AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE EFFECTS OF MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS ON FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF COMPANIES IN KENYA (2003 - 2007

)

BY KENNEDY MURITHI BUS-3-2371-3/07

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT FOR THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (MBA –FINANCE) KENYA METHODIST UNIVERSITY

MAY 2010

DECLARATION I declare that this is my original work and has not been submitted for examination in any other University. Signature: ________________________Date: _________________________

KENNEDY MURITHI BUS-3-2371-3/07

This thesis has been submitted for examination with our approval as the University supervisors. Signature: ______________________Date: DR. T. M. NYAMACHE LECTURER, FINANCE KENYA METHODIST UNIVERSITY ___________________

Signature:

_________________________Date: _________________________

DR. FRANCIS MAMBO LECTURER, FINANCE KENYA METHODIST UNIVERSITY

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would like to take this opportunity to express my sincere appreciation and gratitude to the following people and organizations without whose assistance, guidance and valuable support, this study would not have been successful.

Dr. Nyamache and Dr Mambo, supervisors, for directing and giving in-depth input for a comprehensive proposal.

All the staff and management of Kenya Methodist University, Nairobi Campus, who assisted and contributed to the success of this proposal.

To my colleagues in the MBA class for their support and team work that gave me a lot of support morally.

Finally, to Kenya Methodist University for having given me this opportunity to be part of this comprehensive Masters Degree Programme.

iii

DEDICATION To my wife Lydia and children Celine and Cynthia for their unwavering love, support, encouragement and dedication during the challenging and trying study.

iv

to establish the extent to which mergers and acquisitions assist in the attainment of returns on investments.ABSTRACT The general objective of this study was to establish the effects of mergers and acquisitions on financial performance of companies in Kenya. comply with new legislation. Mergers and acquisitions also assisted in the v . to find the role the mergers and acquisitions play in achieving and enhancing profitability in companies. The specific objectives were: To determine the significance of mergers and acquisitions in the increase of market share of companies in Kenya. acquire states of art and technology.This review also monitored the trend of amalgamations of companies in Kenya. acquire brand loyalty and overcome entry barriers. diversify business growth. The research design was descriptive. the study found that that mergers and acquisitions increase the market share of companies the firms entered into new geographical areas. The study also explored the impact of corporate restructuring to firms in Kenya. The focus was between the fiscal years 2003 to 2007. From the findings. In the same section. The design was appropriate to the study as it sought to obtain complete and effective corporate restructuring in Kenyan firms. and to determine the benefits of synergy that is achieved once companies adopt mergers and acquisitions in Kenya. Literature was reviewed on effects mergers and acquisitions . the nature of mergers and acquisitions. types of mergers and the importance of mergers on company performance were reviewed.

diversification of risk. acquiring state of technology.attainment of returns on investment in companies. profitability of the company. complying with new regulation . acquire brand loyalty and overcome entry barriers. The study also established that there exist positive relationships between merger and acquisition and predictor factors which are market share. achievement of synergy and return on investment. increased market share. the study also concludes that the benefits of synergy that is achieved through adoption of merger and acquisition were. vi .

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS M&A: Mergers and Acquisitions FTC : Federal Trade Commission NAVPS: Net Asset Value Per Share NAV: Net Asset Value EPS: Earnings Per Share ROIC : Return On Investment Capital NSE: Nairobi Stock Exchange ABSA: Amalgamation of Banks in South Africa MPC: Monopolies and Price Control vii .

Agency problems: Agency problems arise when managers own a fraction of the ownership of their firm. Vertical mergers: It takes place between firms at different levels of production. Market capitalization: The total market value of a company at the bourse. viii .LIST OF OPERATIONAL TERMS Horizontal mergers: It takes place between firms that are actually or potentially competitors occupying similar positions in the chain of production. Conglomerate mergers: This is a merger between firms that are neither competitors nor potential or actual customers or suppliers of each other.

4 Importance of Mergers in Company Performance.................6 Market Based Valuation..............................11 CHAPTER TWO........................................................................................................................................36 CHAPTER THREE....10 1.................2 Vertical merges.............................................................3 Motives behind Mergers........................4......................1 1......................10 1...........................xii CHAPTER ONE.................37 3.......................vii LIST OF OPERATIONAL TERMS.......2 Statement of the Problem..............................1 Research Design..............40 3........................4 Objectives of the Study...19 2...........19 2.......38 3...........................................................................................................................................................................1General objective...................................................2 Target Population ...........................................................................4............................4.............................................................3 Information in merger review......................................................................................................................24 2...........................1 1.............................................................40 3.................................................5 Sample Design and Size......................................................................................................................................................................................................2 Types of Mergers and Acquisitions/Corporate Restructuring............................................28 2.....................................................................3 Conglomerate mergers.........................26 2..............................................10 1.................................13 2........iv ABSTRACT..4.......................................................5.................................................................................................TABLE OF CONTENT DECLARATION........2.....37 3...................................................................................................................................................3 Research Questions..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................38 3........................................................................................................7 Limitations of the Study.v LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.......2 Empirical studies of mergers......................................................................................................3 Data Collection Methods and Instruments...................................22 2...................................6 Scope of the Study..1 Merger analysis..........................................................................................27 2.....................5 Significance of the Study.........................17 2................11 1....................13 2............14 2............................................................................................................7 Conceptual Framework...............................................13 2.................6 Data Analysis...........33 2.........................................................................10 1..............................1 Background of the Study.............................................iii DEDICATION............................................................ Interpretation and Presentation............................................................31 2......................................................................2......................................................................................................1 Horizontal mergers................................0 LITERATURE REVIEW...................18 2.........4..................................................................................................0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY..........................xi LIST OF FIGURES...............1 Other measures of performance.............................................................................4 Research Area...........................5 Performance Measures..6 1.............................................0 INTRODUCTION..................................4 Merger remedies.....................viii LIST OF TABLES...........................41 ix ...............................................................37 3......................................................1 Nature of Corporate Restructuring....................29 2.....................9 1................................................................1 1............................................................................2...................................................ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT......4..................................................2 Specific objectives.................

...........................72 Appendix IV: Budget Estimate.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................52 CHAPTER FIVE:.........................................................................60 REFERENCES..........0 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION..................................60 5...............................................................................2004..........................................................................................................................................................................42 4.....2.......................................3 Experience of the Firm...........2 Discussion .......2 Firm’s Profile......................................................................4 Regression Analysis ..............................................................................................1 Personal Data................CHAPTER FOUR:..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................45 4...............................2...........................2...................................66 Appendix III: Time Plan...........................1 Introduction............................42 4...2........................42 4....................................................3Conclusion ..........................................1 Introduction..........74 x ......56 5......................................72 APPENDIX V: MERGER CONTROL NOTIFICATIONS.....65 Appendix I: Introduction Letter.............................2 Analysis and Interpretation ....42 4......0 DISCUSSION CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION............................................................SOURCE MPC ANNUAL REPORTS 2001 .................................................61 APPENDICES .65 Appendix II : Questionnaire......................................56 5..........................................................48 4....................................................56 5......................4Recommendation.............................................42 4...............................56 5....................

...............4: Classification of organization in terms of ownership.................................................................................................5: Sector of the organization...................................................................................52 Table 4............50 Table 4..................12: Whether the Respondents Would Recommend a Merger or an Acquisition Again................54 xi .50 Table 4......46 Table 4..............................7: Reason/S Why the Organization Undertook the Merger................51 Table 4.............................................10: The Degree of Involvement of Managers in the Acquisition or Merger Process .............9: Whether the Firm Appealed To the High Court..........3: Legal structure of the firm...................................................1: Education level ...........................49 Table 8: Whether the Firm Was Subjected To Appeal to the Tribunal...........11: Whether The Merger or Acquisition Undertaken the Firm Is A Success..........................................44 Table 4.......................................52 Table 4...47 Table 4............................48 Table 4..................................47 Table 4..................LIST OF TABLES Table 4..............................13: Model Summary .......................................................................................................................................................................2: Type of company.................................................................................................14: Coefficients results......................................6: The Sort of Merger or Acquisition That the Company Undertook...........53 Table 4....45 Table 4..............

...........36 Figure 4............................2: Gender of the respondents ..............................LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2....44 xii ...................43 Figure 4.......................3: Number of years of service ......4: Ownership composition of company......................1:-The Conceptual Framework.......................................43 Figure 4....................................................................................................................

others fail. The central strategy for most firms seeking Mergers and Acquisitions (M &A) is to seek to become the leading player in the product-market area of the strategic business unit. The changing environments and the new forms of competition have created new opportunities and threats for business firms. many companies look to achieve over 50 percent of their growth from M&As.0 INTRODUCTION 1. The change imperatives are strong. There is no question that the pent-up demand for mergers has been brought back to life due to various factors such as convergence of low interest rates.CHAPTER ONE 1. few companies made mergers a key element of their growth strategy. Thomas and Weston(1992). debt availability. Twenty years back. Mergers were an afterthought or episodic.1 Background of the Study The existing capabilities of a firm influence the kind of acquisition activity that will make business and economic sense. private equity and venture capital. For large samples. and firms must adjust to new forces of competition from all directions. Today. This has forced many of them to adopt many forms of restructuring activity. cash infusions from initial public offers and the perceived lack of organic growth opportunities due to a saturated marketplace. some M&As succeed. 1 .

