Mergers, Acquisitions, and Corporate Restructurings E-Book

Patrick A. Gaughan

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Fachliteratur
• Serie: Wiley Corporate F&A
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 1446

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2015

Beschreibung

The comprehensive guide to mergers, acquisitions, and corporate restructurings Mergers, Acquisitions, and Corporate Restructurings is an all-inclusive guide to M&As that illustrates how restructuring can be used successfully, how each form works, and the laws that govern them. This updated edition includes the latest statistics, research, graphs, and case studies on the private equity market, ethics, legal frameworks, and corporate governance, presented in a more approachable, manageable way. Written from a practical and historical perspective, this book carefully analyzes the strategies and motives that inspire M&As, the legalities involved each step of the way, and the offensive and defensive techniques used during hostile acquisitions. Corporate restructurings are indispensable in building a new generation of re-engineered companies with the power and resources to compete on the global playing field. This book covers the full spectrum of transactions, from megadeals to downsizing, and takes a fresh look at restructuring and how it is being used to revitalize and supercharge companies. * Learn how corporate restructuring helps companies compete * Discover the common impetus behind M&As * Understand the laws and rules that govern the field * Examine more effective strategies for hostile acquisitions The slowdown in the world's economy means that mergers and corporate restructuring will likely increase. It is essential for students and professionals to fully understand the concepts and mechanics behind these transactions, and Mergers, Acquisitions, and Corporate Restructurings is the comprehensive guide to the field.

Leseprobe

Table of Contents

Series Page

Title Page

Copyright

Preface

The Wiley Corporate F&A series provides information, tools, and insights to corporate professionals responsible for issues affecting the profitability of their company, from accounting and finance to internal controls and performance management.

Founded in 1807, John Wiley & Sons is the oldest independent publishing company in the United States. With offices in North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia, Wiley is globally committed to developing and marketing print and electronic products and services for our customers' professional and personal knowledge and understanding.

Mergers, Acquisitions, and Corporate Restructurings

Sixth Edition

PATRICK A. GAUGHAN

Cover Design: Wiley

Cover Image: ©iStock.com/jpique

Copyright © 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved.

Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.

The Fifth Edition was published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. in 2011.

Published simultaneously in Canada.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the Publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, [phone], fax [phone], or on the Web at www.copyright.com. Requests to the Publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, [phone], fax [phone], or online at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives or written sales materials. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a professional where appropriate. Neither the publisher nor author shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other~damages.

For general information on our other products and services or for technical support, please contact our Customer Care Department within the United States at [phone], outside the United States at [phone] or fax [phone].

Wiley publishes in a variety of print and electronic formats and by print-on-demand. Some material included with standard print versions of this book may not be included in e-books or in print-on-demand. If this book refers to media such as a CD or DVD that is not included in the version you purchased, you may download this material at http://booksupport.wiley.com. For more information about Wiley products, visit www.wiley.com.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data:

ISBN 978-1-118-99754-3 (Hardcover)

ISBN 978-1-119-06335-3 (ePDF)

ISBN 978-1-119-06336-0 (ePub)

Preface

THE FIELD OF MERGERS and acquisitions has undergone tumultuous changes over the past 20 years. The 1990s witnessed the fifth merger wave—a merger wave that was truly international in scope. After a brief recessionary lull, the merger frenzy began once again and global megamergers began to fill the corporate landscape. This was derailed by the subprime crisis and the Great Recession. When the economic recovery was slow, so too was the rebound in M&A activity. However, by 2013 and 2014 M&As began to rebound more strongly.

Over the past quarter of a century we have noticed that merger waves have become longer and more frequent. The time periods between waves also has shrunken. When these trends are combined with the fact that M&A has rapidly spread across the modern world, we see that the field is increasingly becoming an ever more important part of the worlds of corporate finance and corporate strategy.

As the M&A field has evolved we see that many of the methods that applied to deals of prior years are still relevant, but new rules are also in effect. These principles consider the mistakes of prior periods along with the current economic and financial conditions. It is hoped that these new rules will make the mergers of the future sounder and more profitable than those of prior periods. However, while dealmakers have asserted that they will pursue such goals, we would be remiss if we did not point out that when deal volume picked up dramatically such intentions seemed to fall by the wayside and M&A mistakes started to occur. In fact, as with many other areas of finance, learning from past mistakes proves challenging. Lessons that are learned tend to be short-lived. The failures of the fourth merger wave were so pronounced that corporate decision makers loudly proclaimed that they would never enter into such foolish transactions. However, there is nothing like a stock market boom to render past lessons difficult to recall while bathing in the euphoria of rising equity values.

The focus of this book is decidedly pragmatic. We have attempted to write it in a manner that will be useful to both the business student and the practitioner. Since the world of M&A is clearly interdisciplinary, material from the fields of law and economics is presented along with corporate finance, which is the primary emphasis of the book. The practical skills of finance practitioners have been integrated with the research of the academic world of finance. In addition we have an expanded chapter devoted to the valuation of businesses, including the valuation of privately held firms. This is an important topic that usually is ignored by traditional finance references. Much of the finance literature tends to be divided into two camps: practitioners and academicians. Clearly, both groups have made valuable contributions to the field of M&As. This book attempts to interweave these contributions into one comprehensible format.

The increase in M&A activity has given rise to the growth of academic research in this area. In fact, M&A seems to generate more research than other areas of finance. This book attempts to synthesize some of the more important and relevant research studies and to present their results in a straightforward and pragmatic manner. Because of the voluminous research in the field, only the findings of the more important studies are highlighted. Issues such as shareholder wealth effects of antitakeover measures have important meanings to investors, who are concerned about how the defensive actions of corporations will affect the value of their investments. This is a good example of how the academic research literature has made important pragmatic contributions that have served to shed light on important policy issues. It is unfortunate that corporate decision makers are not sufficiently aware of the large body of pragmatic, high-quality research that exists in the field of M&A. One of the contributions we seek to make with this book is to render this body of pragmatic research readily available, understandable, and concisely presented. It is hoped then that practitioners can use it to learn the impacts of the deals of prior decision makers.

