Acquisitions versus Mergers

[klassicdoll]

A merger happens when two independent organizations come together to form a single, new entity. The term "acquisition" describes the taking over of one business by another.

Which do you think is a better strategic alliance between the two?

 

[Bisolami]

The merger seem to have better plan but the acquisition may come up with an interesting plan

 

[Suba]

Although legally the merger process will be more difficult because there is an element of combining two or more companies into one entity unit which requires a notary, etc. while for acquisition you only need to buy shares above 50% of the issuer's outstanding shares. In my opinion, there is no better strategic alliance because it all depends on your business goals.

 

[Augusta]

Mergers is good to me as it involve two companies combining to form a new entity, potentially leveraging their combined strengths and creating synergies. This can be a good option for companies seeking to expand their market reach, increase market share.

 

[eLdavis]

Personally i don't think one is better than the other, i feel it is mostly based on which is more suited for the current situation.

 

[Starmix]

I opt to choose acquisition it's like acquiring an asset. In merging there will be a lot of hassles having many parties involved.

 

[Springtime]

For acquisition, the seller will no longer have any say after the process is completed. The company belongs to the new owner. For merger, it is the combination of two companies. The involved parties need to discuss how to manage the company when the merger is done.

 

[Augusta]

Mergers by combining resources, a merged company can expand its reach into new geographic areas or customer segments.