone risk identification B3: C7: M&A integration risk analysis of M&A activity is illustrated in Fig. The set of Target Company then is {P1.097. and the fuzzy risk management model can be carried out to determine comprehensive evaluation method is to do with the the importance of different risk factors and the relative comprehensive evaluation. 2. the relative weight of experts. and an example of the assumed evaluation matrix determined by the As shown in Fig. R2. 0. The consolidation of formula the suitable target company in the M&A activity that of Fuzzy-AHP for M&A activity follows four steps. i. CI = 0.419. The assumed evaluation matrix determined by expert R1 sub-risk factors that is related to B1. 1}. P2. the risk management of the Step one: Create the fuzzy set of relevant factors M&A activity is focused on the evaluation of targeted Assume there are 4 target companies namely P1. and the expert set then is {R1. 4.333 0.333 0. Step three: Identify the weight of factors in level 2 and Level 4 (Target Company) P1 P2 P3 P4 level 3 In identifying the weight of factors in level 2. level two shows the criteria that will B1 1 1/5 1/7 affect the performance of the M&A activity. B2: B3 7 3 1 Cost Risk.intechweb. weighting the various risk factors associated with P4}. each expert Figure B. Level 3 (Risk Factors) C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 This means that the evaluation matrix of experts is acceptable.2 0. risks are generally divided into B3: C5: M&A result risk three types under the project management approach with B3: C6: M&A compatible risk fish bone analysis.e. B1: Time Risk.0169.intechopen. and the ranking of the experts and their Operation Cost relative ranking are assumed as shown in Table 2. CR = 0.25 0. S. Fig. B3 It includes the sub-factors of the criteria.5 1 2 3 4 Figure 2. 3. good. P3. Compatibility Project Delay Integration Expert R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R1 1 2 3 4 5 Quality Risk Time Risk R2 0.4. The M&A risk management degree of M&A merger or acquire preferences towards model can be developed to analyze the risks and select different target companies. corresponding Comment Set is {5. B2. Through the calculation of the evaluation matrix of M&A Activity M&A Result expert. R3. which are B2 5 1 1/3 identified by the fishbone analysis. company that is intended to merge or acquire by and P4.1. 2. 0. it shows the relationship between the experts is shown in Table 3. medium.e.0151 < 0. The evaluation matrix of experts Level 2 (Criteria) B1 B2 B3 0. With the above criteria and sub-factors in the hieratical For the identified risks. i. The order of the evaluation matrix is 5. 3. the AHP is adopted to determine approach of Fuzzy-AHP. the computation of the M&A the weighs of each risk factor. eigenvalue λmax = 5.062}. www. i.e. In the illustration of the M&A B2: C4: M&A processes cost risk risk management model.333 0. Step two: Determine the weighs of expert Cost Risk Assume there are 5 experts who are going to weigh the Operation Cost different risk factors. i. R5}.067. Fish bone analysis for M&A activity R3 0.25 0.5 1 2 3 R4 0.263. eigenvector r = Process Sequence {0. which means the approach of the proposed M&A risk management model. and the set of M&A comments is designed as alternative target company. .5 1 Table 2. Level one is the goal of Factors in Level 2 B1 B2 B3 the M&A activity. P2. Chui: A Risk Management Model for Merger and Acquisitions 41 www.160. have minimized risks. different risk factors. 0. The hieratical approach of the proposed M&A risk management model will give weighting on the three factors.5 1 2 M&A Level 1 (Goal) Activity R5 0. bad. and B3: Quality Risk. level three shows the Table 3. very bad. 3 illustrated the hieratical excellent. and their relationship between the risk factors and target companies.e. R4. Model Illustration B1: C1: M&A activity processes sequencing risk B1: C2 M&A project delay risk Risk identification is the fundamental process in the risk B2: C3: Operation cost risk analysis of M&A activity.