We have avoided incorporating theoretical research that has less relevance to those seeking a pragmatic treatment of M&As. However, some theoretical analyses, such as agency theory, can be helpful in explaining some of the incentives for managers to pursue management buyouts. Material from the field of portfolio theory can help explain some of the risk-reduction benefits that junk bond investors can derive through diversification. These more theoretical discussions, along with others, are presented because they have important relevance to the real world of M&As. The rapidly evolving nature of M&As requires constant updating. Every effort has been made to include recent developments occurring just before the publication date. We wish the reader an enjoyable and profitable trip through the world of M&As.

Patrick A. Gaughan

Part I

Background

Chapter 1Introduction

Recent M&A Trends

The pace of mergers and acquisitions (M&As) picked up in the early 2000s after a short hiatus in 2001. The economic slowdown and recession in the United States and elsewhere in 2001 brought an end to the record-setting fifth merger wave. This period featured an unprecedented volume of M&As. It followed on the heels of a prior record-setting merger wave—the fourth. This one in the 1990s, however, was very different from its counterpart in the previous decade. The fifth wave was truly an international one, and it featured a heightened volume of deals in Europe and, to some extent, Asia, in addition to the United States. The prior merger waves had been mainly a U.S. phenomenon. When the fourth merger wave ended with the 1990–1991 recession, many felt that it would be a long time before another merger wave like it would occur. However, after a relatively short recession and an initially slow recovery, the economy picked up speed in 1993, and by 1994 the world was on a path to another record-setting merger period. This wave would feature deals that would make the ones of the 1980s seem modest. There would be many megamergers and many cross-border deals involving U.S. buyers and sellers, but also many large deals not involving U.S. firms.

Figure 1.1 shows that both European and U.S. M&A volume began to rise in 2003 and by 2006–2007 had reached levels comparable to their peaks of the fifth wave. Similar trends were apparent in Europe. With such high deal volume huge megamergers were not unusual (see Table 1.1 and 1.2). However, by 2008 the effects of the global recession and the subprime crisis began to take hold. The U.S. recession, which began in January 2008, caused potential acquirers to reign in their acquisition-oriented expansion plans. Those bidders who were still inclined to go ahead with proposed deals found that their access to financing was sharply curtailed. Many bidders who had reached agreements with targets sought to renegotiate the deals or even back out altogether. Deals were canceled with increased frequency.

Figure 1.1

Chapter 2History of Mergers

IN MUCH OF FINANCE there is very little attention paid to the history of the field. Rather, the focus is usually on the latest developments and innovations. This seems to be particularly the case in the United States, where there is less respect for that which is not new. It is not surprising, then, when we see that many of the mistakes and types of failed deals that occurred in earlier years tend to be repeated. The market seems to have a short memory, and we see that a pattern of flawed mergers and acquisitions (M&As) tends to reoccur. It is for this reason that we need to be aware of the history of the field. Such an awareness will help us identify the types of deals that have been problematic in the past.

There have been many interesting trends in recent M&A history. These include the fact that M&A has become a worldwide phenomenon as opposed to being mainly centered in the United States. Other trends include the rise of the emerging market acquirer, which has brought a very different type of bidder to the takeover scene. We devote special attention in this chapter to these important trends in recent M&A history.

Merger Waves

Six periods of high merger activity, often called merger waves, have taken place in U.S. history. These periods are characterized by cyclic activity—that is, high levels of mergers followed by periods of relatively fewer deals. The first four waves occurred between 1897 and 1904, 1916 and 1929, 1965 and 1969, and 1984 and 1989. Merger activity declined at the end of the 1980s but resumed again in the early 1990s to begin the fifth merger wave. We also had a relatively short but intense merger period between 2003 and 2007.

What Causes Merger Waves?

Research has shown that merger waves tend to be caused by a combination of economic, regulatory, and technological shocks.1 The economic shock comes in the form of an economic expansion that motivates companies to expand to meet the rapidly growing aggregate demand in the economy. M&A is a faster form of expansion than internal, organic growth. Regulatory shocks can occur through the elimination of regulatory barriers that might have prevented corporate combinations. Examples include the changes in U.S. banking laws that prevented banks from crossing state lines or entering other industries. Technological shocks can come in many forms as technological change can bring about dramatic changes in existing industries and can even create new ones. Harford shows that these various shocks by themselves are generally not enough to bring about a merger wave.2 He looked at industry waves, rather than the overall level of M&A activity, over the period 1981–2000. His research on 35 industry waves that occurred in this period shows that capital liquidity is also a necessary condition for a wave to take hold. His findings also indicate that misevaluation or market timing efforts by managers are not a cause of a wave, although they could be a cause in specific deals. The misevaluation findings, however, are contradicted by Rhodes-Kropf, Robinson, and Viswanathan, who found that misevaluation and valuation errors do motivate merger activity.3 They measure these by comparing market to book ratios to true valuations. These authors do not say that valuation errors are the sole factor in explaining merger waves, but they say that they can play an important role that gains in prominence the greater the degree of misevaluation.

Rau and Stouraitis have analyzed a sample of 151,000 corporate transactions over the period 1980–2004, including a broader variety of different corporate events than just M&As. They have found that “corporate waves” seem to begin with new issue waves, first starting with seasoned equity offerings and then initial public offerings, followed by stock-financed M&A and later repurchase waves.4 This finding supports the neoclassical efficiency hypothesis, which suggests that managers will pursue transactions when they perceive growth opportunities and will engage in repurchases when these opportunities fade.

First Wave, 1897–1904

The first merger wave occurred after the depression of 1883, peaked between 1898 and 1902, and ended in 1904 (Table 2.1). Although these mergers affected all major mining and manufacturing industries, certain industries clearly demonstrated a higher incidence of merger activity.5 According to a National Bureau of Economic Research study by Professor Ralph Nelson, eight industries—primary metals, food products, petroleum products, chemicals, transportation equipment, fabricated metal products, machinery, and bituminous coal—experienced the greatest merger activity. These industries accounted for approximately two-thirds of all mergers during this period. The mergers of the first wave were predominantly horizontal combinations (Table 2.2). The many horizontal mergers and industry consolidations of this era often resulted in a near monopolistic market structure. For this reason, this merger period is known for its role in creating large monopolies. This period is also associated with the first billion-dollar megamerger when U.S. Steel was founded by J. P. Morgan, who combined Carnegie Steel, founded by Andrew Carnegie and run by Carnegie and Henry Clay Frick, with Federal Steel, which Morgan controlled. However, Morgan also added other steel companies, such as American Tin Plate, American Steel Hoop, American Steel Sheet, American Bridge, American Steel and Wire, International Mercantile Marine, National Steel, National Tube, and Shelby Steel Tube. Combined under the corporate umbrella of U.S. Steel, the company controlled one-half of the U.S. steel industry.6 The resulting steel giant merged 785 separate steel-making operations. At one time, U.S. Steel accounted for as much as 75% of U.S. steel-making capacity.