For example. The returns to acquiring firms are influenced by a number of factors. If the time period over which the returns to the shareholders of acquiring firms includes a year or two before a specific acquisition. 2 . But studies also reveal that for the largest combinations during the period of strategic mergers (1992-98). It is important to note the long-term effects on performance of merger deals.But well conceived and effectively implemented M&A activity can yield returns to shareholders in excess of broad stock market indexes . on average acquiring firms earn at least the same as their cost of capital. which usually focuses on the short-term.The Economist (2000). Kraillinger (1997). Some acquirers have developed processes that facilitate the achievement of highly impressive track records. in at least twothirds of the cases. performance related incentives for mergers affect long term strategic variables which tend to be underestimated in much of the current empirical research. Many firms engage in a series of M&A activities over time thus making it difficult lo isolate the influence of a single acquisition event. As mentioned by Chakrabarli and Burton (1983). economic effects. Anslinger and Copeland (1996) found out that samples of both corporate and financial buyers were able to achieve superior performance. value is increased. Other recent contributions suggest that long-term positive results for mergers are found for mergers across related product lines.

when the acquirer is deciding what to buy and what to pay. through internal growth or by means of mergers.Hughes. This effect of merging companies is a well-known classic issue. whereby economies of scale spread the large fixed costs of investing in machinery or computer systems over a larger number of units. the expected synergistic characteristics of mergers can contribute to improved performance through successful efficiency of operations. from strategy to target identification and valuation to integration. there should not be separate mergers and postmerger integration process.In these long-term effects.Lee and Singh(1989). especially the culture of the companies. . but when the likely risks and challenges of the integration are considered al the very beginning of the merger process. 3 . In essence. An example is combining a company strong in research with one strong in marbling. The probability of deals success goes up considerably when the key elements of postmerger integration are not only started before closing.Cosh. Another efficiency gain is achieved by combining complementary activities. where increased size of companies and synergies. Pre-merger planning has become especially critical as companies face pressure to deliver synergies as soon as possible. must be assessed and rolled into the synergy (and price to pay) calculation. Schumpeter (1942). All of the elements that affect Post merger integration success. are positively related to long-term performance. but a holistic approach to the deal.

a number of industries formerly fragmented into many small-scale operations have been rolled up into larger firms. breaking of trade barriers. can lead to higher prices. Indeed. With excess capacity in an industry. Berger (1999). 4 . This form of merger is what is referred to as consolidation and a good example in Kenya is what the Coca Cola Company is carrying out by closing bottling facilities countrywide while expanding the company's bottling facilities in the city. That. horizontal mergers can be used to shut down some high-cost plants to reduce industry supply and to increase efficiency in the remaining firms. free flow of capital across countries and globalization of business as a number of economies are being deregulated and integrated with other economies. reduced availability of goods or services. Further. Mergers have become popular because of the enhanced competition. But some are likely to lessen competition. The larger firm has been able to achieve efficiencies not achieved by the separate units. Berger (1999). Most mergers actually benefit consumers by allowing firms to operate more efficiently. Berger (1999). and less innovation. especially during the valuation stage. in turn. some mergers create a concentrated market while others enable a single firm to raise resources. lower quality of products.This involves looking downstream al core processes and the nuts and bolts of how things work and in getting the people who know how to design and implement changes to these systems and processes involved up front.

but the cost of acquiring a company may be determined in advance. The characteristics and competitive structure of an industry will influence the strategy employed. It would be appropriate to adopt a definition of corporate strategy that helps in understanding issues in mergers and acquisitions. This approach. An acquisition generally involves paying a premium. they are mutually supportive and reinforcing. It is important to observe that one of the greatest challenges of corporate raiding has always been identifying the business area in which a firm should participate in order to maximize its long-term profitability . Thomas and Weston(1992). Indeed. Acquisitions and mergers have been popular methods of increasing the size and value of firms in modern times. Firms generally have internal development programs that are assisted by M&A activity.Internal growth and mergers are not mutually exclusive activities. The logic is that the segment can be managed better when added to the activities of the buying firm. An acquisition may also represent obtaining a segment divested from another firm. Some other advantages of M&A or external growth may also be noted. An acquisition enables the acquirer to obtain an organization already in place with an historical track record. in contrast to the older system of increasing value through organic growth. but they can be mitigated to some degree by appropriate due diligence. Successful firms use many forms of M&A and restructuring based on opportunities and limitations. The factors favoring M&A in part relate to industry characteristics. 5 . Some surprises are still possible. is faster and in many cases cheaper.

It may. may in some cases require major resources which are beyond firm’s existing capability. technology. resources or management talent as less risky and speedier than gaining the same objectives through internal efforts or organic growth. 6 . products. Jemison and Sitkin(1986). be an appropriate phenomenon for an organization to merge with or acquire a supplier of its raw material so as to guarantee availability and quality of such raw material or with a competitor so as to expand its market share or with another firm in order to comply with changes in legislation. a merger or an acquisition may be the only available option. In such a situation.Mintzberg and Quinn (1991). policies and actions. Failure to perform is critical to a business as it is the major cause of business failure. Many studies have been done in the area of M&A and results found from the studies have been inconsistent. 1.2 Statement of the Problem Mergers and acquisitions have become the main means of attaining higher performance which is the main goal of any company. for instance. Many managers will today regard buying a company for access to markets. Strategic decisions are based on building on or stretching an organization’s resources and competencies to create new opportunities or capabilities based on these resources. define strategy as a pattern or a plan that integrates an organization’s major goals. Strategy therefore. therefore.

This Act has not been revised since 1989. but are apparently not easily available. and forms their substantial costs relating to professional services. The documented experiences would focus on factors that would include the approval processes and creation of shareholder value. This study will document in a comprehensive manner the experiences of companies that have undergone mergers and acquisitions in Kenya. The Restrictive Trade Practices. evaluation and screening takes up a lot of managers' time. such as the Banking Act or the Trade Licensing Act. and highlight barriers encountered from the perspective of those who have 'been there’. It is a law that is not in harmony with other sectional laws. There are heavy and punitive penalties that are imposed by this law if any merger or a takeover proceeds without such an approval. The least a company could expect is to undergo an unfriendly approval process. Monopolies and Price Control Act (Cap 504) is the principal guide that gives guideline and direct all processes of mergers and acquisitions in Kenya. It is universally recognized that target identifications. The study would also give an insight of processes. to support and promote effective competition . Jemison and Silkin(1986). Any delays could make firms loose out on a merger opportunity.There are quite a number of activities that go on behind the scenes of these mergers and acquisitions which need to be known. yet the dynamic changes in the market place demand that such a law should be reviewed from time to time. The study will tend to establish whether mergers and acquisitions always result in creation of shareholders' value. The law does not give a period within which ministerial approval should be given. 7 .

will be established and documented. Lichtenberg. creation of shareholders wealth and firms perception as regards factors that contribute to the success or failure of mergers and acquisitions among a broader range of Kenyan firms A study was conducted by Lev and Mandelker (1972). They concluded that the market value of the acquiring firms rose on average by 5. Her study did not cover mergers and acquisitions in other sectors of economy. Few studies have been done in Kenya concerning M&A and by conducting this research. They compared the performance of merged firms using profitability measures for 5 pre merger and 5 post merger years. this study will include an insight in the field of mergers and acquisitions as to the approval processes. Chesang (2002) . and Siegel (1990). Consequently.6 % (significant at 10% level). They were however unable to identify a positive relationship between the level of merger activity and profitability. Frank. an opportunity to observe similarities or otherwise on these conclusions.carried out a study on Merger Restructuring and Financial Performance of Commercial Banking in Kenya. 8 .In conducting this survey study among the Kenyan firms that have been involved in mergers and acquisitions activity. on 69 firms. examined United Kingdom active acquirers and found some evidence that companies undertaking mergers earned a higher rate of returns than those that relied on internal growth. the researcher will be able to know how companies perform.

To what extent have mergers and acquisitions assisted in the attainment of returns on investment in companies in Kenya? iv. What are the benefits of synergy that is achieved once companies adopt mergers and acquisitions? 9 .3 Research Questions The research questions had been decided as follows: i. if any on the performance of the companies in Kenya.Many companies in Kenya use share price as their measure of performance and by which they are judged by investors and stockholders alike. What is the significance of mergers and acquisitions in the increase in market power of companies in Kenya? ii. This study will be set to find out the effects of mergers and acquisitions. What is the role that mergers and acquisitions play in achieving enhanced profitability of companies in Kenya? iii. The question for the study will therefore be: Would the performance of the firm be the same before and after merging? 1.

Academicians and researchers by providing more insight into the relationship between mergers and acquisitions and company performance. 1. 10 . To determine the significance of mergers and acquisitions in the increase in market share of companies in Kenya.4. iv.1. ii.4 Objectives of the Study 1. To find out the role that mergers and acquisitions play in achieving enhanced profitability of companies in Kenya. iii. To determine the benefits of synergy that is achieved once companies adopt mergers and acquisitions.5 Significance of the Study This study will be of value to: Current investors and firms at the Nairobi Stock Exchange(NSE) and elsewhere and any other firm in competitive industry as it will add knowledge on the understanding of the importance of mergers and acquisitions in analyzing company performance. To establish the extent to which mergers and acquisitions assist in the attainment of returns on investment in companies in Kenya.4.1General objective To establish the effects of mergers and acquisitions on financial performance of companies 1.2 Specific objectives The specific objectives have been decided as follows: i.

Financial constraints: This restricted the scope of this study because of lack of sufficient funds. ii. To the executives and managers of the companies listed at the NSE. yielded reliable and valid results. the practitioners of management need to update themselves and their respective industries on the best practices required. 1.6 Scope of the Study The scope of this study covered all the companies in Kenya that have undergone mergers and acquisitions between the year 2003 and 2007. This study will also contribute to the bulk of knowledge and research at the university as it will be used as a basis of reference by students for any future study in the field of mergers. be on Nairobi since it is the capital city and most of the head offices are located in Nairobi. however. the researcher was compelled to take a case of only those companies that operate in Nairobi.As the environment is very dynamic. Emphasis was. 11 . Time factor: Due to the fact that the time allocated for this study was short.7 Limitations of the Study The major constraints of this study were: i. the study will cover all the companies which have merged and the relative performance. acquisition and restructuring of companies. This however. 1. The researcher however. engaged the use of his personal savings and went for cost effective data collection tools and methods to cut on costs.

iii.

Lack of cooperation: The researcher encountered a lot of resistance while carrying out this study due to the fact that the topic under study touched on the sensitive issue of mergers and acquisitions. The researcher overcame this limitation by accompanying each questionnaire with a cover letter informing the respondents that the research study was purely for academic purposes and that the responses given would be treated with utmost confidentiality between the researcher and the respondent.

12

CHAPTER TWO 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter considers literature relevant to the subject under study. The main issues under review were; the nature of mergers, types of mergers and acquisitions, motives of mergers, importance of mergers in company performance, performance measures, market based valuation and the conceptual framework.

2.1 Nature of Corporate Restructuring Merger can be defined as any transaction that forms one economic unit from two or more previous ones. Takeovers and related activities in the 1980s are much broader in scope and raise more fundamental issues than previous merger movements. Thus the traditional subject of M&A has been expanded to include takeovers and related issues of corporate restructuring, corporate control and changes in the ownership structure of firms. Thomas and Weston (1992).

Many mergers have little or no negative impact on competition. Some may be procompetitive, for example, by enhancing production efficiencies resulting from economies of scale or scope. Mergers may also create new synergies, lead to innovation by combining talents of different firms, and provide additional resources to develop new products and services. Chakrabati and Burton (1983).

13

Concerns about mergers, acquisitions and other corporate combinations are generally based on the same concerns about anti-competitive behavior. The main concern is that a larger merged firm may increase its market power. Hoskisson and Hitt(1994).

To the extend a merged firm becomes more dominant in a market, there is a greater potential to abuse the accumulation and exercise of market power to the detriment of competitors and customers.

2.2 Types of Mergers and Acquisitions/Corporate Restructuring Thomas and Weston (1992), found that business firms have used a wide range of activities in seeking to exploit potential opportunities. The major objective of mergers, tenders offers and joint ventures is to achieve expansion and growth. Merger is any transaction that forms economic unit from two or more previous separate business units. Tender offer is a method of making a takeover via a direct offer to target firms’ shareholders to buy their shares, while a joint venture is a combination of subsets of assets contributed by two (or more) business entities for a specific business purpose and for a limited duration. Each of the venture partners continues to exist as a separate firm, and the joint venture represent a new business enterprises.

