Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Technology
Takeover
The Boston Consulting Group (BCG) is a global management consulting firm and the worlds
leading advisor on business strategy. We partner with clients from the private, public, and not-for-
profit sectors in all regions to identify their highest-value opportunities, address their most critical
challenges, and transform their enterprises. Our customized approach combines deep insight into
the dynamics of companies and markets with close collaboration at all levels of the client
organization. This ensures that our clients achieve sustainable competitive advantage, build more
capable organizations, and secure lasting results. Founded in 1963, BCG is a private company with
more than 90 offices in 50 countries. For more information, please visit bcg.com.
The 2017 M&A Report
THE TECHNOLOGY
TAKEOVER
JENS KENGELBACH
GEORG KEIENBURG
TIMO SCHMID
SNKE SIEVERS
KETIL GJERSTAD
JESPER NIELSEN
DECKER WALKER
3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2 7 APPENDIX I: METHODOLOGY
T ech isnt just for tech companies anymoreand it hasnt been for
some time. Nearly every industry has been affected by digital and
mobile technologies, and many have been upended. Other advances, such
as robotics and additive manufacturing, are also taking hold. No company
can afford to ignore the impact of technology on everything from supply
chains to customer engagement, and the advent of even more advanced
technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI) and the Internet of Things,
portends more far-reaching change. The question is, How do companies
rapidly access the technologies that can advance their businesses and
integrate them successfully with their current operations?
What moves global M&A? Our analysis of M&A activity in 2016 and
during the first half of 2017 highlights three global trends: Chinas
increasing appetite for international M&A, private equitys insatiable
need to invest, and, yes, the growing volume of deals involving tech
targets.
What does the tech M&A marketplace look like? Big tech deals, such
as the acquisition of LinkedIn by Microsoft and the purchase of
Germanys KUKA by Chinas Midea, are hard to ignore. But behind the
headlines, little is actually known about the underlying drivers in this
booming market when it comes to the key players, their motivations,
and the current trends and valuation levels. An analysis based on BCGs
Deal making in the tech sector, including digital deal volume, has
surged. Even as the overall M&A market has grown significantly
over the past five years, the share of deals involving a tech target
has risen even faster. Today, one out of every five transactions has
a clear link to some form of technology.
Our data indicates that nine trends are driving market growth.
Three of the biggest are the rise of Industry 4.0, a big increase in
cloud computing and cloud-based solutions, and the search for
mobile tech and software application providers.
Tech deals add value for the acquirer approximately 50% of the
time, which is about the same success rate as for all deals, but
companies can push the odds in their favor.
2,481 2,476
1,500 10,000 2,500
2,000 1,882
7,500
1,000 1,582
1,487
1,500
5,000
1,000
500
2,500
500
0 0 0
1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016
Deal value Number of deals
Sources: Thomson ONE Banker; BCG analysis.
Note: The total of 555,131 M&A transactions comprises completed and unconditional deals announced between 1990 and 2016, with no
transaction-size threshold. Self-tenders, recapitalizations, exchange offers, repurchases, acquisitions of remaining interest, minority stake
purchases, privatizations, and spinoffs were excluded.
1
Enterprise values include the net debt of targets.
Median EV/EBITDA acquisition multiple (x) Average one-week deal premium (%)1
15.0 50
40
12.5
12.0
33
30
10.0
20
7.5
10
5.0 0
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2016 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2016
Sources: Thomson ONE Banker; BCG analysis.
Note: The total of 18,493 M&A transactions comprises completed, unconditional, and pending deals announced between 1990 and 2016, with
transactions of at least $25 million and at least a 75% share transfer. Self-tenders, recapitalizations, exchange offers, repurchases, acquisitions of
remaining interest, minority stake purchases, privatizations, and spinoffs were excluded. Only deals with a disclosed deal value were considered.
1
The acquisition premium is the amount by which the targets offer price exceeds its closing stock price one week before the original
announcement date; the top 2.5% of deals were excluded to reduce distortion by outliers.
1,468 1,438
1,500 18,000
1,292
1,197
1,219
1,001 1,031
1,000 948 12,000
856
500 6,000
0 0
H1 2009 H1 2010 H1 2011 H1 2012 H1 2013 H1 2014 H1 2015 H1 2016 H1 2017
Sources: Thomson ONE Banker; BCG analysis.
Note: The total of 184,457 M&A transactions comprises completed, unconditional, and pending deals announced in the first half of each year from
2009 through 2017, with no transaction-size threshold. Self-tenders, recapitalizations, exchange offers, and repurchases were excluded. Only deals
with a disclosed deal value were considered.