Table 2.1First Wave, 1897–1904

Year

Number of Mergers

1897

69

1898

303

1899

1,208

1900

340

1901

423

1902

379

1903

142

1904

79

Source: Merrill Lynch Business Brokerage and Valuation, Mergerstat Review, 1989.

Table 2.2 Mergers by Types, 1895–1904

Type of Merger

Percentage (%)

Horizontal

78.3

Vertical

12

Horizontal and vertical

9.7

Total

100

Source: Neil Fligstein, The Transformation of Corporate Control (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990), 72.

Besides U.S. Steel, some of today's great industrial giants originated in the first merger wave. These include DuPont, Standard Oil, General Electric, Eastman Kodak, American Tobacco (merged with Brown and Williamson in 1994, which in turn merged with RJ Reynolds in 2004), and Navistar International (formerly International Harvester but became Navistar in 1986 when it sold its agricultural business). While these companies are major corporations today with large market shares, some were truly dominant firms by the end of the first merger wave. For example, U.S. Steel was not the only corporation to dominate its market. American Tobacco enjoyed a 90% market share, and Standard Oil, owned by J. D. Rockefeller, commanded 85% of its market. In the first merger movement, there were 300 major combinations covering many industrial areas and controlling 40% of the nation's manufacturing capital. Nelson estimates that in excess of 3,000 companies disappeared during this period as a result of mergers.

By 1909, the 100 largest industrial corporations controlled nearly 18% of the assets of all industrial corporations. Even the enactment of the Sherman Antitrust Act (1890) did not impede this period of intense activity. The Justice Department was largely responsible for the limited impact of the Sherman Act. During the period of major consolidation of the early 1900s, the Justice Department, charged with enforcing the Act, was understaffed and unable to aggressively pursue antitrust enforcement. The agency's activities were directed more toward labor unions. Therefore, the pace of horizontal mergers and industry consolidations continued unabated without any meaningful antitrust restrictions.

By the end of the first great merger wave, a marked increase in the degree of concentration was evident in U.S. industry. The number of firms in some industries, such as the steel industry, declined dramatically, and in some sectors only one firm survived. It is ironic that monopolistic industries formed in light of the passage of the Sherman Act. However, in addition to the Justice Department's lack of resources, the courts initially were unwilling to literally interpret the antimonopoly provisions of the Act. For example, in 1895, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the American Sugar Refining Company was not a monopoly and did not restrain trade.7 At this time, the Supreme Court was not concerned by the fact that the Sugar Trust controlled 98% of the sugar refining capacity in the United States. This favorable ruling gave the green light to companies such as DuPont, Eastman Kodak, General Electric, International Harvester, Standard Oil, and U.S. Steel to engage in M&As without being concerned about legal interference.8 The courts initially saw the Sherman Act's focus to be on regulating stockholder trusts, in which investors would invest funds in a firm and entrust their stock certificates to directors, who would ensure that they received dividends for their “trust certificates.”

With a misguided focus on trusts, the law was not applied to hinder the formation of monopolies in several industries in the first merger wave. The trusts were formed by dominant business leaders, such as J. P. Morgan of the House of Morgan and John D. Rockefeller of Standard Oil and National City Bank, as a response to the poor performance of many of the nation's businesses as they struggled with the weak economic climate. They saw the structure of many industries, which included many small and inefficient companies, as part of the reason for this poor performance. They reorganized failing companies in various industries by forcing shareholders to exchange their equity in troubled companies for trust certificates in a holding company that would control the business in question but also many other competitors. With such control, J. P. Morgan was able to rein in intense competition that he saw was rendering companies in many industries weak. In doing so he was able to give investors confidence in the soundness of companies for which he and others were seeking to market securities. His main initial focus was the railroad industry, which at that time accounted for the majority of stocks traded on the New York Stock Exchange. Being an industry with large demands for capital, railroad companies aggressively marketed stocks and bonds through investment bankers across the United States and Europe. However, railroad companies were prone to compete aggressively on rates and sought to drive each other to the brink of bankruptcy. Morgan hated such unrestrained competition and sought to reorganize this industry, and eventually others, using holding company trusts that would push aside aggressive competitor managers and replace them with those who would preside over a more orderly market. Morgan did not consider that consumers would suffer from these consolidations as his focus was on investors who would seek to benefit.

Trusts grew and came to dominate many industries. Among them were the American Cottonseed Oil Trust and the National Lead Trust, which dominated their respective industries. Morgan Bank, in turn, controlled First National Bank, the National Bank of Commerce, the First National Bank of Chicago, Liberty National Bank, Chase National Bank, Hanover National Bank, and the Astor National Bank.9

In addition to lax enforcement of federal antitrust laws, other legal reasons explain why the first merger wave thrived. For example, in some states, corporation laws were gradually relaxed. In particular, corporations became better able to secure capital, hold stock in other corporations, and expand their lines of business operations, thereby creating a fertile environment for firms to contemplate mergers. Greater access to capital made it easier for firms to raise the necessary financing to carry out an acquisition, and relaxed rules controlling the stockholdings of corporations allowed firms to acquire stock in other companies with the purpose of acquiring the companies.

Not all states liberalized corporate laws. As a result, the pace of M&As was greater in some states than in others. New Jersey, in which the passage of the New Jersey Holding Company Act of 1888 helped liberalize state corporation laws, was the leading state in M&As, followed by New York and Delaware. The law enabled holding company trusts to be formed and the State of New Jersey became a mecca for this corporate form. This Act pressured other states to enact similar legislation rather than see firms move to reincorporate in New Jersey. Many firms, however, did choose to incorporate in New Jersey, which explains the wide variety of New Jersey firms that participated in the first merger wave. This trend declined dramatically by 1915, when the differences in state corporation laws became less significant.