Sell-off is a general term for divestiture of part or all of a firm by any one of a number of means e.g. sale, liquidation, spin-off, and so on. Spin-offs is a transaction in which a company distributes on a pro rata basis all of the shares it owns in a subsidiary to its own shareholders. 14

This creates a new public company with (initially) the same proportional equity ownership as the parent company. Divestiture is the sale of a segment of a company, ,assets, a product line or a subsidiary to a third party for cash and/or securities. Equity carved is a transaction in which a parent firm offers some of a subsidiary common stock to the general public to bring in a cash infusion to the parent no longer exists and only the new offspring survive.

Under changes in ownership structures, we have exchange offer, it’s a truncation which provides one class (or more) of securities with the right or option to exchange part or all of the holdings for a different class of the firm’s securities, e.g. an exchange of common stock for debt. It enable a change in capital structure with no change in investment share purchases here a public corporation buys its own shares by tender offer, on the open market, or in negotiated buybacks.

Going private is a transformation whereby a public corporation is converted into a privately-held firm, often via a leveraged buyout or a management buy-out Leveraged buyout is where the company is purchased by a small group of investors, financed largely by debt. We also have leveraged cash-outs. a defensive reorganization of the firm ‘s capital structure in which outside shareholders receive a large one-time cash dividend, and inside shareholders receive new shares of stock instead, and lastly Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) – a defined contribution pension plan designed to invest primarily in the stock of the employer firm.

15

g. Anti takeover amendments are changes in the corporate by laws to make acquisition of the company more difficult or more expensive. These include: supermajority voting provisions. asset redeployment. The outsiders are referred to as “dissidents” or “insurgents” who seek to reduce the control position of the “incumbents” or existing board of directors. changes in management systems to improve revenue growth and to achieve efficiency increases including cost reductions. 16 . Proxy contest is a type of merger where an outside group seeks to obtain representation on the firm’s board of directors. financial engineering. under corporate control we have premium buybacks it’s the repurchase of a substantial stockholder ownership interest at premium above the market price (called green mail) standstill agreement – these represent voluntary contracts in which the stockholder who is bough out agrees not to make further investment in the company in the future. staggered terms of directors which can delay change of control for a number of years. 80%) of stockholders to approve a merger.Restructuring is the changes in product-market participation. Corporate control is another type of merger. golden parachutes which award large termination payments to existing management if control of the firm is changed and management terminated and poison pill provisions which give present stockholders the right to buy at a substantial discount the shares of a successor company formed by a stock takeover. requiring a percentage (e.

by defining they reduce the number of competitors and the relevant markets. With regard to split-ups and spin-offs. Joint venture can be used to have the seller transmit knowledge about the operation and the buyer to learn more about what is being acquired. Merger reviews typically focus on horizontal mergers since. proxy contents are often regarded as directed against the existing management.1 Horizontal mergers This takes place between firms that are actually or potential competitors occupying similar positions in the chain of production. a firm may improve motivations and performance by creating separate operations.Since the management of a firm often has effective control of the board of directors. 2. contraction and efforts to improve the efficiency of operations. new technologies.2. It is clear from the above list that the strategies include expansion. when an activity does not fall into an effective organization structure of the parent. Also of concerns are mergers between a firm which is active in a particular market and another which is a potential competitor. 17 . Joint ventures represent a flexible method of exploring new areas with partners whose capabilities are complementary. and new geographic markets. Especially promising in this connection are crossborder transactions (like the Nation Media Group in the East African region) either in the form of joint venture or mergers and acquisitions to achieve new products.

the acquisition of a competitor could increase market concentration and increase the likelihood of collusion. Owino (2005). Another example is the merger of Time Warner Inc. TBS. The merger has reduced the number of competitors.2 Vertical merges This takes place between firms at different levels in the chain of production (such as between manufactures and retailers). 2. The USA Federal Trade Commission (FTC) was concerned that Time Warner could refuse to sell popular video programmes to competitors of cable TV companies owned or affiliated with Time Warner or Turner or offer to sell the programmes at discriminatory prices. in many areas of South Africa.2.In a horizontal merger. producers of HBO and other video programming and Turn Corp. often leaving Barclays Bank as the only major bank in the area. vertical mergers can also be of concern.. The elimination of head-to-head competition between two leading firms may result in unilateral anticompetitive effects. This is called a “vertical foreclosure” or “bottleneck” problem. Vertical mergers involve firms in a buyer-seller relationship. or a manufacture merging with a distributor of its products. producers of CNN. 18 . and other programmes. A vertical merger can harm competition by making it difficult for competitors to gain access to an important component product or to an important channel of distribution. An example is the acquisition of Amalgamated Banks of South Africa (ABSA). (a big bank in South Africa) by Barclays Bank (another big bank).a manufacturer merging with a supplier of component products.

The first is through internal growth. 2. the Time Warner-Turner affiliates could hurt competition in the production of video programming by refusing to carry programmes produced by competitors of both Time Warner and Turner.2. The FTC allowed the merger. This is a combination of firms engaged in unrelated lines of business activity. What’s more. 2. fertilizers products. Mixed mergers have aspects of both pure conglomerate merger. and of horizontal merger. 19 .Mantel and Eudema(2000).3 Motives behind Mergers One of the most common motives for merges is growth. for examples merging of different businesses like manufacturing of cement products. but prohibited discriminatory access terms at both levels to prevent anti-competitive effects . This can be slow and ineffective if a firm is seeking to take advantage of a window of opportunity in which it has a short-term advantage over competitors.3 Conglomerate mergers According to Hamed (1999) Conglomerate Mergers between firms that are neither competitors nor potential or actual customers or suppliers of each other which vary in types and attributes and they may be pure or mixed in form whereby pure mergers have no economic relationships between the acquiring firm and the acquired firm. There are two broad ways a firm can grow. That would allow Time Warner – Tuner affiliate cable companies to maintain monopolies against competitors like Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) and new wireless cable technologies. electronic products and advertising agencies..

but also give some support for similarities across the industries. banking and information technology. Using a multi perspective approach they have come up with a number of motives which include: Enhanced profitability: when two or more companies’ combine they result in rise in profit because they realize cost reduction and efficient utilization of resources. M&As have occurred in waves where times of low activity frequently have turned into periods of high activity. Growth is essential for sustaining the viability. His empirical material consists of primary and secondary data collected from two merger in three industries respectively. During the twentieth century. dynamism and valueenhancing capability of a company. The results clearly demonstrate similarities in merger motives within the industries. Their analysis makes use of three different perspectives.The faster alternative is to merge and acquire the necessary resources to achieve competitive goals. What are the motives that have made M&As such a widely used strategy? Baker (1999) looks at the similarities within and across industries regarding merger motives. the reason for this being to create understanding and furthermore illuminate the complexity of the problem. 20 . manufacturing.

21 . the merged company generally has lower per-unit costs. energetic gains are often hard to realize. When such synergies are realized. a company is allowed to carry forward its accumulated loss to set-off against its future earnings for calculating its tax liability.Synergy: another commonly cited motive for mergers is the pursuit of synergistic benefits. However. Reduction in tax liability: Under the Kenyan tax law. Diversification of risk: Other motives for mergers and acquisitions include diversification. Thus by combining with a profit making a company. as the equation shows a combination of two firms will yield a more valuable entity than the value of the sum of the two firms if they were to stay independent: Value (A+B)> Value (A) + Value (B) Although many merger partners cite synergy as the motive for their transaction. This is the new financial math that shows that 2+2=5. Cost economies are the easier of the two to achieve because they often involve eliminating duplicate cost factors such as redundant personnel and overhead. A loss making company may not be in a position to earn sufficient profits in future to take advantage of the carry forward provision. this is the exceptions rather than the norm. There are two types of synergy: that which is drive from cost economies and that which comes from revenue enhancement. whereby companies seek to lower their risk and exposure to certain volatile industry segments by adding other sectors to their corporate umbrella. the combined company can utilize the carry forward losses and save tax. that is.

overview of studies on the economic effects of M&A performed during the late fifties and sixties reveals that there is substantial ex post evidence that mergers and acquisitions have positive effects on the performance of firms. Hoskisson and Hilt (1994). As such they can have a positive economic effect on companies that are active in the M&A Market. Market indicators meet the demand for measures of stock market performance. However. suggest that related acquisitions can have a positive effect on company performance if these acquisitions support innovative activities of firms. company car etc) because the majority owners bear most of the cost.4 Importance of Mergers in Company Performance Mergers & Acquisitions can be seen as instruments used by companies externally acquire capabilities developed by their partners. The Stock Market is one of the most closely observed economic phenomenon in the world. Such indicators quantify movements in stock market prices and act as a standard in evaluating the returns on money invested in the stock market. This partial ownership may cause managers to work less vigorously than otherwise or to consume perquisites (luxurious officers. Manne (1965). 2. 22 . emphasized that the market for corporate control and viewed mergers as a threat of takeover if a firm’s management logged in performance either because of inefficiency because of agency problem.Agency problems An agency problem arises when managers own only a fraction of the ownership of their firm.

seek tax advantages. restructure capital and resolve antitrust concerns taking advantage of market conditions. Mergers assist companies to increase cash. They also cite operating economics as an important merger goal. They cite mergers as being important in increasing a company's focus and eliminating poorly performing units thus increasing managerial efficiency while creating a particular organizational structure at the same time. To better understand the importance of M&As in company performance. taking advantage of market conditions.surveyed the executives responsible for corporations' M&A strategy. Synergies top the list of merger motives. Diversification was also identified as a good reason to engage in a merger.Stock market indices as aggregate measures are an instrument to meet the information requirement of investors by characterizing the development of global markets and specified market segments. restructure capital and resolve antitrust concerns. Most of those surveyed listed synergy as a leading motivation for both domestic and cross-border mergers. Patrick (1994) . A merger is believed to have a substantive effect on the stock market. seek tax advantages. 23 .

4. A more narrow market definition may result in a determination that the firms operate in different markets. Sherman (1998. A narrow definition could lead to a conclusion that the merged entity would have excessive market power in a smaller market. the merger of a dominant local provider with a major Internet Service Provider (ISP) can raise concerns about whether other ISPs will obtain local access services on fair and non-discriminatory terms. Such a merger might be reviewed in order to ensure that adequate safeguards are in place to protect competing ISPs. 24 . a broad market definition could lead to a conclusion that the merged entity will face sufficient competition from other firms in the market.1 Merger analysis Large mergers. market definition is often the key factor in determining whether a merger is anti-competitive. For example. The merger of a firm that provides essential inputs to other firms can be problematic if the supply of those inputs to other firms is threatened. If a market is defined broadly. On the other hand. competition authorities may prohibit mergers or approve them subject to conditions.2. acquisitions and some other corporate combinations require prior review and approval in some jurisdictions.Blair(1993).) In the context of a merger review. Mergers are usually only prohibited or subjected to conditions if the authority concludes that the merger will substantially harm competition. the merging firms may he considered to be competitors. As part of their review.