1
The enterprise values include the net debt of targets.
roiled than ever. Nonetheless, markets seem to China goes shopping. China embarked on a
have regained confidence, and activity contin- global shopping spree in 2016, more than
ues at full speed, despite broader uncertain- doubling, to almost $200 billion, its 2015
ties and increasing concerns about whether or announced deal value. About two-thirds of
not a peak has been reached or a potential Chinas M&A activity today is outbound, with
bubble has begun to form. Europe and North America emerging as the
most attractive target regions. (See Exhibit 4.)
Two macro factors still weigh heavily on the
minds of CEOs: low growth in mature econo- Several factors are fueling deal activity, in-
mies and cheap money. With a few exceptions, cluding rising consumption by the growing
organic growth is hard to come by, and while middle class and the execution of the latest
shareholders used to look skeptically at at- five-year plan, which recognizes that M&A is
tempts to grow inorganically, they now realize an important means of gaining access to stra-
that M&A offers one of the few proven ave- tegic technologies and expanding the coun-
nues to higher revenues and earnings. At cur- trys commercial capabilities. Mideas acquisi-
rent borrowing rates, at least in developed tion of Germanys KUKA, for example,
markets, acquisitions are easily and inexpen- brought robotics expertise to Chinas (and the
sively financed. The first factor, low growth, is worlds) largest appliance manufacturer
likely to be with us for some time. The second, while also providing KUKA with greater ac-
cheap money, is more likely to reach an expira- cess to the worlds most important automo-
tion date. However, we might observe differ- tive production market. Chinese outbound
ences in geographic momentum given that the deal volume slowed somewhat in the first
European Central Bank is staying put while the half of 2017, but we attribute this to the re-
US Federal Reserve is increasing rates slowly. cord heights achieved during the prior year
and see the general trend continuing.
Three Big Trends Health care and private equity buyers have
Embedded in this worldwide investment cli- been particularly active. The acquisition of
mate are three major M&A trends. Gland Pharma of India strengthens Shanghai
150
100 96
50 39 38 38
0
Africa and the Middle East Asia3 South America
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
$9.6 billion (+$8.6 billion)2 $46.3 billion ($4.7 billion)2 $2.7 billion ($2.9 billion)2
1. Alpha Frontier 1. Autohome 1. CPFL Energia
2. Playtika 2. Gland Pharma 2. Anglo American4
3. Freeport-McMoRan 3. Microso Mobile (Vietnam) 3. Duke Energy
200
0 0
1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016
2000 2004 2008 2012 2016
Exhibit 6 | Private Equity Acquirers Face Record-High Multiples While Credit Conditions
Tighten
EQUITY SHARES HAVE BEEN RISING SINCE 2013
EBITDA multiples (x) Equity contribution (%)
20 50
46
18 41 40 41
39
16 37 38 38 37 40
35 35 36
14 33
31 31
30
12 30
10.3x 10.0x
10 9.7x 9.7x
9.1x 8.8x 8.8x
8.4x 8.4x 8.5x 8.7x
8 7.3x 7.7x 20
7.1x
6.6x
6.0x
6
4 10
0 0
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016
20 19
14 17
14
Exhibit 8 | Tech M&A Value and Volume Approach the Heights of 2000
TECH M&A VALUE AND VOLUME SHOW A STRONG TRAJECTORY OVER TIME
3,000
1,000
905
717 2,000
593
500
409
342 376
333 304 1,000
293 266 278 267
247 242
193 163 165
144
101 86
0 0
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
$1 billion $500 million to <$1 billion $100 million to <$500 million <$100 million
Sources: Thomson ONE Banker; BCG analysis.
Note: The total of 11,522 tech M&A transactions comprises completed and unconditional deals announced between 2012 and 2016, with no
transaction-size threshold. Self-tenders, recapitalizations, and repurchases were excluded. Only deals with a disclosed deal value were considered
in this analysis.
1
Enterprise values include the net debt of targets.
Change from
2012 (p.p.)
Private equity and
venture capital 29 +6
32 30
39 38 36 Financial 18 +8
Industrial 14 +5
Consumer 12 +4
Health care 1
9 +1
68 70
62 64
61 Retail 8 +1
Energy 6 +3
Materials 6 +4
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Real estate 1 +1
Tech industry Nontech industry
Sources: Thomson ONE Banker; BCG analysis.
Note: The total of 28,186 M&A transactions comprises only completed deals announced between 2012 and 2016, with no transaction-size
threshold. Self-tenders, recapitalizations, and repurchases were excluded. The tech category follows the industry classifications from Thomson
ONE Banker covering high-tech and telecommunications acquirers.