The development of the U.S. transportation system was another of the major factors that initiated the first merger wave. Following the Civil War, the establishment of a major railway system helped create national rather than regional markets that firms could potentially serve. Transcontinental railroads, such as the Union Pacific–Central Pacific, which was completed in 1869, linked the western United States with the rest of the country. Many firms, no longer viewing market potential as being limited by narrowly defined market boundaries, expanded to take advantage of a now broader-based market. Companies now facing competition from distant rivals chose to merge with local competitors to maintain their market share. Changes in the national transportation system made supplying distant markets both easier and less expensive. The cost of rail freight transportation fell at an average rate of 3.7% per year from 1882 to 1900.10 In the early 1900s, transportation costs increased very little despite a rising demand for transportation services. It is interesting to note that the ability of U.S. railroads to continue to cost-effectively ship goods in a global economy impressed Warren Buffett so much that in 2009 he bid $26.3 billion in cash and stock for the remainder of the Burlington Northern railroad that he did not already own. Burlington Northern is actually a product of 390 different railroad M&As over the period 1850–2000.

Several other structural changes helped firms service national markets. For example, the invention of the Bonsack continuous process cigarette machine enabled the American Tobacco Company to supply the nation's cigarette market with a relatively small number of machines.11 As firms expanded, they exploited economies of scale in production and distribution. For example, the Standard Oil Trust controlled 40% of the world's oil production by using only three refineries. It eliminated unnecessary plants and thereby achieved greater efficiency.12 A similar process of expansion in the pursuit of scale economies took place in many manufacturing industries in the U.S. economy during this time. Companies and their managers began to study the production process in an effort to enhance their ability to engage in ever-expanding mass production.13 The expansion of the scale of business also required greater managerial skills and led to further specialization of management.

As mentioned, the first merger wave did not start until 1897, but the first great takeover battle began much earlier—in 1868. Although the term takeover battle is commonly used today to describe the sometimes acerbic conflicts among firms in takeovers, it can be more literally applied to the conflicts that occurred in early corporate mergers. One such takeover contest involved an attempt to take control of the Erie Railroad in 1868. The takeover attempt pitted Cornelius Vanderbilt against Daniel Drew, Jim Fisk, and Jay Gould. As one of their major takeover defenses, the defenders of the Erie Railroad issued themselves large quantities of stock, in what is known as a stock watering campaign, even though they lacked the authorization to do so.14 At that time, because bribery of judges and elected officials was common, legal remedies for violating corporate laws were particularly weak. The battle for control of the railroad took a violent turn when the target corporation hired guards, equipped with firearms and cannons, to protect its headquarters. The takeover attempt ended when Vanderbilt abandoned his assault on the Erie Railroad and turned his attention to weaker targets.

In the late nineteenth century, as a result of such takeover contests, the public became increasingly concerned about unethical business practices. Corporate laws were not particularly effective during the 1890s. In response to many anti-railroad protests, Congress established the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1897. The Harrison, Cleveland, and McKinley administrations (1889–1901) were all very pro-business and filled the commission with supporters of the very railroads they were elected to regulate. Not until the passage of antitrust legislation in the late 1800s and early 1900s, and tougher securities laws after the Great Depression, did the legal system attain the necessary power to discourage unethical takeover tactics.

Lacking adequate legal restraints, the banking and business community adopted its own voluntary code of ethical behavior. This code was enforced by an unwritten agreement among investment bankers, who agreed to do business only with firms that adhered to their higher ethical standards. Today Great Britain relies on such a voluntary code. Although these informal standards did not preclude all improper activities in the pursuit of takeovers, they did set the stage for reasonable behavior during the first takeover wave.

Financial factors rather than legal restrictions forced the end of the first merger wave. First, the shipbuilding trust collapse in the early 1900s brought to the fore the dangers of fraudulent financing. Second, and most important, the stock market crash of 1904, followed by the banking Panic of 1907, closed many of the nation's banks and ultimately paved the way for the formation of the Federal Reserve System. As a result of a declining stock market and a weak banking system, the basic financial ingredients for fueling takeovers were absent. Without these, the first great takeover period came to a halt. Some economic historians have interpreted the many horizontal combinations that took place in the first wave as an attempt to achieve economies of scale. Through M&As, the expanding companies sought to increase their efficiency by lower per-unit costs. The fact that the majority of these mergers failed implies that these companies were not successful in their pursuit of enhanced efficiency. Under President Theodore Roosevelt, whose tenure in the executive office lasted from 1901 to 1909, the antitrust environment steadily became more stringent. Although he did not play a significant role in bringing an end to the first wave, Roosevelt, who came to be known as the trustbuster, continued to try to exert pressure on anticompetitive activities.

The government was initially unsuccessful in its antitrust lawsuits, but toward the end of Roosevelt's term in office it began to realize more success in the courtrooms. The landmark Supreme Court decision in the 1904 Northern Securities case is an example of the government's greater success in bringing antitrust actions. Although President Roosevelt holds the reputation of being the trustbuster, it was his successor, William Howard Taft, who succeeded in breaking up some of the major trusts. It is ironic that many of the companies formed in the breakup of the large trusts became very large businesses. For example, Standard Oil was broken up into companies such as Standard Oil of New Jersey, which later became Exxon; Standard Oil of New York, which became Mobil and merged with Exxon in 1998; Standard Oil of California, which rebranded under the name Chevron, and acquired Gulf Oil in 1985, Texaco in 2001, and Unocal in 2005; and Standard Oil of Indiana, which became Amoco, and was acquired by BP in 1998. The mergers between some of the components of the old Standard Oil reflect the partial undoing of this breakup as the petroleum market has been global, and these descendants of J. D. Rockefeller's old company now face much international competition.

Second Wave, 1916–1929

George Stigler, the late Nobel prize–winning economist and former professor at the University of Chicago, contrasted the first and second merger waves as “merging for monopoly” versus “merging for oligopoly.” During the second merger wave, several industries were consolidated. Rather than monopolies, the result was often an oligopolistic industry structure. The consolidation pattern established in the first merger period continued into the second period. During this second period, the U.S. economy continued to evolve and develop, primarily because of the post–World War I economic boom, which provided much investment capital for eagerly waiting securities markets. The availability of capital, which was fueled by favorable economic conditions and lax margin requirements, set the stage for the stock market crash of 1929.