the weightings of each factor Table 5. C6. 0.105.0125.167. Level Level Level Level Factors C5 C6 C7 One Two Three Four C5 1 1/5. 1/7. 0. 3. This means that the evaluation Similarily. CR = 0. 0.039. weighting of each target company can then be The relative weights of C5. the remaining evaluation matrix in level 2 are matrix of experts is acceptable. The weight of C1 over C2 from experts are assumed as 1/7. CI = 0. 0. 7 1/3.250.167. 1/3 Activity B1 0.250)T. CR = 0.750 P1.025 < 0. 1/5. where the higher the weight.750)T. Vol.258}T. 0.072.637.1.0195. P4 Table 4. eigenvalue λmax = 3. 0. the evaluation matrix is over level 2.481 Based on the above results. and C7 from the five determined as follow: experts are shown in Table 4. and C7 B2 0.875)T. wC5 = (0. then the weight of C3 final evaluation of risk factors in level 3 as well as the over C4 in eigenvector is .071. This means that the evaluation 0. 0.333.279. the relative weight between factors in the level 2 and factors in level 3 would be In identifying the relative weight of factors in the level 3 As from the data in Table 10. CI = the evaluation matrix of experts is acceptable. 1/3. P2.833)T.285 C3 0. matrix is 3. 1/3.0325. 3. 1/5. This means that wB4 = {0. No. 5 1 3.0336 < 0.intechopen. 1. 3. This means that the evaluation eigenvalue λmax = 3. it shows the relative importance of different risk factors. 1/5. 4.025.0145. www.0385.056 < 0. and S3. 0.570}T. Step four: Establish the fuzzy evaluation matrix This step is about the calculation of the evaluation matrix level 2 and level 3 as well as the final fuzzy evaluation of risk factors in level 3 and gets the weight of alternative target company.145 . matrix of experts is acceptable. eigenvalue λmax = 3. CI wB2 = {0. The order of the evaluation matrix of experts is acceptable.1. 1/ < 0. CI = = 0. 0. 0. As from the table. 0.125. eigenvalue λmax = 3.085 C1 0. 0. CR = 0. . CI = expert. the eigenvector is wB1 = {0.250 Company: C7 3. C3.750.751}T.0125. 1/3. 3.153 C4 0.630 C5 0.833)T. 1/5 1/3.178.1. 1/7.097.847 Then the weight of C3 over C4 in eigenvector is B3 0.3. P3. The relative weight of C5. This means that the evaluation matrix of experts is acceptable. 0. 0. P3.258. 1/5. The summary of weighting results are summarized in Table 5. 5. shown as follows: wB4 = {0. CR = 0. wC2 = (0. 3 1 C2 0. 1/5. C2. 42 International Journal of Engineering Business Management. P2. eigenvalue λmax = 3. 1/3. CR = 0. 3. 0. Thus. 1/4. 7. Based on the above five eigenvectors. the weights of C3 over C4 from the five experts By developing the evaluation matrix of S1.637}T. C6 0. and C5 are wC1 = (0.649}T. The assumed risk evaluation matrix for P1.019 < 0. 1. 1.105.1. C4. 0. 1/7 M&A Factor Weight Factor Weight Target C6 5. the weight of C1 over C2 in eigenvector is Simliarily. 5. wC4 = (0. 0. the are assumed as 1/7. wC3 = (0. and P4 is illustrated in Table 6. C6. 1/6. the more importance of the factor is. 2 (2011) www. Through the calculation of the evaluation matrix of R1 wB3 = {0. the eigenvector according to each evaluation determined as: matrix are for C1.065.

business disruption.. Merger policy in open economies. Moreover.2 0..4 0.6 0.2 etc. Centre for Development Studies. A.4 0.2 0 0 project associated with real situation in the M&A P2 0. The implementation of M&A project is not something that C3 P1 0 0.2 0. 980-994. the comprehensive evaluations are: Bjorvatn. G. the partner selection can reduce most C6 P1 0 0. Synergistic gains from corporate acquisitions and their division According to the above analysis.6 0. K.6 0.6 0. However. Estimating the knowledge-capital model of the multinational enterprise: Comment. Bradley.4 0.2 0. European Economic Review. The important things that the M&A project P3 0.. Corporate Sector in India.2 M&A activity. K. Mitchell. (2004).2 0. P3. P4 0 0.. Bharadwaj.2 0 implementation as well. An Analysis of Mergers in the Private Similarly. P2.4 0. R.2 0.2 0.4 0. 21. P3 0 0 0. M.2 0. Kim.4 0.4 0. Trivandrum.. people. Some obstacles should overcome at the path of P3 0 0. E.6 0... E. P. Paper No.2 by the project team.6 0. i.2 0 company is the best that can reduce most risks in the P4 0 0 0.2 0 0 manager should concern about are whether the project P4 0. www.2 0.2 0.6 0.4 0 0 strategies to cope with. P.. American Economic Review.e. B. Journal of Financial Economics. and P4 6.6 0 0 management model.6 0 0 possible risks from the M&A process.2 0. Target Excellent Good Medium Bad Very Bad 5. Risk evaluation matrix for P1.4 0.2 0 0 processes... quality and cost of the C4 P1 0. so as to initially figure out which P3 0 0.6 0 0 cultures. (2001).4 0.4 0.4 0. (2000).4 0. Cabral. A.4 0.2 0 highly depends on the experts’ initial weighting on the P2 0 0 0. B. New evidence and perspectives on mergers.2 0.L. 113−148. 67.2 0 considered.2 0 0 acquisition can be screened by the proposed M&A risk P2 0 0. are taken as the complex matters which need to be P2 0 0. P3. Conclusion C1 P1 0 0. Then.6 0. (1988).6 0 0 model can also identify the most important factors that P3 0. S.intechweb.4 0.6 0 0 should be approached without a great deal of careful P2 0 0 0. Journal of Financial Economics. (2003). Blonigen.A. (2003).6 0. 93.. 38.. Valuation effects of bank financing in acquisitions.2 0. 1041-1055. the P2 0 0. Table 6. Stafford. 15(2).4 0 0 should pay attention to are time. Chui: A Risk Management Model for Merger and Acquisitions 43 www. the sequence of between the stockholders of target and acquiring performance of target companies P1. Journal of Economic Perspectives..6 0. 103-120 Barros.B. different legacy systems. Economic integration and the profitability of cross-border mergers and acquisitions.4 0.6 0.4 0 0 P2 0 0. European Economic Review.2 factors. 3−40.. C2 P1 0 0. Head.6 0 0 on how to minimize the risk of implementation.4 0.4 0 0 In conducting the M&A activity. 48.6 0. Beena. L. it needs to note P4 0 0.4 0.2 0 company that is more preferred to undergo merger or C5 P1 0.2 . 301. Davies.. and the weightings also needed to be controlled P3 0 0 0. References Andrade.2 planning. Shivdansi. A. The successful factors that P4 0 0. and find the most appropriated P4 0 0.2 As from the illustration in this paper.4 0 0 that one of the major deficiencies of the model is that it is C7 P1 0 0.intechopen.6 0. 1211-1226.4 0.2 0.2 0 0 can affect the M&A activity.6 0. M. (1994). and P4 is: firms.4 0 0 can be done with the objectives of the M&A activity. it is necessary to work P3 0 0. the best target P4 0 0. P2.