The determination of market share will have a direct bearing on an assessment of market power and the potential for abuse of market power by the merged entity. it may also prove difficult lo determine 25 . The evaluation of barriers to entry is an important aspect of merger review. In practice. it is difficult for a competition authority to qualify the positive and negative aspects of the transaction and arrive at any verifiable net effect. by reducing the number of firms participating in a market. attention will typically focus on the establishment or increase of the dominant position by the merged entity. Theoretically. but also firms which could be expanded to enter it. substantial efficiency gains or other public welfare gains could support approval of a merger even where anti-competitive risks are identified. The evaluation of market participants includes not only firms which actually participate in the relevant market. In assessing the potential adverse effects of a proposed merger. There may also be concerns that the merger. These will be balanced against any anti-competitive effects which have been identified in the earlier stages of the review. Finally. will create conditions which make anti-competitive agreements among them more likely. the objective is to assess efficiency or other welfare gains which can be projected to result from the merger. A finding that there are low barriers to entry can help justify a merger.The second stage of the analysis is the identification of firm competing in the relevant market and their market shares. In this stage. the analysis concludes with an assessment of any efficiency to be realized as a result of the merger.

2 Empirical studies of mergers. Kouhm (1986). He concluded that the most that can be said there is no evidence from the sample that merger intensive firms have higher profitability than the average industry. Sometimes the merger is not the best solution. The competition authority may be persuaded that the public interest is better served by a merger than by the failure of one of the merging entities. Bankruptcy is painful for shareholders. For instance.how any efficiency or other welfare gains will be distributed between the producing firm and its customers. Early literatures on mergers suggest synergistic motives as the main rationale behind merger activity. but does not always have a long-term negative effect on the economy. 26 . observes that acquiring firms tended to be faster growing than firms in their respective industries. it may be that another firm could expand productive capacity using the assets of the failing firm and that public welfare would be better served by this alternative solution. Similarly difficult is the development of any means to ensure redistribution of efficiency gains to broader public advantage. a merger which would have. A study conducted by Jong (1976). examined 39 companies which had undertaken large and or persistent mergers in the period 1954-1965. 2.4. transactions of this sort should be carefully evaluated.anti-competitive effects may be permitted where one of the merging entities is in severe financial distress. However. This being the case a merger of these two firms is expected to lead to improved performance. In exceptional circumstances.

4. Singh and Montgomery (1987). From the above empirical studies done in the field of M&A. If the competition authority decides to proceed with a further investigation.3 Information in merger review As part of the merger review process. This process concludes with a determination by the reviewing authority whether to proceed with a more detailed investigation. 2. it can therefore be observed that results are not similar and thus there is need to carry out further research in this area. The initial information filing typically triggers a waiting period.Reid (1968). concluded that conglomerate mergers satisfied the desires of managers for larger firms but did not increase earnings or market prices. It is standard practice in jurisdictions which impose merger review to require merging parties to submit advance notice of the proposed transaction. The information disclosed in the pre-merger notification will normally be used to determine if any anti-competitive concerns are present and whether to proceed with a more detailed review of the proposed transaction. it will obtain more information from the merger participants. the merging firms must normally provide information to the reviewing authority. in a study carried for the period 1958-1968 found that conglomerate as a group raised the depressed pre merger rates of return on total assets up to the average for all firms. during which the reviewing authority will be entitled to request further information. 27 .

Nihat. Three types of remedies are typically used to achieve this goal: Inhibition / Prohibition /Dissolution The first remedy involves preventing the merger in its entirety.4 Merger remedies The goal of merger control laws is to prevent or remove anti-competitive effects of mergers. customers. requiring dissolution of the merged entity. and its impact on competition and nature and degree of regulation in the relevant markets.Additional information is usually gathered from third parties such as competitors and customers. financial performance. 2. Commercially sensitive information is also generally protected from public disclosure during a more detailed review. The merged firm might be required to divest assets or operations sufficient to eliminate identified anti-competitive effects. of substitute products. 28 . suppliers. with permission to proceed with the merger in other respect. a competition authority will normally seek information about matters such as the following: Products.4. pace of technological or other change in the relevant markets. The quality of a merger review will depend heavily on the quality and range of information available lo the reviewing authority. or if the merger has been previously consummated. influence of potential competition (including foreign competition). market shares.Eric and Roll (2004). Partial Divestiture A second remedy is partial divestiture. Activity of competitors and competitors' market shares.

lists the following as the other measures of performance. It keeps changing on a daily basis subject to changes in share price. Nihat et al (2004). This can be achieved through a variety of one-time conditions and on-going requirements. It is also the total market value of all quoted companies at the stock exchange.5 Performance Measures Sharpe et al (1999). Turnover This is the total number of shares traded at the stock exchange.Regulation /Conditional Approval A third remedy is regulation or modification of the behavior of the merged firm in order to prevent or reduce anti-competitive effects. 2. Partial divesture can reduce or eliminate anti-competitive effects while preserving some of the commercial advantages of a merger. It is computed as the prevailing share price times the total number of shares. Behavioral remedies require ongoing regulatory oversight and intervention. and the third remedy is behavioral. Partial divestiture or behavioral constraints are less intrusive in the operation of market than preventing a merger from proceeding or requiring dissolution of a previously completed merger. The first two remedies are structural. Market capitalization This is the total market value of a company at the bourse. 29 . Structural remedies are often more likely to be effective in the long run and require less ongoing government intervention.

Net Asset Value (NAV) is of little use in investment decisions as in most cases it will usually be: well below the value calculated using earnings yield. The EPS does not reveal the quality of earnings. This ratio tells one how cheap or expensive a stock is in the market place compared with its peers or against other stocks in other industries. but as a thumb rule. the better. Price to Earning Ratio (P/E Ratio) Earnings of a stock divided by its price is what one gets in return. Net Asset Value per Share (NAVPS) The NAVPS is calculated by dividing the total net assets (fixed assets plus net current assets) by the number of shares outstanding as at the end of that year. It is very dynamic and keeps changing all the time. the higher the EPS. Earnings Per Share (EPS) This is calculated by dividing the net profits alter tax of a company (less any dividends on preference shares that the company may have paid) for a given year or period by the number of equity shares outstanding at the end of the year. 30 . However NAV is fairly descriptive in the case of property companies that tend to have low earnings compared with their asset value.Share price This is the value of a company's share at a given time. Simply this is the net tangible assets attributable to the ordinary shareholders divided by the number of shares in issue.

This ratio is obtained by dividing the current market price of a share by its issuing company's annual earning per share or the market capitalization to the entire net profit (total earnings). historically high. the P/E is 35. the P/E rises. If earnings move up with share prices the ratio stays the same. This ratio also gives some idea of whether you're paying too much for what would be held if the company went bankrupt immediately.1 Other measures of performance By relating share prices to their actual profits. if a stock price was Kshs70 and it got Kshs2 in earnings. For example. However. It is calculated by dividing the current closing price of the stock by the latest quarter's book value (book value is simply total assets minus intangible assets and liabilities).5. But if stock prices gain in value and earnings remain the same or go down. Price-To-Book Ratio (IVB Ratio) A ratio used to compare a stock's market value to its book value. it could also mean that something is fundamentally wrong with the company. A lower IVB ratio could mean that the stock is undervalued. 2. the Price to Earnings ratio (P/E) highlights the connection between share prices and recent company performance.This ratio indicates how many years it would take one to recoup one's investment in a stock at current market price if the company's performance was to stay frozen at the current level. 31 .

Calculated by dividing a company's annual earnings by its total assets. calculated as: Net Income Shareholder's Equity The ROE is useful in comparing the profitability of a company to other firms in the same industry. ROA is displayed as a percentage. but because many of them may be long term. Net Income Total Assets Note: Some people add interest expense back into net income when performing this calculation because it measures operating returns before cost of borrowing. Return on Equity (ROE) This is a measure of a corporation's profitability. 32 .Return on Investment (ROI) The monetary benefits derived from having spent money on developing or revising a system. The intangibles are sometimes the most important benefits. they are typically the most difficult to quantify. Return on Assets – (ROA) A useful indicator of how profitable a company is relative to its total assets.

involves discounting the profits (dividends. 33 . They try lo give an estimate of their fair value. as the final purpose is to determine potential market prices. cash flows) the stock will bring to the stockholder in the foreseeable future. by using fundamental economic criteria.Return on Investment Capital – (ROIC) A calculation used to determine the quality of a company. earnings. The general definition for ROIC is as follows: Net Income -Dividends Total Capital Total capital includes long term debt and common and preferred shares.6 Market Based Valuation There are several methods used to value companies and their stocks. In some cases an asset valuation is also made. some of the methods of stock valuation are: Fundamental criteria (Fair value) The most theoretically acceptable stock valuation method. This theoretical valuation has to be perfected with market criteria. The discount rate normally has to include a risk premium. and a final value on disposition. 2. According to Thomas and Weston (1992). called income valuation or discounted cash flow method.

Valuing a stock is not only to estimate its fair value. but also to determine its potential price range. usually between .This entails analyzing the assets and liabilities of the firm. market criteria also has to be taken into account (market-based valuation). This is called the efficient market hypothesis. with a large volume of transactions. This coefficient. It links the estimated economic value (fair value) and the stock market price. One of the behavioral valuation tools is the stock image. a coefficient that bridges the theoretical fair value and the market price. in addition to fundamental economic criteria. is related to the stock behavioral category. it will provide a "termination value" rather than the "ongoing operations value" obtained from the income valuation method. studies made in the field of behavioral finance tend to show that deviations from the fair price are rather common. taking into account market behavioral aspects. On the other hand.3 and 3. and sometimes quite large. 34 . Thus. This type of valuation is typically done if the company is expected lo cease operations. A stock image is a stock valuation coefficient. the listed price will be close to the estimated fair value. Market criteria (Potential price) Some feel that if the stock is listed in a well organized stock market.

35 . earnings. such as past prices and volume. to the financial condition and management of companies. it is the use of real data to evaluate a stock's value. study the product that is being sold. future growth. Technical analysts believe that the historical performance of stocks and markets are indications of future performance. In a shopping mall. a fundamental analyst would go to each store. a technical analyst would sit on a bench in the mall and watch people go into the stores. The method uses revenues. profit margins. Technical analysis does not attempt to measure a security's intrinsic value. Fundamental Analysis This is another method of evaluating securities by attempting to measure the intrinsic value of a particular stock. and then decide whether to buy it or not. By contrast. In other words. his or her decision would be based on the patterns or activity of people going into each store. Fundamental analysis studies everything from the overall economy and industry conditions. and other data to determine a company's underlying value and potential for future growth.Technical Analysis This is a method of evaluating securities by analyzing statistics generated by market activity. but instead use charts to identify patterns that can suggest future activity. Disregarding the intrinsic value of the products in the store. return on equity.