The antitrust environment of the 1920s was stricter than the environment that had prevailed before the first merger wave. By 1910, Congress had become concerned about the abuses of the market and the power wielded by monopolies. It also had become clear that the Sherman Act was not an effective deterrent to monopoly. As a result, Congress passed the Clayton Act in 1914, a law that reinforced the antimonopoly provisions of the Sherman Act. (For a discussion of the Sherman and Clayton Acts, see Chapter 3.) As the economy and the banking system rebounded in the late 1900s, this antitrust law became a somewhat more important deterrent to monopoly. With a more stringent antitrust environment, the second merger wave produced fewer monopolies but more oligopolies and many vertical mergers. In addition, many companies in unrelated industries merged. This was the first large-scale formation of conglomerates. However, although these business combinations involved firms that did not directly produce the same products, they often had similar product lines.

Armed with the Clayton and Sherman Acts, the U.S. government was in a better position to engage in more effective antitrust enforcement than had occurred during the first merger wave. Nonetheless, its primary focus remained on cracking down on unfair business practices and preventing cartels or pools, as opposed to stopping anticompetitive mergers. At this time widespread price-fixing occurred in many industries, which was thought to be a more pressing threat to competition than mergers, which now were mainly vertical or conglomerate transactions. Just as in the first merger wave, the second merger period witnessed the formation of many prominent corporations that still operate today. These include General Motors, IBM, John Deere, and Union Carbide.

The 1940s

Before we proceed to a discussion of the third merger period, we will briefly examine the mergers of the 1940s. During this decade, larger firms acquired smaller, privately held companies for motives of tax relief. In this period of high estate taxes, the transfer of businesses within families was very expensive; thus, the incentive to sell out to other firms arose. These mergers did not result in increased concentration because most of them did not represent a significant percentage of the total industry's assets. Most of the family business combinations involved smaller companies.

The 1940s did not feature any major technological changes or dramatic development in the nation's infrastructure. Thus, the increase in the number of mergers was relatively small. Nonetheless, their numbers were still a concern to Congress, which reacted by passing the Celler-Kefauver Act in 1950. This law strengthened Section 7 of the Clayton Act. (For further details on the Clayton Act, see the following section and Chapter 3.)

Third Wave, 1965–1969

The third merger wave featured a historically high level of merger activity. This was brought about in part by a booming economy. During these years, often known as the conglomerate merger period, it was not uncommon for relatively smaller firms to target larger companies for acquisition. In contrast, during the two earlier waves, the majority of the target firms were significantly smaller than the acquiring firms. Peter Steiner reports that the “acquisition of companies with assets over $100 million, which averaged only 1.3 per year from 1948 to 1960, and 5 per year from 1961 to 1966, rose to 24 in 1967, 31 in 1968, 20 in 1969, 12 in 1970 before falling to 5 each year in 1971 and 1972.”15

The number of M&As during the 1960s is shown in Figure 2.1. These data were compiled by W. T. Grimm and Company (now provided by Houlihan Lokey Howard & Zukin), which began recording M&A announcements on January 1, 1963. As noted, a larger percentage of the M&As that took place in this period were conglomerate transactions. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reported that 80% of the mergers that took place in the 10-year period between 1965 and 1975 were conglomerate mergers.16

Figure 2.1Third Merger Wave, Merger and Acquisition Announcements, 1963–1970. The Third Merger Wave Peaked in 1969. The Decline in the Stock Market, Coupled with Tax Reforms, Reduced the Incentive to Merge. Source: Mergerstat Review, 2014.

The conglomerates formed during this period were more than merely diversified in their product lines. The term diversified firms is generally applied to companies that have some subsidiaries in other industries but a majority of their production within one industry category. Unlike diversified firms, conglomerates conduct a large percentage of their business activities in different industries. Good examples are Ling-Temco-Vought (LTV), Litton Industries, and ITT. In the 1960s, ITT acquired such diverse businesses as Avis Rent A Car, Sheraton Hotels, Continental Baking, and other far-flung enterprises, such as restaurant chains, consumer credit agencies, home building companies, and airport parking firms. Although the third merger wave is associated with well-known conglomerate firms such as ITT and LTV, many corporations of varying sizes engaged in a diversification strategy. Many small and medium-sized firms also followed this fad and moved into areas outside their core business.

As firms with the necessary financial resources sought to expand, they faced tougher antitrust enforcement. The heightened antitrust atmosphere of the 1960s was an outgrowth of the Celler-Kefauver Act of 1950, which had strengthened the antimerger provisions of the Clayton Act of 1914. The Clayton Act made the acquisition of other firms' stock illegal when the acquisition resulted in a merger that significantly reduced the degree of competition within an industry. However, the law had an important loophole: It did not preclude the anticompetitive acquisition of a firm's assets. The Celler-Kefauver Act closed this loophole. Armed with tougher laws, the federal government adopted a stronger antitrust stance, coming down hard on both horizontal and vertical mergers. Expansion-minded firms found that their only available alternative was to form conglomerates.

The more intense antitrust enforcement of horizontal mergers was partially motivated by the political environment of the 1960s. During this decade, Washington policymakers, emphasizing the potential for abuses of monopoly power, worked through the FTC and the Justice Department to curb corporate expansion, which created the potential for monopolistic abuses. Prime advocates of this tougher antitrust enforcement were Attorney General John Mitchell and Assistant Attorney General Richard McLaren, the main architect of the federal government's antitrust efforts during the 1960s. In his book Managing, Harold Geneen, then chief executive officer of ITT, has described the difficulty his company had in acquiring companies when McLaren was in office.17 McLaren opposed conglomerate acquisitions based on his fears of “potential reciprocity.” This would occur, for example, if ITT and its other subsidiaries gave Hartford Insurance, a company ITT acquired, a competitive edge over other insurance companies. ITT was forced to compromise its plans to add Hartford to its conglomerate empire. It was able to proceed with the acquisition only after agreeing to divest itself of other divisions with the same combined size of Hartford Insurance and to not acquire another large insurance company for 10 years without prior Justice Department approval. Years later the European Commission would voice similar arguments for opposing takeovers in the 2000s.