1
In 2016, the health care industry had a small number of deals but high deal values; 35% of deal values were associated with high tech.
Exhibit 13 | Lofty Tech EBIT Multiples Reflect the Current Market for All M&A
Median EV/EBIT multiples
27 28
23 25 22 22 23
TECH 18 16 18 21 20 20 16 16 17 17 20 21
TARGETS1 20
13
20 19
16 16 16 17 16 15 14 14 15 15 17
NONTECH 16 16 14 14 13 13 13
15
TARGETS2
15
11 10 9
SPREAD 8 6 6 3 4
3 3 5 3 3 3 5 4 5
5
0
1
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015
1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016
+79%*** +54%***
2.8
17.2
1.8
The answer is it depends. We analyzed the At the same time, we found no material dif-
announcement returns of more than 37,000 ference between tech buyers acquiring tar-
tech acquisitions and found that, overall, such gets in their own industry (51% of these deals
Exhibit 15 | About Half of All Tech Deals Create Value for the Acquirer at Announcement
51% OF ALL TECH DEALS CREATE WITH VIRTUALLY NO DIFFERENCE
VALUE AT ANNOUNCEMENT BETWEEN ACQUIRER TYPES
Average CAR for acquirers buying tech targets, 19972016 (%)1 Average CAR by acquirer type, 19972016 (%)1
Value
created 0.53
0.47
51
of deals of deals
create value create value
LARGE DEALS HAVE SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER CARs1 MAJORITY DEALS YIELD HIGHER RETURNS
+0.77
1.14 ***
**
0.01
Minority acquisition Majority acquisition
(<50%) (>50%)
0.33
Small deals Large deals
(<$1 billion) (>$1 billion)
4.42
Value
4.52 created
***
0.67
***
1.04 0.90
0.37
0.12
0.10
One-time tech Frequent tech Serial tech One-time tech Frequent tech Serial tech
buyers buyers buyers buyers buyers buyers
Sources: Thomson ONE Banker; BCG analysis.
Note: Transactions comprise completed, unconditional, partially completed, and pending deals announced between 1997 and 2016, with no
transaction-size threshold. Self-tenders, recapitalizations, and repurchases were excluded. Only deals with a disclosed deal value were considered
in this analysis. One-time tech buyers announced one tech acquisition during the period, frequent tech buyers announced two to five tech
acquisitions, and serial tech buyers announced at least six tech acquisitions. Statistically significant differences in CAR or RTSR for one-time tech
buyers versus serial tech buyers were expressed as: * significant at p<0.1, ** significant at p<0.05; and *** significant at p<0.01.
1
CAR = cumulative abnormal return; calculations were made during the seven-day period beginning three days before an announcement date and
ending three days after it.
2
RTSR = relative total shareholder return.
vative products or services. The average mar- sourcing, executing, and integrating acquisi-
ket capitalization of one-time acquirers in our tions, and it appears that the benefits of ex-
sample is $5.4 billion, and the 1.04% CAR perience extend to tech deals as well. (See,
that they achieve on announcement equals a for example, From Buying Growth to Building
net gain of approximately $60 millionsim- Value: Increasing Returns with M&A, BCG re-
ply from announcing an acquisition with an port, October 2015, and Unlocking Acquisi-
average deal value of about $200 million tive Growth: Lessons from Successful Serial
(which represents a 27% announcement re- Acquirers, BCG Perspective, October 2014.)
turn). Frequent buyers of tech targets (firms Indeed, many of the companies in BCGs an-
that completed two to five deals over a ten- nual ranking of the worlds most innovative
year horizon) also achieve a significant posi- companies are serial acquirers of both tech
tive CAR, 0.90%, while the CAR for serial tech and nontech assets. (See Exhibit 18.)
acquirers (those that completed more than
five tech deals over ten years) is much lower, Some companiessuch as General Electric,
only 0.37%. This could be because investors Daimler, Dow Chemical, Under Armour, and
consider a tech acquisition for this type of Axause tech M&A as a core component of
firm as part of the companys ongoing busi- their innovation strategies. Over the past five
ness strategy, therefore constituting a less sig- years, for example, General Electric executed
nificant corporate event. 125 acquisitions of which more than 20%
involved tech targets, including industrial in-
One year after announcement however, a dif- ternet front-runners Bit Stew Systems and
ferent picture emerges. Neither one-time ac- Meridium, as well as a string of small to mid-
quirers nor frequent buyers outperform the size deals that have helped build GEs digital
market, while serial tech-target acquirers out- platform.