Mergers and Acquisitions (y) Contribute to {Increase in market share of companies (x1)} + {Enhanced profitability of companies (x2)} + {Diversification of risks in the companies (x3)} + {Achievement of Synergy (x4)} + {Return on Investment (x5)} (y) = (x1) + (x2) +(x3) +(x4) +(x5) Figure 2.1:-The Conceptual Framework Increase in market share (x1) Enhanced profitability of companies (x2) Diversification of risks in companies (x3) Achievement of Synergy (x4) Return on Investment (x5) Independent variables Source: Researcher 2008 Dependent variable Affects MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS (y) 36 .2. The independent variables will be extensively discussed in the literature review.7 Conceptual Framework The study is based on the assumption that the independent variables affect the dependent variable.

behaviour or values . 37 . This survey was a descriptive study that collected data from the firms that submitted Merger Notifications to the Monopolies and Price Control(MPC) in the years 2001 to 2004.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The section covers the research design. The other factors that were sought and included in this study were the management’s perception in on importance of post merger acquisition activities. contributed to the success of failure in the implementations of these strategies. data collection methods and procedures as well as data analysis. This study documented the firm’s experiences in the mergers and acquisition processes. attitude. 3. The study also sought to document the management’s most or least important factors that in their view.1 Research Design The design of this research was a survey. population and sample size.Mugenda and Mugenda(2003).CHAPTER THREE 3. It also endeavored to establish the managers’ perception on whether the shareholder’s value was created or destroyed after the merger and acquisition activities were completed. A survey research seeks to obtain information that describes existing phenomena by asking individuals about their perceptions.

The respondent was to check one of the offered five fixed alternative expressions such as strongly disagree. It was therefore not possible to expand the size of the population beyond this period. Consequently. The questions were both open.3. The available data at the time of this study was for the years 2001 to 2004.ended and close-ended. values 1. However.3 Data Collection Methods and Instruments Primary data was collected using structured undisguised and self-administered questionnaire. were assigned.2 Target Population The population of the study comprised of all merger control notifications received and processed by the Commissioner of Monopolies and Prices in the years 2001 to 2004 (see appendix I). a census survey was carried out. the target population for this study comprised 71 companies. foreign owned or both although no distinction has been made. 2. agree. private. 38 .3. The firms that were listed in the MPC reports include either public. neither agree or disagree. The researcher felt that the respondents had practical experiences on the full process of mergers and acquisitions which helped crystallize their opinion. 3. In this five point continuum. locally.5. Mugenda and Mugenda(2003). This data may have some limitations. agree and strongly disagree comprising of a continuum. The distinction between takeovers and mergers in some years were not indicated. values and behaviour and to help minimize subjectivity and make possible use quantitative analysis. attitude. It was also appropriate to incorporate some questions relating to the firms’ profile in the first part of the questionnaire.4. The likert scale was used to measure perception.

It was therefore. value will be created. The researcher followed this with telephone calls and personal visits. It was therefore very difficult to convince the shareholders of the companies to merge or carry out an acquisition transaction if they do not foresee any benefits. appropriate to target the CEO. The second set of questions sought to establish the experiences of the firms in the merger and acquisition process and reasons for adopting these strategies. The Board of Directors therefore. or there is an acquisition.Nachmias and Nachmias(2003).These values expressed the relative weights and direction. as a respondent to this questionnaire or a senior partner in a partnership business as they were the most appropriate persons to complete the questionnaire. The questionnaire was developed and consisted of three parts: The first part of questions was to tap into the relevant information and the profile of the respondents. through the Chief Executive Officer (CEO). The shareholders of the company were convinced that once the businesses merge. This assisted the researcher on the background information of firms that merged or acquired a target firm. 39 . The questions also addressed the approval process within the Competition Law. The questionnaires were distributed through postal mail with an enclosed self-addressed return envelope to help increase the response rate. determined by the favourableness or unfavourableness of the item . were involved in a merger or an acquisition process.

turnover of staff and creation of shareholders wealth as a result of mergers and acquisitions These are sets of questions that were designed to seek the perceptions of the managers. 40 .5 Sample Design and Size The researcher used purposive sampling where he took 40% of these companies for the study to obtain a sample of 28 companies. the researcher purposively targeted two senior managers or senior partners in the partnership or merged companies and the Board of Directors through the CEO. There are 71 companies that have merged. The total number of respondents from the 28 companies was 2 respondents per company to yield a sample of 56 respondents. 3. The study area was confined to Nairobi since it is the capital city and most of the head offices of the companies under consideration are located in Nairobi. within the companies.The third part of questions sought to investigate the respondent's perception of mergers and acquisitions as regards the factors contributing to the success or failure of M&A.4 Research Area The research covered all the companies in Kenya that had undergone mergers and acquisitions between the year 2003 and 2007. post merger activities. However. 3.

6 Data Analysis. 41 . Interpretation and Presentation The returned questionnaires were checked for consistency and the correct ones were coded. pie chats and graphs. The output was in form of tables. Data analysis involved descriptive statistics such as percentages.3. mode and median by use of Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). measure of central tendency such as means. Interpretation was done to allow for findings and recommendations. frequencies.

Crown Berger & Barclays Holdings. On the respondents designation the study found that the respondents were from various designation which were. accountant. operations manager. From the study population of 71 respondents were targeted. Securicor Security Services & Express Escorts. 42 . Unilever & Best Foots Ltd.1 Introduction This chapter presents the analysis and interpretations of the data from the field. Lonrho Motors E. director and procurement officer. 60 respondents responded and returned the questionnaire comprising of 84. finance manager.1 Personal Data On the name of the organization the researcher requested the respondents to indicate their organization. SCB & Bullion Bank. Ltd. clerk.CHAPTER FOUR: 4. A.2 Analysis and Interpretation 4.A. customer service officer.2. Ltd & Toyota E. & Elianto (K) Ltd. Lelkina Dairies Ltd & Brookside Dairies Ltd. Paramount Bank & Universal Bank. Smith Kline Beecham & Glaxo Wellcome (K) Ltd.0 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION 4. 4. financial analyst. Bidco(K) Ltd.5% response rate. Bank of India & India Finance Ltd and Bank of India & India Finance Ltd among others. Barclays Trust Investment & Old Mutual As Asset Managers. human resource manager. from the findings of the study the study found that these organization were. Africa Online Ltd & Net 2000 Ltd .

Figure 4.26% of the respondent had served their organization for a period of more than 15 years and 8% of the respondents had served their organization for a period of 0 to 5 years .2: Gender of the respondents 40% m le a fem le a 60% Source.3: Number of years of service 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 15 a bove 15 yea rs percent Source.from the findings.those who had served their organization for a period of 5 to 10 years were shown by 30% of all the respondents . Author (2010) On the number of years the respondents had served their respective organization. from the findings of the study in the above table the study found that 36% of the respondent had served their organization for period of 10 to 15 years . the study found that majority of the respondents were males as shown by 60%. Author (2010) The data in the above figure shows the study findings on the gender of the respondents . 43 .while 40% of the respondents were females. Figure 4.

Upper hill. the study found that this ranged between 1960 to 1993. from the finding the study found that majority of the respondents had a university degree as shown by 52.1: Education level Frequency Diploma Degree Post graduates degree Total Source.5% of the respondents were diploma holders. and Westland and Kariobangi area. On the location of the main offices of the respondent’s organization. Author (2010) 44 . On the years the organization was established. Figure 4.Table 4.4% of the respondent had postgraduate’s degrees and 12. the study established that this ranged between 5 to 13 outlets. the study found that most of the organization had their main offices located in Nairobi CBD area. Author (2010) The data in the above table shows the respondent education level.1% of the respondents. On the number of outlets the organization had.4: Ownership composition of company 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 loca l foreig n pa loca rt l/ pa foreig rt n Percent 12 52 36 100 6 26 18 50 percent Source. industrial area. 35.

A.2: Type of company Frequency Privately owned Part private/part public Publicly owned Total Source. Lelkina Dairies Ltd . 4. Securicor Security Services ltd. Express Escorts. Barclays Holdings. Toyota E. Author (2010) The data in the above table shows the type of company. Africa Online Ltd . SCB . Glaxo Wellcome (K) Ltd. Elianto (K) Ltd. Bank of 45 8 27 15 50 Percent 16 54 30 100 . Barclays Trust Investment . Bidco(K) Ltd. Lonrho Motors E. Table 4. 30 % of the respondents indicated that their companies were publicly owned and 16% of the respondents indicate that their company were privately owned. A. Crown Berger ltd . from the findings in the above table the study found that majority of the companies were partly private and partly public as shown by 54% of the respondents. Net 2000 Ltd . Bullion Bank. Unilever . Universal Bank. the study revealed that majority of the companies as shown by 52% of the respondents were locally owned. Smith Kline Beecham . Ltd . Ltd.2. those that were partly local and partly foreign were shown by 36% of the respondent while those that were foreign were shown by 12% of the respondents. Best Foots Ltd.2 Firm’s Profile On the name of the firm before merger the study revealed that the names were. Paramount Bank. Old Mutual As Asset Managers. Brookside Dairies Ltd.On the ownership composition of the company.

Africa Online Ltd. A.3: Legal structure of the firm Frequency Partnership Part private/part public Publicly owned Total Source.India . Bidco (K) Ltd. the study found that date of incorporation ranged from 30th June 1968 to 23rd September 1990. On the name of the company after merger and take over. the study revealed that all the companies had completed merger and acquisition to its conclusions. the study established that majority of the firms were partly private and partly public as shown by 54% of the respondent. Securicor Security Services. India Finance Ltd and Bank of India and India Finance Ltd. Crown Berger. 46 . Table 4.28% of the respondents indicated that their firms were publicly owned and those companies that their legal structure was partnership was shown by 18%. Old Mutual Trust Investment. Author (2010) 9 27 14 50 Percent 18 54 28 100 On the legal structure of the firm. Smith Kline Beecham & Glaxo Wellcome (K) Ltd. Brookside Dairies Ltd. Toyota E. Unilever Ltd. Paramount Bank. SCB & Bullion Bank. Bank of India Ltd. Ltd. On whether the respondent company had completed the merger or acquisition to its conclusion. the study found that these names were. On the date of incorporation of the company.

the study found that majority of organization were in manufacturing sector as shown by 51.2% of the respondents while 18.2 100 Table 4.Table 4.2%.2 100 The study also requested the respondents to indicate the sector in which their organization belonged.2 18.6% of the respondents indicated that their firms were in agriculture sector. 27 16 43 62. Author (2010) 22 8 13 43 Percent 51.8 37. from the finding of the study in the above table.8% of the respondents and those that were both local and foreign owned were shown by 37.2% of the respondents. those were in the service sector were shown by 37. the findings of the study in the above table shows that majority of the firms were locally owned as shown by 62. Author (2010) On the classification of the firms in terms of ownership.6 37.4: Classification of organization in terms of ownership Frequency Percent Locally owned Both Local/Foreign Owned Total Source.5: Sector of the organization Frequency Manufacturing Agriculture Service Total Source. 47 .

all the respondents (100%) reported that their firms were mergers. From the study.2. 48 . 10% of the respondents said conglomerate merger. most of the respondents as shown by 54% reported that their companies undertook a horizontal merger.4.6: The Sort of Merger or Acquisition That the Company Undertook Frequency Horizontal merger Vertical merger Concentric merger Conglomerate merger Total Source. Table 4. Author (2010) 27 16 2 5 50 Percent 54 32 4 10 100 The study also required the respondents to indicate the sort of merger or acquisition that their companies undertook. while a small proportion of respondents as shown by 4% reported that their firms undertook a concentric merger.3 Experience of the Firm Whether the Firm Was a Merger (M) or a Takeover (T) According to the study. 32% said vertical merger.