With the election of Richard M. Nixon toward the end of the decade, Washington policymakers advocated a freer market orientation. Nixon supported this policy through his four appointees to the U.S. Supreme Court, who espoused a broader interpretation of concepts such as market share. The tough antitrust enforcement of the Justice Department came to an end in 1972, as the Supreme Court failed to accept the Justice Department's interpretation of antitrust laws. For example, in some cases the Supreme Court began to use a broad international market view as opposed to a more narrow domestic or even regional market definition. Consequently, if as a result of a merger, a firm had a large percentage of the U.S. market or a region of the nation but a small percentage of the international market, it could be judged to lack significant monopolistic characteristics. By this time, however, the third merger wave had already come to an end.

Management Science and Conglomerates

The rapid growth of management science accelerated the conglomerate movement. Schools of management began to attain widespread acceptability among prominent schools of higher education, and the master of business administration degree became a valued credential for the corporate executive. Management science developed methodologies that facilitated organizational management and theoretically could be applied to a wide variety of organizations, including corporations, government, educational institutions, and even the military. As these management principles gained wider acceptance, graduates of this movement believed they possessed the broad-based skills necessary to manage a wide variety of organizational structures. Such managers reasonably believed that they could manage a corporate organization that spanned several industry categories. The belief that the conglomerate could become a manageable and successful corporate entity started to become a reality.

Industry Concentration and the Conglomerate Wave

Because most of the mergers in the third wave involved the formation of conglomerates rather than vertical or horizontal mergers, they did not appreciably increase industrial concentration. For this reason, the degree of competition in different industries did not significantly change despite the large number of mergers. Some 6,000 mergers, entailing the disappearance of 25,000 firms, took place; nonetheless, competition, or market concentration, in the U.S. economy was not greatly reduced. This clearly contrasts with the first merger wave, which resulted in a dramatic increase in industry concentration in many industries.

Shareholder Wealth Effects of Diversification during the Conglomerate Wave

In Chapter 4 we critically examine diversification strategies and their impact on shareholder wealth. However, while we are discussing the conglomerate wave, it is useful to briefly address some research that has attempted to assess the impact of these types of deals on shareholder wealth. Henri Servaes analyzed a large sample of firms over the years 1961–1976.18 He showed that over this time period, the average number of business segments in which firms operated increased from 1.74 in 1961 to 2.7 in 1976. He then examined the Q ratios (ratios of the market value of securities divided by the replacement value of assets) of the companies in his sample and found that diversified firms were valued at a discount—even during the third merger wave when such diversifying deals were so popular. He found, however, that this diversification discount declined over time. Servaes analyzed the assertion that insiders derive private benefits from managing a diversified firm, which may subject the firm to less risk although at a cost that may not be in shareholders' interests. If managers derive private benefits that come at a cost to shareholders (the discount), then this may explain why companies with higher insider ownership were focused when the discount was high but began to diversify when the discount declined. At least they did not pursue their private benefits when it was imposing a cost on shareholders.

Some research shows that the stock market response to diversifying acquisitions in the conglomerate was positive.19 Matsusaka found that not only did the market respond positively, but also the response was clearly positive when bidders agreed to keep target management in place and negative when management was replaced as in disciplinary takeovers. While this may have been the case, this does not mean that the market's response in this time period to these diversifying deals was correct. When one considers the track record of many of these deals, it is easy to conclude that they were flawed. Later research covering more recent time periods shows that the market may have learned this lesson, and such deals do not meet with a favorable response.

Price-Earnings Game and the Incentive to Merge

As mentioned previously, investment bankers did not finance most of the mergers in the 1960s, as they had in the two previous merger waves. Tight credit markets and high interest rates were the concomitants of the higher credit demands of an expanding economy. As the demand for loanable funds rose, both the price of these funds and interest rates increased. In addition, the booming stock market prices provided equity financing for many of the conglomerate takeovers.

The bull market of the 1960s bid stock prices higher and higher. The Dow Jones Industrial Average, which was 618 in 1960, rose to 906 in 1968. As their stock prices skyrocketed, investors were especially interested in growth stocks. Potential bidders soon learned that acquisitions, financed by stocks, could be an excellent “pain-free” way to raise earnings per share without incurring higher tax liabilities. Mergers financed through stock transactions may not be taxable. For this reason, stock-financed acquisitions had an advantage over cash transactions, which were subject to taxation.

Companies played the price-earnings ratio game to justify their expansionist activities. The price-earnings ratio (P/E ratio) is the ratio of the market price of a firm's stock divided by the earnings available to common stockholders on a per-share basis. The higher the P/E ratio, the more investors are willing to pay for a firm's stock given their expectations about the firm's future earnings. High P/E ratios for the majority of stocks in the market indicate widespread investor optimism; such was the case in the bull market of the 1960s. These high stock values helped finance the third merger wave. Mergers inspired by P/E ratio effects can be illustrated as follows.

Let us assume that the acquiring firm is larger than the target firm with which it is considering merging. In addition, assume that the larger firm has a P/E ratio of 25:1 and annual earnings of $1 million, with 1 million shares outstanding. Each share sells for $25. The target firm has a lower P/E ratio of 10:1 and annual earnings of $100,000, with 100,000 shares outstanding. This firm's stock sells for $10. The larger firm offers the smaller firm a premium on its stock to entice its stockholders to sell. This premium comes in the form of a stock-for-stock offer in which one share of the larger firm, worth $25, is offered for two shares of the smaller firm, worth a total of $20. The large firm issues 50,000 shares to finance the purchase.

This acquisition causes the earnings per share (EPS) of the higher P/E firm to rise. The EPS of the higher P/E firm has risen from $1.00 to $1.05. We can see the effect on the price of the larger firm's stock if we make the crucial assumption that its P/E ratio stays the same. This implies that the market will continue to value this firm's future earnings in a manner similar to the way it did before the acquisition. The validity of this type of assumption is examined in greater detail in Chapter 14.

Based on the assumption that the P/E ratio of the combined firm remains at 25, the stock price will rise to $26.25 (25 × $1.05). We can see that the larger firm can offer the smaller firm a significant premium while its EPS and stock price rise. This process can continue with other acquisitions, which also result in further increases in the acquiring company's stock price. This process will end if the market decides not to apply the same P/E ratio. A bull market such as occurred in the 1960s helps promote high P/E values. When the market falls, however, as it did at the end of the 1960s, this process is not feasible. The process of acquisitions, based on P/E effects, becomes increasingly untenable as a firm seeks to apply it to successively larger firms. The crucial assumption in creating the expectation that stock prices will rise is that the P/E ratio of the high P/E firm will apply to the combined entity. However, as the targets become larger and larger, the target becomes a more important percentage of the combined firm's earning power. After a company acquires several relatively lower P/E firms, the market becomes reluctant to apply the original higher P/E ratio. Therefore, it becomes more difficult to find target firms that will not decrease the acquirer's stock price. As the number of suitable acquisition candidates declines, the merger wave slows down. Therefore, a merger wave based on such “finance gimmickry” can last only a limited time period before it exhausts itself, as this one did.