244-276. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. (2001). (1979). The international market for corporate control: Mergers and acquisitions of US firms by Japanese firms. 76(2). Malaysian Companies. R. (2002). Markusen. Roll.. Li J. and takeovers. Application of fuzzy integrative and Quantitative Analysis.. The American Economic Review. Madura. Sirower.. Effects of Mergers on Corporate Performance in India. 74(4).C.K. A. L. Accounting. Persson.. R. H. Persson. V. J. Vikalpa. (1999). Neary.L. Horn. welfare under decentralized competition policy. Journal of International Economics.. New York Doukas. (2001). H. J. E.intechopen. A. 345−371. D.. (2001).G.. Industrial Engineering Journal.. Limmack. 1229-1257. 5(1). T. V.. 195- 207. J. Sydney. Travlos.E.. Ooghe. The Journal of International Trade and Economic Development. No. (2001). J. J. Belgium.. J. (1992). 53.L. The Free Press: New York. Merger policies and trade enterprises.intechweb. (1997).. evaluation method to risk management of virtual Horn. The Hubris hypothesis of corporate Factors Influencing Wealth Creation from Mergers takeovers. K.. D. R. L. M. Ghent University. (2003).. (1988). J. Rahman Abdul.. (2001). method of payment in takeovers.K. McGraw-hill. 197-216. 8(2). Ries.. 70. Journal of Financial Economics. Carr. Stark. 13. K..E. 3-4.. Journal of Financial Yung K. Kabiraj. Langhe. Lie. Journal of Financial Economics. International mergers and Operating Performance: Some Australian Evidence. Datta. Are Acquisitions Worthwhile? An Empirical Study of the Post-Acquisition Performance of Privately Held Belgian Companies Involved in Take-Overs. American Economic Review.. R. Review of Economic Studies. T. The Journal of Finance. and Acquisitions: A Meta-Analysis. 65−74. J. 67-84. Canadian Journal of Economics.J. 34. The effect of corporate Schleifer.. 155-200... 44 International Journal of Engineering Business Management. 323-329. 409-416. Strategic Saaty.. (1986). 29. R. Australia. P.. 1161−1175 Sharma..E.W. Picou.R.. NorbKack. liberalization. (1997). Operating performance and the Lose the Acquisition Game. M. 111(470). (2004). A. 1104-1123..P. Pawaskar. G. Cambridge. The wealth effects of international acquisitions and the impact of the EEC www. Powell. 3. J. M. Lin.. Paper 12. On the welfare analysis of a cross-border merger. The Impact of Acquisitions on Head. J.G. (1993).. 43... Ho. Journal of Business. Levinshon. Multinational Firms and the Theory of International Trade. (1994). 59(2). Pinches. N. Cross-border mergers as instruments of comparative advantage.R. R. D.. Journal of Business Finance and 91. Corporate Estimating the knowledge-capital model of the Acquisition and the Operating Performance of multinational enterprise. (2002).. Vishney. Kang. 62(2).. MA.W.J. 30(4). T. Privatization and foreign competition. 7(3). Vol.... Global Finance Journal. 359-400. 295−311. 37. Chaudhuri.L. Narayanan. Agency costs of free cash flow. Do Takeovers Create “Real” Gains? Some UK Evidence. Stock market driven multi-nationalism on shareholder wealth: Evidence acquisitions. The Synergy Trap: How Companies Heron. MIT Press.. Jensen. 1. 693-708. Markusen.. 2 (2011) www. 307-333. Management Journal. 19-32. (2004). from international acquisitions. corporate finance. (2004).com . (2007). 31. (2005).. 137−155. (2002).. University of New South Wales. The equilibrium ownership of an international oligopoly. H. 40-44. 1.. Economic Journal. 26. Maskus. (1986). Journal of International Economics.W. The Journal of Business Finance & Accounting.S.