3 48.3 31.3% said to enter to a new geographical area. the study found that it took the firms a minimum of 3 months and a maximum of 13 months to receive an approval from the commissioner of monopolies and price 49 .7 41. the respondents who said to acquire state.7% said to diversify in a growth business. while 41. 68. 66. 78.7 51.7% of the respondents reported that they took a merger in order to overcome entry barrier.3% of the respondents said in order to increase market share.7 40.of -the art technology To diversify in a growth business Overcome entry barrier Acquire brand loyalty Enter to a new geographical area Comply with new legislation Source.0 66.Table 4. According to the findings.3 60. Author (2010) 78.7 40.3 60.7 68. 51.0 33.7% said to acquire brand loyalty.of -the art technology and to comply with new legislation were shown by 60% each.7: Reason/S Why the Organization Undertook the Merger Yes Increase market share Acquire state.0 No 21. Duration Taken To Receive an Approval from the Commissioner of Monopolies and Price According to the findings.0 The study also sought to establish the reasons why the organizations took the merger.3 58.

the study established that it took a minimum of 5 and a maximum of 12 months.9: Whether the Firm Appealed To the High Court Frequency Yes No Total Source. the majority of respondents (76%) reported that their firms were subjected to appeal to the tribunal. Duration It Take For the Appeal to Be Concluded By the Tribunal On the duration it took the firms for the appeal to be concluded by the tribunal.Table 8: Whether the Firm Was Subjected To Appeal to the Tribunal Frequency Yes No Total Source. Table 4. Author (2010) 38 12 50 Percent 76 24 100 The respondents were also asked whether their firms were subjected to appeal to the tribunal. while 38% reported that their firms did not appeal to the high court. From the results. most of the respondents as shown by 62% said that their firms appealed to the high court. Author (2010) 31 19 50 Percent 62 38 100 According to the findings in the above table. while 24% said that their firms were not subjected to appeal to the tribunal. 50 .

Duration the Firm Took To Conclude the Negotiation with the Other Firm From the findings. Duration It Took To Conclude the Appeal in the High Court According to the findings. it took the firms that appealed to the high court a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 14 months to conclude the appeal in the high court.0 74. appeal against a board decision against them.0 16. Table 4. Author (2010) 5 8 37 50 Percent 10.Reasons for Appeal From the findings. According to the study.0 100 The respondents were also requested to indicate the degree that they involved managers in the acquisition or merger process. where the authority blocks a merger the parties can appeal its decision to the High Court. most of the respondents as indicated by 74% reported that they involved their managers a lot in the acquisition or merger 51 . the budget ranged between Kshs 500. From the study. it took the firm’s 3-6 months to conclude negotiations with the other firm. 000-2M. An Estimate of the Merger or Acquisition Budget The study also sought to establish the estimate of the merger or acquisition budget. the reasons why firms appeal to the high court include.10: The Degree of Involvement of Managers in the Acquisition or Merger Process Frequency Very little Moderately A lot Total Source. the merging parties may also challenge a merger decision imposing a remedy and complains by the minority shareholders of the involved firms.

11: Whether The Merger or Acquisition Undertaken the Firm Is A Success Frequency Yes No Total Source. while 10% of the respondents said that they involved them to a very little extent. while a small proportion of respondents as indicated by 6% reported that the merger or acquisition undertaken by their firm was not a success Table 4.2.process. Table 4. the majority of respondents as shown by 72% said that they would recommend a merger or an acquisition again. The regression model was as follows: 52 . the majority of the respondents as indicated by 94% termed the merger or acquisition undertaken by their firm a success.0 28.4 Regression Analysis A multivariate regression model was applied to determine the relative importance of each of the five variables with respect to establish the effects of mergers and acquisitions on financial performance of companies. while 28% of the respondents felt that they would not recommend a merger or an acquisition again.0 100 The respondents were therefore asked whether they would you recommend a merger or an acquisition again. 16% reported that they moderately involved the. Author (2010) 36 14 50 Percent 72. From the study. 4. Author (2010) 47 3 50 Percent 94 6 100 From the findings in the above table.12: Whether the Respondents Would Recommend a Merger or an Acquisition Again Frequency Yes No Total Source.

Achievement of Synergy and Return on Investment at a confidence level of 95%. profitability of the company.881.938 a Predictors: (Constant). Adjusted R2 is called the coefficient of determination and tells us how merger and acquisition varied with the market share. Error R Adjusted of the Model R Square R Square Estimate 1 . From data in the table above.881 4. F Change . Achievement of Synergy and Return on Investment.223 Source.090 .009 1 df 2 1 Sig. the value of adjusted R2 is 0. profitability of the company.13: Model Summary Change Statistics Std. there was a variation of 88. diversification of risk. Author (2010) R Square Change .1% of merger and acquisition with market share. This implies that.y = β0+ β1X1 + β2X2 + β3X3 + β4X4 + β5X5ẹ Where: y = merger and acquisition β0 = Constant Term β1= Beta coefficients X1= market share X2= profitability of the company X3= diversification of risk X4= Achievement of Synergy X5= Return on Investment Table 4.009 F df Change 1 . profitability of the company. 53 .087(a) . diversification of risk . market share. Achievement of Synergy and Return on Investment. diversification of risk.

216.771 .358 X3 + 0.further unit increase in achievement of synergy would cause an increase in merger and acquisition by a factor of 0. profitability of the company.839 . also a unit increase in diversification of risk would cause an increase in merger and acquisition by a factor of 0. diversification of risk .978 .833 1. Achievement of Synergy and Return on Investment.923 .311 0.216 X2 + 0.574 X4 + 0. a unit increase in profitability would cause an increase in merger and acquisition by a factor of 0. Author (2010) a Predictors: (Constant).833 + 0.314X5 From the above regression model. market share.216 .018 0. profitability of the company.097 .938 .Table 4.090 . holding the predictors factors constants.771.097 .094 .087 .833.097 .091 . it was also established that a unit increase in market share would cause an increase in merger and acquisition by a factor of 0.314 . also a unit increase in return on investment would lead to increase in merger and acquisition by a factors of 0.319 Standardized Coefficients t Beta 1.312 Sig.097 .574.574 .358.14: Coefficients results Model 1 (Constant) market share profitability diversification of risk Achievement of Synergy Return on Investment Source.317 . From the data in the above table.314. This infers that there exist positive relationships between merger and Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 0.771 X1 + 0.094 . 54 . Achievement of Synergy and Return on Investment. The established regression equation was Y = 0.156 0.418 0.061 0. there is a positive relationship merger and acquisition and the predictor factors which are market share. diversification of risk.090 . merger and acquisition of companies would be 0.358 .967 .

profitability of the company. 55 .acquisition and predictor factors which are market share. achievement of synergy and return on investment. diversification of risk.

India Finance Ltd and Bank of India and India Finance Ltd. Universal Bank. Glaxo Wellcome (K) Ltd. Securicor Security Services. Lelkina Dairies Ltd . Africa Online Ltd. the study found that date of incorporation ranged from 30th June 1968 to 23rd September 1990. the study revealed that all the companies had completed merger and acquisition to its conclusions.A. Toyota E. the study found that these names were. Smith Kline Beecham . Barclays Trust Investment . Paramount Bank. A. Brookside Dairies Ltd.0 DISCUSSION CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 5. Unilever Ltd. Africa Online Ltd . On whether the respondent company had completed the merger or acquisition to its conclusion.2 Discussion The study established that the name of the firm before merger were. Ltd. Bidco (K) Ltd. Bank of India . A. 5. Old Mutual Trust Investment. Net 2000 Ltd . Ltd. Elianto (K) Ltd. SCB .1 Introduction This chapter presents the discussion of the findings from chapter four. On the date of incorporation of the company. The study had sought to establish the effects of mergers and acquisitions on financial performance of companies. On the name of the company after merger and take over.CHAPTER FIVE: 5. Crown Berger ltd . Smith Kline Beecham & Glaxo Wellcome (K) Ltd. Paramount Bank. SCB & Bullion Bank. Bidco(K) Ltd. Ltd . Toyota E. 56 . Express Escorts. conclusions and also recommendations based on the objectives of the study. Best Foots Ltd. Bank of India Ltd. Barclays Holdings. Bullion Bank. Unilever . Brookside Dairies Ltd. Securicor Security Services ltd. Old Mutual As Asset Managers. Crown Berger. Lonrho Motors E.

According to the findings.On the legal structure of the firm. those were in the service sector were shown by 38% of the respondents while 18% of the respondents indicated that their firms were in agriculture sector.of -the art technology and to comply with new legislation were shown by 60% each. The study also established that the sort of merger or acquisition that their companies undertook were horizontal merger as shown by 54% .28. The study found that majority of organization were in manufacturing sector as shown by 54%.4% of the respondents indicated that their firms were publicly owned and those companies that their legal structure was partnership was shown . 52% said to acquire brand loyalty. 68% said to enter to a new geographical area. 78% of the respondents said in order to increase market share. 66% said to diversify in a growth business.3% of the respondent. The study found that it took the firms a minimum of 3 months and a maximum of 13 months to receive an approval from the commissioner of monopolies and price. The study also found that majority of the firms was locally owned as shown by 62% of the respondents and those that were both local and foreign owned were shown by 38% of the respondents. the respondents who said to acquire state. The study also establishes the reasons for organizations to take the merger. It was also revealed by the study that all firms their firms were mergers. the study established that majority of the firms were partly private and partly public as shown by 53. while a small proportion of respondents as shown by 6% reported that their firms undertook a concentric merger. while 42% of the respondents reported that they took a merger in order to overcome entry barrier. vertical merger as shown by 32% 10% of were conglomerate. On whether their 57 .