With its bull market and the formation of huge conglomerates, the term the go-go years was applied to the 1960s.20 When the stock market fell in 1969, it affected the pace of acquisitions by reducing P/E ratios. Figure 2.2 demonstrates how this decline affected some of the larger conglomerates.

Figure 2.2Third Merger Wave, Conglomerate P/E Ratios 1960, 1970. The End of the Third Merger Wave Was Signaled by the Dramatic Decline in the P/E Ratios of Some of That Era's Leading Conglomerates. Source: Peter O. Steiner, Mergers: Motives, Effects and Policies (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1975), 104.

Accounting Manipulations and the Incentive to Merge

Under accounting rules that prevailed at the time, acquirers had the opportunity to generate paper gains when they acquired companies that had assets on their books that were well below their market values. The gains were recorded when an acquirer sold off certain of these assets. To illustrate such an accounting manipulation, A. J. Briloff recounts how Gulf & Western generated earnings in 1967 by selling off the films of Paramount Pictures, which it had acquired in 1966.21 The bulk of Paramount's assets were in the form of feature films, which it listed on its books at a value significantly less than their market value. In 1967, Gulf & Western sold 32 of the films of its Paramount subsidiary. This generated significant “income” for Gulf & Western in 1967, which succeeded in supporting Gulf & Western's stock price.

Some believe that these accounting manipulations made fire and casualty insurance companies popular takeover targets during this period.22 Conglomerates found their large portfolios of undervalued assets to be particularly attractive in light of the impact of a subsequent sale of these assets on the conglomerate's future earnings. Even the very large Hartford Insurance Company, which had assets of nearly $2 billion in 1968 (approximately $13.9 billion in 2014 dollars), had assets that were clearly undervalued. ITT capitalized on this undervaluation when it acquired Hartford Insurance.

Another artificial incentive that encouraged conglomerate acquisitions involved securities, such as convertible debentures, which were used to finance acquisitions. Acquiring firms would issue convertible debentures in exchange for common stock of the target firm. This allowed them to receive the short-term benefit of adding the target's earnings to its EPS valuation while putting off the eventual increase in the acquirer's shares outstanding.

Decline of the Third Merger Wave

The decline of the conglomerates may be first traced to the announcement by Litton Industries in 1968 that its quarterly earnings declined for the first time in 14 years.23 Although Litton's earnings were still positive, the market turned sour on conglomerates, and the selling pressure on their stock prices increased.

In 1968, Attorney General Richard McLaren announced that he intended to crack down on the conglomerates, which he believed were an anticompetitive influence on the market. Various legal changes were implemented to limit the use of convertible debt to finance acquisitions. The 1969 Tax Reform Act required that convertible debt be treated as equity for EPS calculations while also restricting changes in the valuation of undervalued assets of targets. The conglomerate boom came to an end, and this helped collapse the stock market.

Performance of Conglomerates

Little evidence exists to support the advisability of many of the conglomerate acquisitions. Buyers often overpaid for the diverse companies they purchased. Many of the acquisitions were followed by poor financial performance. This is confirmed by the fact that 60% of the cross-industry acquisitions that occurred between 1970 and 1982 were sold or divested by 1989.

There is no conclusive explanation for why conglomerates failed. Economic theory, however, points out the productivity-enhancing effects of increased specialization. Indeed, this has been the history of capitalism since the Industrial Revolution. The conglomerate era represented a movement away from specialization. Managers of diverse enterprises often had little detailed knowledge of the specific industries that were under their control. This is particularly the case when compared with the management expertise and attention that are applied by managers who concentrate on one industry or even one segment of an industry. It is not surprising, therefore, that companies like Revlon, a firm that has an established track record of success in the cosmetics industry, saw its core cosmetics business suffer when it diversified into unrelated areas, such as health care.

Trendsetting Mergers of the 1970s

The number of M&A announcements in the 1970s fell dramatically, as shown in Figure 2.3. Even so, the decade played a major role in merger history. Several path-breaking mergers changed what was considered to be acceptable takeover behavior in the years to follow. The first of these mergers was the International Nickel Company (INCO) acquisition of ESB (formerly known as Electric Storage Battery Company).

Figure 2.3 Merger and Acquisition Announcements, 1969–1980. Source: Mergerstat Review, 2014.

INCO versus ESB

After the third merger wave, a historic merger paved the way for a type that would be pervasive in the fourth wave: the hostile takeover by major established companies.

In 1974, Philadelphia-based ESB was the largest battery maker in the world, specializing in automobile batteries under the Willard and Exide brand names as well as other consumer batteries under the Ray-O-Vac brand name. Although the firm's profits had been rising, its stock price had fallen in response to a generally declining stock market. Several companies had expressed an interest in acquiring ESB, but all these efforts were rebuffed. On July 18, 1974, INCO announced a tender offer to acquire all outstanding shares of ESB for $28 per share, for a total of $157 million. The Toronto-based INCO controlled approximately 40% of the world's nickel market and was by far the largest firm in this industry. Competition in the nickel industry had increased in the previous 10 years while demand proved to be increasingly volatile. In an effort to smooth their cash flows, INCO sought an acquisition target that was less cyclical.

INCO ultimately selected ESB as the appropriate target for several reasons. As part of what INCO considered to be the “energy industry,” ESB was attractive in light of the high oil prices that prevailed at that time. While it featured name brands, ESB was also not in the forefront of innovation and was losing ground to competitors, such as Eveready and Duracell.

Because the takeover was an unfriendly acquisition, INCO did not have the benefit of a detailed financial analysis using internal data. Before INCO acquired ESB, major reputable corporations did not participate in unfriendly takeovers; only smaller firms and less respected speculators engaged in such activity. If a major firm's takeover overtures were rebuffed, the acquisition was discontinued. Moreover, most large investment banks refused to finance hostile takeovers.

