Comments on: The need for business intelligence and what we mean by it… http://intelligentmergers.wordpress.com/2007/04/19/post-your-case-studies-and-comments-here/ Intelligent Mergers & Acquisitions: The use of Business and Military Intelligence in M&A Deals Wed, 09 Jul 2008 17:42:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=MU By: Hallefp http://intelligentmergers.wordpress.com/2007/04/19/post-your-case-studies-and-comments-here/#comment-179 Hallefp Thu, 20 Mar 2008 18:10:38 +0000 http://intelligentmergers.wordpress.com/2007/04/09/post-your-case-studies-and-comments-here/#comment-179 Nice page!, dude Nice page!, dude

]]> By: Andrew F. http://intelligentmergers.wordpress.com/2007/04/19/post-your-case-studies-and-comments-here/#comment-5 Andrew F. Fri, 08 Jun 2007 19:54:57 +0000 http://intelligentmergers.wordpress.com/2007/04/09/post-your-case-studies-and-comments-here/#comment-5 A relatively safe hypothesis for your consideration: Good business intelligence will be highly correlated to having lots of good subject matter experts hovering around a deal. Qualified subject matter experts will bring tightly focused questions centered on key industrial/cultural specifics. In short they'll know what to look for and where to look for it. So for me an interesting line of discussion is to what extent and when buyers should engage internal or external SMEs in a M&A context. Despite their usefulness, maintaining a standing army of subject matter experts on staff is hard to cost-justify except in the largest organizations. Strategic buyers have a fundamental advantage in this regard when they do deals within their industry. By definition they bring lots of SMEs to bear. Equivalently they should struggle to do deals outside their industry. They may also struggle on the deal-making side, but that's another blog. In contrast, financial buyers are geared differently, and typically can't (or don't want to) maintain large SME staffs. They solve their SME shortage through narrow industry focus, or through spot contracting of industry experts / consultants to solve a particular problem. If my hypothesis is worth investigating, a series of interesting follow-up analyses might measure deal success vs. use of external consultants; deal success vs. type of buyer; intra- vs. inter-industry deal success by strategic buyers; deal success by focused vs. generalist PE/VC firms; relative cost structures of in-house expertise vs. external consulting expertise. A relatively safe hypothesis for your consideration:
Good business intelligence will be highly correlated to having lots of good subject matter experts hovering around a deal. Qualified subject matter experts will bring tightly focused questions centered on key industrial/cultural specifics. In short they’ll know what to look for and where to look for it.
So for me an interesting line of discussion is to what extent and when buyers should engage internal or external SMEs in a M&A context.
Despite their usefulness, maintaining a standing army of subject matter experts on staff is hard to cost-justify except in the largest organizations.
Strategic buyers have a fundamental advantage in this regard when they do deals within their industry. By definition they bring lots of SMEs to bear. Equivalently they should struggle to do deals outside their industry. They may also struggle on the deal-making side, but that’s another blog.
In contrast, financial buyers are geared differently, and typically can’t (or don’t want to) maintain large SME staffs. They solve their SME shortage through narrow industry focus, or through spot contracting of industry experts / consultants to solve a particular problem.
If my hypothesis is worth investigating, a series of interesting follow-up analyses might measure deal success vs. use of external consultants; deal success vs. type of buyer; intra- vs. inter-industry deal success by strategic buyers; deal success by focused vs. generalist PE/VC firms; relative cost structures of in-house expertise vs. external consulting expertise.

]]> By: Nick http://intelligentmergers.wordpress.com/2007/04/19/post-your-case-studies-and-comments-here/#comment-4 Nick Tue, 05 Jun 2007 09:45:33 +0000 http://intelligentmergers.wordpress.com/2007/04/09/post-your-case-studies-and-comments-here/#comment-4 An interesting topic might be the differing uses and applications of business intelligence towards a particular M&A deal where have the bidder being a combination of a financial buyer (a Private Equity player(s)) and a strategic buyer bidding together and jointly for an asset. Such examples are very common in Australia right now e.g. Wesfarmers (a conglomerate), PEP and Macquarie Bank (and possibly also Woolworths?) bid for Coles Group, KKR JV with Seven Media and CVC Asia Pac JV with PBL Media. An interesting topic might be the differing uses and applications of business intelligence towards a particular M&A deal where have the bidder being a combination of a financial buyer (a Private Equity player(s)) and a strategic buyer bidding together and jointly for an asset.

Such examples are very common in Australia right now e.g. Wesfarmers (a conglomerate), PEP and Macquarie Bank (and possibly also Woolworths?) bid for Coles Group, KKR JV with Seven Media and CVC Asia Pac JV with PBL Media.

]]> By: Carl http://intelligentmergers.wordpress.com/2007/04/19/post-your-case-studies-and-comments-here/#comment-2 Carl Wed, 11 Apr 2007 08:49:49 +0000 http://intelligentmergers.wordpress.com/2007/04/09/post-your-case-studies-and-comments-here/#comment-2 Interesting and topical subject. I work in the private equity industry and we are increasingly looking for M&A opportunities to add upside to our returns through both revenue cross sell and cost synergies. However M&A is not straight forward. A recent study by McKinsey concluded that only 30% of M&A achieved 90%+ of anticipated revenue synergies and 60% of M&A achieved cost synergies anticipated. in software (an area in which i spend more time), the stats were 0% for revenue and 50% for cost synergies (smaller sample size but directionally accurate as can be complex). I look forward to reading the book and blog for best practises on achieveing these revenue and cost synergies..... Interesting and topical subject. I work in the private equity industry and we are increasingly looking for M&A opportunities to add upside to our returns through both revenue cross sell and cost synergies. However M&A is not straight forward. A recent study by McKinsey concluded that only 30% of M&A achieved 90%+ of anticipated revenue synergies and 60% of M&A achieved cost synergies anticipated. in software (an area in which i spend more time), the stats were 0% for revenue and 50% for cost synergies (smaller sample size but directionally accurate as can be complex). I look forward to reading the book and blog for best practises on achieveing these revenue and cost synergies…..

]]>