appeal against a board decision against them. the study found that majority of the respondent as shown by 62% said that their firms appealed to the high court. the study established that it took a minimum of 5 and a maximum of 12 months. 000-2M. According to the study. 58 . The study found that the majority of respondents 76% reported that their firms were subjected to appeal to the tribunal. while 24% said that their firms were not subjected to appeal to the tribunal.firms were subjected to appeal to the tribunal. while 10% of the respondents said that they involved them to a very little extent. It was revealed that most of the respondents as indicated by 74% reported that they involved their managers a lot in the acquisition or merger process. 16% reported that they moderately involved the. where the authority blocks a merger the parties can appeal its decision to the High Court. On the duration it took the firms that appealed to the high court a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 14 months to conclude the appeal in the high court. On whether the firms appealed to high court. The study also established the estimate of the merger or acquisition budget. the merging parties may also challenge a merger decision imposing a remedy and complains by the minority shareholders of the involved firms. On indicate the degree that they involved managers in the acquisition or merger process. while 38% reported that their firms did not appeal to the high court. The reasons why firms appeal to the high court include. the budget ranged between Kshs 500. It was also revealed that it took the firm’s 3-6 months to conclude negotiations with the other firm. On the duration it took the firms for the appeal to be concluded by the tribunal.

while a small proportion of respondents as indicated by 6% reported that the merger or acquisition undertaken by their firm was not a success.216 X2 + 0.771. it was also established that a unit increase in market share would cause an increase in merger and acquisition by a factor of 0. diversification of risk. This infers that there exist positive relationships between merger and acquisition and predictor factors which are market share. merger and acquisition of companies would be 0.314. achievement of synergy and return on investment.further unit increase in achievement of synergy would cause an increase in merger and acquisition by a factor of 0.358 X3 + 0. while 28 % of the respondents felt that they would not recommend a merger or an acquisition again.the study found that the majority of the respondents as indicated by 93. Y = 0. profitability of the company. a unit increase in profitability would cause an increase in merger and acquisition by a factor of 0.358.314X5 From the above regression model. holding the predictors factors constants. On whether the respondents would recommend a merger or an acquisition again.771 X1 + 0.216. also a unit increase in diversification of risk would cause an increase in merger and acquisition by a factor of 0.833.3% termed the merger or acquisition undertaken by their firm a success. majority of respondents as shown by 72% said that they would recommend a merger or an acquisition again. 59 .833 + 0. The study also established a regression equation which was. also a unit increase in return on investment would lead to increase in merger and acquisition by a factors of 0.On the general assessment of merger .574.574 X4 + 0.

acquire brand loyalty . increase their profitability and return on investment.5. acquire states of art and technology. 5. complying with new regulation . increased market share.314X5 This infers that there exist positive relationships between merger and acquisition and predictor factors which are market share. Y = 0. comply with new legislation. diversify their business growth. overcome entry barriers.771 X1 + 0. acquiring state of technology. The study concludes that as result of merger the company acquired larger market share thus increased profitability. the study also concludes that the benefits of synergy that is achieved through adoption of merger and acquisition were. acquire brand loyalty and overcome entry barriers . The study also concludes that mergers and acquisitions assisted in the attainment of returns on investment in companies. 60 . conclusion the researcher recommends that small companies should adopt merger and acquisition as this will help them in entering into new geographical areas.4Recommendation From the above discussion. profitability of the company.358 X3 + 0.574 X4 + 0. comply with new legislation. achievement of synergy and return on investment. The study recommends an in-depth study to investigate the challenges affecting merger and acquisition of companies. The study also established a regression equation for the study was. diversify business growth.3Conclusion From the above discussion the study concludes that mergers and acquisitions increase the market share of companies the firms entered into new geographical areas. diversification of risk.833 + 0. acquire states of art and technology.216 X2 + 0. acquire brand loyalty and overcome entry barriers.

(1999). 74. 37 . 439-462. G. Technological characteristics of mergers and acquisitions in the 1970s in manufacturing industries in the US. Baker. Restrictive trade practices. Lee. GoK. takeovers and economic efficiency : Foresight vs. Massachussetts: Edward Elgar. Handbook of Industrial Organization..(1999).C. 126-135. Cohen. (1989). J.. 2.Conglomerate mergers: An economic reconsideration.Unilateral competitive effects: Theories in merger analysis. K. Knowledge transfer in international acquisitions. A. 281-297. & Copeland. T. & Burton. Journal of International Business Studies. (1983). mergers and the market for corporate control. Datta.Sources. (2005). 30.I. Chesang(2002). (1999). R. Unpublished MBA Project: University of Nairobi. 7. B. (1989). D. Journal of Economic Literature. P. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. O.I.B. A.K. Caves. 73-100.(1999).. & Singh. procedures and microeconomic effects of innovation. Review of financial studies.. J. 39-65.(1989).)..W.J. 12. 61 . 504 . Strategic Management Journal. Hamed.. India: Prentice Hall. (1996).Cases(6th ed.M. Quarterly Review of Economics and Business.S.Laws of Kenya. The human side of mergers and acquisitions. A. monopolies and price control Act :Cap. Dosi. 150-172. Mergers. (1991). 1059-1107.Hughes. 26. Institutional investment.New Delhi. & Levin. Harvard Business Review. International Journal of Industrial Economics. Bresman. J. & Nobel. 1120-1171. Berger.H. M. Merger restructuring and financial performance of commercial banks in Kenya. R.K.E. Growth through acquisitions: A fresh look. Chakrabati. A. Empirical studies of innovation and market structure. R. Kisero J. Chicago. 81-90. & Bowditch. International Journal of Industrial Organization. Journal of Financial Economics.(1989).(1988) . Organizational fit and acquisition performance: Effects of postacquisition integration.REFERENCES Anslinger. 23. Buono. A. Cosh. K. (1986). Hindsight.

J.C.. Lev. & Donald. Jemison.D. Journal of Political Economy. 126. H. Jong. Mergers and acquisitions: Managing the Transaction: McGrawHill . (1997).E.W. S. 1964-1975.(1983). (1998). & Doi. & Mandelker.. Theory and evidence concerning mergers: An international comparison: John Wiley & Sons. & Best.A. & Hitt. 6. Lubatkin. 151-169. F.). 91-114. (1987).(1965).. (2000).B. K. 8.. S. New York: Free Press. (2002).A.(1993). N. B. Hoskisson . Mergers and the market for corporate control. Legal Notice No. Attributes of successful and unsuccessful acquisitions of US firms. Downscoping : How to Tame the Diversified Firm. 19.. M.Journal of Business.104. M.B . British Journal of Management. The Capital Markets Authority (Take-Overseas and Mergers) Regulations. 31. R. 62 . (1990). Lucey A.. New York: Oxford University Press. Harrison.B. 257-266.. The effects of leveraged buyouts _on productivity and related aspects of firm behavior. Academy of Management Review. Journal of Financial Economics 27. Journal of Industrial Economics. R.(1991).Haspesh. Corporate acquisitions. Krallinger. H. (1972). H. Ireland. The performance of merging firms in Japanese manufacturing industry.B. Strategic Management Journal. 110-120. 85. M. Manne. 165-94. J. & Jemison. Hitt. P. T.11.(1994).D. Regression analysis.(1986).A.. Kusewitt J. 39-53. 45. Managing acquisitions: Creating value through corporate renewal.. Lewis . R. Merger strategies and stockholder value. & Sitkin. Management accounting(2nd ed. An exploratory study of strategic acquisition factors relating to performance. Strategic Management Journal.: Ashford Colour. Ikedo. Lichtenberg. (1985). The Micro-economic consequences of corporate mergers . 145-163.(1976). London: Sage Publications..G.M.

(2006). Brighton: Wheatsheaf Books. What Takeovers and Leveraged Buyouts Mean for Corporate Governance. Mergers that last: A predictable pattern. Margaret.): Prentice Hall .India Vikas Publishing Patrick.. 63 . J. New Delhi. Oxford University Press.T. (1986). John Wiley & Sons. Nachmias.. Winter.M. New York. Pike. I.Mantel.. power. Research methods: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. Oster.(2004).MI Banking Survey. New York.C. Concepts.. Kundli. Washington:Brookings Institution Press.B.India.I.A. (2003). & Quinn. & Mugenda A. B. and S. GOK. S. acquisitions. contexts and cases (2 nd ed. A . The strategy process. 2004: The Government Printers. Research method in the social sciences(5 th ed.M. L. 2002.Barclays Bank acquires ABSA .A.R. (1991). & Nachmias. Cambridge : Belknap Press. R. Journal of Financial Economics. 91-96. (1986). Monopolies and Prices Commission Annual Reports 2000. Corporate finance and investment : Decision and strategies(2 nd ed. An evolutionary theory of economic change. research & teaching .A & Wilson.).. growth and performance.G. (1994)..A.& Gaughan. (1980). Owino. R.I. (2000). Competitive strategy. 7.New York: The First Press. Mergers and acquisitions. D.).151-152. J. The deal decade.Nairobi: Acts Press. and corporate restructuring( 2nd ed. European merger & acquisition regulation is protectionist. (2003).). & Roll. Mueller. Mugenda O. Porter .New Delhi . (2002).D. (1999). Pandey .Chicago: Harper Books.V.New Jersey:Prentice Hall. Mintzberg. M.M . & Neale. Strategic Management Journal. G.). R. 2003. Nihat.M.(2005). Mergers.. Financial management (8 th ed. The modern corporation : profits. Montgomery. C.. B. India:Replica Press Nelson. 2001.C. & Eudema. (1982). Modern competitive analysis. Eric. D. B. (1993).

McGraw-Hill.. Boston. 29-32.A. 377-386. 20 The Economist (2005). 8412. and integration. Journal of Industrial Economic .& Claude. (1987).7.F Weston. New York.A.London. Achieving post-merger success: A stakeholder.J.& Bailey. Harvard Business Review. New York: Harper French Books. The Rise of the Super Brands. Schumpeter. (1942).B. How Mergers go Wrong. . socialism and democracy.L. R. (1992). Reid. Strategic Management Journal. Harvard Business Press. managers and the economy. (1974). Financial theory and corporate policy(3 rd ed.(2005) . & Montgomery. Strategy. S. (1992). 64 . Thomas. (1990). 60-62. Tomlison. H. assessment. Europe Businessman of the year.. Laws of Kenya: The Government Printers. Dynamic strategic management for the 1990s. & Beate P. C.).R. Prentice Hall.Porter. R. Sharpe.J.Alexander.C. Robert. (1999). July 22. 8. 36. guide to cultural due diligence. General equilibrium foundations of finance : Springer.(2005). Fortune( Europe Ed. New York :Macmillan. structure. Singh.M.R .(1987). H. 147-157. Vol 374 .J. From competitive advantage to corporate strategy. Riungu . (2000). 2005.C.J. E . and economic performance.. Life after takeover.K: Kogan Page.F.. E. M . Sherman. (1968). The Economist . CAP 504. New Jersey. Mergers and acquisitions from A to Z: Strategic & practical guidance for small & middle-market buyers and sellers. Corporate acquisition strategies and economic performance. Mergers. (1998)... Capitalism. & Scherer. Stacey R.). The Restrictive Trade Practises. G.D. Investments. & J.V. Monopolies and Price Control Act. 43-5 Ravenscraft D. (2003). F. May-June.No.J. 3 . Rumelt. C. London:Wesle Thurston.Business Week.(1987).U.