At this time, the level of competition that existed in investment banking was putting pressure on the profits of Morgan Stanley, INCO's investment banker. Although it was seeking additional sources of profits, Morgan Stanley was also concerned that by refusing to aid INCO in its bid for ESB, it might lose a long-term client. Morgan Stanley, long known as a conservative investment bank, reluctantly began to change posture as it saw its market share erode because of the increasingly aggressive advance of its rivals in the investment banking business. Underwriting, which had constituted 95% of its business until 1965, had become less profitable as other investment banks challenged the traditional relationships of the underwriting business by making competitive bids when securities were being underwritten.24

Many banks, seeking other areas of profitability, expanded their trading operations. By the 1980s, trading would displace underwriting as the investment bank's key profit center.25 This situation would change once again toward the end of the 1980s as fees related to M&As became an increasingly important part of some investment banks' revenues.

ESB found itself unprepared for a hostile takeover, given the novelty of this type of action. INCO gave it only a three-hour warning of its “take it or leave it.” ESB had installed some antitakeover defenses, but they were ineffective. It sought help from the investment bank of Goldman Sachs, which tried to arrange a friendly takeover by United Aircraft, but by September 1974, INCO's hostile takeover of ESB was completed.26 The takeover of ESB proved to be a poor investment, primarily because INCO, as a result of legal actions associated with antitrust considerations, was not given a free hand to manage the company. Not until 39 months after INCO had completed the acquisition did it attain the right to exercise free control over the company. Moreover, as noted previously, ESB's competitors were already aggressively marketing superior products. By 1981, ESB was reporting operating losses; INCO eventually sold it in four separate parts. INCO continued to be the world leader in the nickel business. Interestingly, it stepped into the role of white knight in 2006, when it made a bid for Canadian Falconbridge, a leading copper, nickel, and zinc producer, which was the target of an unwanted 2005 bid from the Swiss mining company Xstrata. This led to a long and complicated takeover battle involving several companies. Eventually, INCO was acquired for approximately $17 billion by the world's largest producer of iron ore, Brazilian company CVRD.

Although the ESB acquisition was not financially successful, it was precedent-setting. It set the stage for hostile takeovers by respected companies in the second half of the 1970s and through the fourth merger wave of the 1980s. This previously unacceptable action—the hostile takeover by a major industrial firm with the support of a leading investment banker—now gained legitimacy. The word hostile now became part of the vocabulary of M&As. “‘ESB is aware that a hostile tender offer is being made by a foreign company for all of ESB's shares,’ said F. J. Port, ESB's president. ‘Hostile’ thus entered the mergers and acquisitions lexicon.”27

While the Inco-ESB deal was precedent setting in the U.S. market as it was the first hostile takeover by a major corporation and supported by a major investment bank, it was not the first hostile takeover. As we have already noted, such deals were attempted in the United States in the 1800s. In Europe, the first major hostile deal appears to be the 1956 takeover of British Aluminum by Reynolds Metal and Tube Investments. This deal, known as the “aluminum war,” was engineered by the then up-and-coming investment bank S. G. Warburg.28

United Technologies versus Otis Elevator

As suggested previously, following INCO's hostile takeover of ESB, other major corporations began to consider unfriendly acquisitions. Firms and their chief executives who were inclined to be raiders but inhibited by censure from the business community now became unrestrained. United Technologies was one such firm.

In 1975, United Technologies had recently changed its name from United Aircraft through the efforts of its chairman, Harry Gray, and president, Edward Hennessy, who were transforming the company into a growing conglomerate. They were familiar with the INCO-ESB acquisition, having participated in the bidding war for ESB as the unsuccessful white knight that Goldman Sachs had solicited on ESB's behalf. Up until the bid for Otis, United had never participated in a hostile acquisition.

At that time the growth of the elevator manufacturing business was slowing down and its sales patterns were cyclical inasmuch as it was heavily dependent on the construction industry. Nonetheless, this target was extremely attractive. One-third of Otis's revenues came from servicing elevators, revenues that tend to be much more stable than those from elevator construction. That Otis was a well-managed company made it all the more appealing to United Technologies. Moreover, 60% of Otis's revenues were from international customers, a detail that fit well with United Technologies' plans to increase its international presence. By buying Otis Elevator, United could diversify internationally while buying an American firm and not assuming the normal risk that would be present with the acquisition of a foreign company.

United initially attempted friendly overtures toward Otis, which were not accepted. On October 15, 1975, United Technologies bid $42 per share for a controlling interest in Otis Elevator, an offer that precipitated a heated battle between the two firms. Otis sought the aid of a white knight, the Dana Corporation, an auto parts supplier, while filing several lawsuits to enjoin United from completing its takeover. A bidding war that ensued between United Technologies and the Dana Corporation ended with United winning with a bid of $44 per share. Unlike the INCO-ESB takeover, however, the takeover of Otis proved to be an excellent investment of United's excess cash. Otis went on to enjoy greater-than-expected success, particularly in international markets.

United's takeover of Otis was a ground-breaking acquisition; not only was it a hostile takeover by an established firm, but also it was a successful venture and Otis remains a valuable part of United today. This deal helped make hostile takeovers acceptable.

Colt Industries versus Garlock Industries

Colt Industries' takeover of Garlock Industries was yet another precedent-setting acquisition, moving hostile takeovers to a sharply higher level of hostility. The other two hostile takeovers by major firms had amounted to heated bidding wars but were mild in comparison to the aggressive tactics used in this takeover.

In 1964, the Fairbanks Whitney Company changed its name to Colt Industries, which was the firearms company it had acquired in 1955. During the 1970s, the company was almost totally restructured, with Chairman George Strichman and President David Margolis divesting the firm of many of its poorly performing businesses. The management wanted to use the cash from these sales to acquire higher-growth industrial businesses. As part of this acquisition program, in 1975, Colt initiated a hostile bid for Garlock Industries, which manufactured packing and sealing products. The deal was path-breaking due to the fact that Garlock fought back furiously and aggressively by using public relations as part of its defensive arsenal. Colt responded in kind and eventually acquired Garlock. This deal is notable for making hostile deals truly hostile. Such deals are commonplace today.

LING-TEMCO-VOUGHT: GROWTH OF A CONGLOMERATEa