. The research topic is: . NAIROBI Dear Respondent.... Yours sincerely. REQUEST TO FILL THE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR RESEARCH PURPOSE This is to request you to kindly fill in the attached questionnaire for research purpose...“An Investigation into Effects of Mergers and Acquisitions on Financial Performance of Companies in Kenya (2003 ..O Box ..APPENDICES Appendix I: Introduction Letter Kennedy Murithi P... The information sought from you will be treated with utmost confidence.. Kennedy Murithi 65 . and results of this study will be available for your use/reference.. Thank you.2007)”.

b) What is your Designation ……………………………………………. g) When the organization was established …………………………… h) How many outlets does the organization have ………………………... Kindly indicate whether your company is: Privately owned ( ) Part private/part public ( ) 66 .. Indicate the answer that best represents the ownership composition of your company (Tick where appropriate) Local ( ) Part Local/ Part Foreign ( ) Foreign ( ) Governmental ( ) 3. c) State your Gender (Tick where appropriate) Male ( ) Female ( ) d) Number of Years served (Tick where appropriate) 0-5( ) 5-10 ( ) 10-15 ( ) Over 15 years ( ) e) Educational Level (Tick where appropriate) Diploma ( ) Degree ( ) Post Graduate Degree ( ) f) Location of the main office ……………………………………………. Please indicate. 2.………. a) Name of organization …………………………………….Appendix II : Questionnaire PART ONE – PERSONANAL DATA 1.

. (4) Did your company complete the merger or acquisition to its conclusion? (Tick appropriately) Yes No If No..................................................Publicly owned ( ) Parastatal ( ) PART TWO – FIRM’S PROFILE (1) Name of the firms before the merger or take over............ please state the reason/s ......................... If yes.................. 67 .. …………………………………………………………………………… (3) Name of the firm after the merger or take over............................................................................................... then proceed and complete the remaining part of this questionnaire.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... (2) Date of incorporation of your firm................................. ............................. .................. ......................... ..........................................

Manufacturing Agriculture Service PART THREE – EXPERIENCE OF THE FIRM (1) Could you say if your firm was a Merger (M) or a Takeover (T)? (Tick appropriately). M( ) T( ) 68 .(5) State the legal structure of your firm(Tick appropriately) (i) (ii) (iii) Partnership ( ) Privately owned company ( Publicly owned company ( ) ) If your firm is (i) or (ii) above. (6) How would you classify your organization in terms of ownership? (Tick appropriately). please complete (6) below. (a) (b) (c) Locally Owned ( ) Foreign Owned ( ) Both Local/Foreign Owned ( ) (7) The sector your organization is operating in (Tick appropriately).

......................of -the art technology (c) To diversify in a growth business (d) Overcome entry barrier (e) Acquire brand loyalty (f) Enter to a new geographical area (g) Comply with new legislation......................(2) What sort of merger or acquisition did your company undertake? (Tick appropriately).. (f) Any other (specify)…............ (a) How long did you take to receive an approval from the Commissioner of Monopolies and Price'? Months 69 ........................ Approval Process within the framework of Kenya competition law. Horizontal Merger Vertical Merger Concentric Merger Conglomerate Merger (3) Please state reason/s why your organization undertook the merger (Tick where appropriate) (a) Increase market share (b) Acquire state...

............. reasons for appeal.... Kshs (c)To what degree did you involve your managers in the acquisition or merger process? (Please indicate by a tick on the table overleaf using the following scale)..(b) Was your firm subjected to appeal to the Tribunal? Yes No (Tick appropriately).. Not at all Very little Moderately A lot Intensively 1 70 .......... (c) If ye..... how long did it take for the appeal to be concluded by the tribunal? Months (d) Yes Did you appeal to the High Court? (Tick appropriately).... No If yes. (e) For how long did it take to conclude the appeal in the High Court? Months Negotiation with the target firm (a) How long did your firm take to conclude the negotiation with the other firm? Months (b) Give an estimate of the Merger or Acquisition budget..........................

(a)How did you manage the takeover process? ( Tick as appropriate) Agreeing with major shareholder Buying stock in the market Obtaining proxies from the shareholders (b)State how your firm managed the resistance from other shareholders or management --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION 71 .General Assessment (a)Would you term the merger or acquisition undertaken by your firm a success? (Please tick where appropriate). Yes No (b)Would you recommend a merger or an acquisition again? ( Tick where appropriate) Yes No This area is only for those firms which have gone through a takeover.

Appendix III: Time Plan DURATION PHASE 1) 2) 3) 4) Total duration 4 ½ Months ACTIVITY Proposal writing and presentation for supervision Instrumentation a) Pilot taking b) Administration of questionnaires Data analysis Write up and presentation to the department for Examination (WEEKS) 3 Weeks 2 Weeks 2 weeks 2 weeks 3 weeks 3 weeks Appendix IV: Budget Estimate 72 .

00 Field Visits for Self 6.000. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ITEM DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED REMARKS COST (KSHS.00 Field Visits for Research Assistants 40.000.00 Source: Researcher (2008) 73 .000.00 TOTAL 103.000.000.000.00 Subsistence Allowances 10.000.ITEM NO.000.00 Data Analysis 2.00 Report Writing 30.00 Overheads & Incidental Expenses 12.) Stationary & Other Consumables 3.

A.A. Ltd & Toyota E.APPENDIX V: MERGER CONTROL NOTIFICATIONS. Ltd. 10 Lelkina Dairies Ltd & Brookside Dairies Ltd 11 Lonrho Hotel Africa & Starwood Hotel 12 Lonrho Motors & Lima Farm Machinery 13 Africa Online Ltd & Net 2000 Ltd 14 Maasai Mara Sopa Lodge & Safari Retreat 15 SCB & Bullion Bank 16 Kapila Anjarwalla & Khama 17 EABL & UDV Ltd 18 Kaitet Tea Estate & Eastern Produce Kenya Ltd 19 Paramount Bank & Universal Bank 74 .SOURCE MPC ANNUAL REPORTS 2001 . Building & Construction Motor Industry Dairy Hotel Agriculture Telecommunications Hotel Banking Legal Consultancy Manufacturing (Brewing) Agriculture Financial (Banking) Lonrho Motors E.2004 Name of Institution Sector Affected 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 g 9 Bidco(K) Ltd. & Elianto (K) Ltd Crown Berger & Barclays Holdings Johnson & Johnson Ltd & Direct Sales and Distribution Raymond Woollen Mills & Heritage Woollen Mills Securicor Security Services & Express Escorts Elf Oil (K) Ltd & Total (K) Ltd Smith Kline Beecham & Glaxo Wellcome (K) Ltd Crescent Construction Receivership Cooking Fat and Edible Oils Paints Baby Care Products Textiles Private Security Petroleum Pharmaceuticals/ Healthcare products Ltd & Cabro Works Ltd.

20 Kakuzi Ltd & Socfinaf Ltd 21 Unilever & Best Foots Ltd 22 Kenya Breweries & Castle Brewing 23 Iseme Kamau & Maema Advocates 24 Barclays Trust Investment & Old Mutual As Managers 25 Bank of India & India Finance Ltd 26 Stewart Scott Motors & Mitsubishi Motors Ltd.A. 30 Masai Mara Sopa Ltd & Tunu Ltd. Mwaridi. Ltd 34 Primarosa. 33 BASF & High Chem E. ltd 32 Co-op Bank & Co-op Merchant Bank Ltd. Stone Athi & King'orani 35 Hotel Span & Spire Properties 36 Kenya Commercial Bank & Savings and Loans Banking Agriculture (Agro-Chemical) Agriculture Hotel Industry Financial Services 75 . Africa/Carnaud Metal Box & Crown Cork Manufacturing Ltd. 28 Fidelity Bank & Southern Credit Ltd Manufacturing Manufacturing Legal Consultancy Asset Financial Financial Automotive Financial Financial 29 Nampak S. A. Hotel 31 Aventis Crop Science & Agro Chemical Business of Agricultural Chemicals Bayer E. 27 ABN-AMRO Bank & City Bank Ltd.

37 Securicor Services & Falcon & Karen Langata Guards 38 Trust Finance Ltd & Trust Bank Ltd 39 Africa Online & Three Mice Interactive Media Ltd. Ltd & Penta Tancom Ltd Penta flowers 45 East African Packaging 46 Canadian Overseas Packaging industry — Manufacturing 2003 47 Manu Spices and Millers Ltd & Spice World (K) Lid. Bank of Insurance India and Pension Trust Services 53 Flower Wings K. 40 Kenol Kobil (K) Ltd & Mid Oil Africa 41 CROWN Security Services Banking Sector IT (Internet Service Provision) Petroleum Manufacturing Pharmaceutical Berger (K) Ltd & Unibuilt (K) Ltd 42 SJ Johnson Wax & Bayer East Africa 43 Brac Budget Rent A Car International & Avis Europe Plc Transport 44 Eustoma K. 50 Nairobi Bottlers & Anspar Beverages Ltd Food Information Technology Hotel Industry Soft Drink Horticulture 51 Beta Healthcare International & Shellys Pharmaceutical Pharmaceutical Ltd 52 Alexander Forbes Financial Services E. A Ltd. 48 1CL( K) Limited & Sameer ICT Ltd 49 Resort (K) Ltd & MS Family Town 2002 Ltd. Ltd & Etcoville Investments Ltd Horticulture 54 Pan African General Insurance Ltd & Apollo Insurance Insurance Company Ltd 55 Crown Berger & Devas Ltd & Aziz Tanners 56 Gfccnlands Dairy & Westlands Dairy Ltd 57 Alexander Forbes & Hyman Robertson (K) Ltd Manufacturing Dairy Insurance 76 .

65 Sameer Telecom Ltd & Kenya Telecom BV 66 Shell and BP Malinda and Oil Com. 69 Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. 67 Homegrown Kenya Ltd & Kijabe Ltd(“Kijabe”) 68 Dawa Pharmaceutical Ltd & Medisel (K) Ltd. Telecommunication (Ken Cell) 64 Kemia International Ltd & Poly Synthetics Eastern Africa Manufacturing Ltd. & Koimburi Tucker Associates 59 Group 4 FALCK and Securicor Plc 60 Trans-Century Ltd & Cable Holdings Ltd Accountancy Security Services Manufacturing 61 Bank of Africa Kenya Ltd & Credit A)'ricole Indosuez Banking Service Kenyan Branch 62 MSKK Guards Security Group & EARS Group Ltd.58 Muva & Ass. & Kenyan Telcom B. Security 63 MTN International Mauritius Ltd. & Del Monte Kenya Ltd 70 Coast Silos (K) Ltd and Kenya Ports Authority 71 ALICO & CFC Group Telecommunication Petroleum Horticulture Pharmaceutical Horticulture Transport Insurance 77 .V.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.