perform the relevant index by 4.4 percentage
points. This holds true for acquirers in both
the tech and nontech sectors. Three Keys to Unlocking Value
Successful tech acquirers do three things
We have written before about the advantages right: they follow an explicit and focused
that serial acquirers gain from experience in strategy, they develop a tailor-made M&A
35
General
Electric 15 245.5 125 22 16
29 28 28
27
Daimler 16 80.7 24 38 21 21 21
Dow
Chemical 19 75.8 22 18 19
17
10 10 12
8 8 7
Under 22
Armour 8.7 3 100 26
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Nontech Tech
Axa 30 64.1 90 9 25
process for tech targets, and they build the need for shorter due diligence time frames
right corporate organization to find, execute, and for key decision makers to be involved
and integrate innovative tech targets. early on.
Tech Deal Strategy. Successful digital buyers Finally, these acquirers are flexible in the way
combine four best practices into a coherent they structure and execute deals. They are
strategic approach for tech deal making. First, willing to pursue alternative deal structures,
they look at tech M&A as an integrated part such as minority investments, earn outs, and
of their strategic arsenal; deals are part and stock options that enable targets to maintain
parcel of doing business, not appendices or their entrepreneurial culture and incentives,
pet projects. These companies have ongoing even within large corporate structures. Per-
strategic processes that include discussions of haps more important, smart buyers also look
tech M&A targets as part of advancing their at the deal from the targets point of view.
core business portfolio. They understand that success ultimately re-
quires effective collaboration extending
Second, tech M&A complements their in- through the transaction process and beyond,
house innovation work and R&D. These com- and that this means developing an under-
panies dont treat tech acquisitions as a sub- standing of the business model and cultural
stitute, or one-time remedy, for an aging drivers of an organization very different from
product portfolio. Acquisitions form only one their own. (See the sidebar, Understanding
pillar of a clearly articulated technology trans- the Targets Perspective.)
formation plan, and these companies have an
underlying organizational structure for inte- Targeted Processes for Tech M&A. While tech
grating and supporting acquisition targets. deals follow the same general processes as
traditional transactionstarget identification,
Third, tech M&A is governed by a customized, transaction execution, and a decision about
and often very lean, structure to facilitate the the right level of postmerger integration
speedy execution of tech deals. These compa- (PMI)each phase presents its own wrinkles.
nies recognize that tech M&A differs from tra- Successful tech buyers make the following
ditional M&A in certain respects, such as the adjustments to their playbook:
Tech startups often have specific reasons Buyers from other industries also give
for selling to a nontech buyer that go well targets access to an established customer
beyond the financial aspects of the transac- base, enabling the target to leapfrog in sales
tion. (See What Deep-Tech Startups Want growth. When Walmart acquired Jet.com, for
from Corporate Partners, BCG article, example, Jet.com gained access to the
April 2017.) In our experience, the acquir- fast-growing e-commerce marketplace run
ers that make the effort to understand by the worlds biggest brick-and-mortar
what their targets are looking for and how retailer and added muscle to compete with
they see the fit with their new parent gain a such internet retail giants as Amazon.
big leg up in making the acquisition work.
Considering the following questions before Nontech partners provide the trust and
embarking on a tech transaction can help brand recognition of an established major
set acquirers expectations with the industry player. This enhances the targets
prospective target and smooth the M&A visibility and reputation as a reliable
process and postdeal transition. business platform. For instance, brand
recognition for the app mytaxi rose with the
Why do so many tech companies sell to first investment by Daimler in 2013, and
buyers from other sectors? Money is one today, mytaxi is the worlds most successful
reason, of course. Founders and their taxi intermediary, with more than 10
backers often want to cash in, and in many million downloads.
instances, nontech-industry buyers are
often the ones that are willing to write the What do tech companies expect in the
biggest checks. But multiple other factors M&A process? Agreeing on a deal can be
come into play as well. Industry veterans complicated by the different perspectives
Expanded Resources for Identifying More Agile Deal Execution. All aspects
Targets. Internal M&A teams tend to of executing a tech transaction require
specialize more in industry segments and flexibility. For example, acquirers need to
technologies that are close to home. adjust to, and get comfortable with,
Sourcing tech targets requires wider shorter due diligence time frames (or risk
search parameters and expertise. Success- being outbid by more fleet-footed compet-
ful companies augment existing teams itors), different performance metrics (hit
with internal and external resources, rates and customer churn rather than cash
including their own corporate venture conversion or free cash flow), and general-
capital departments and outside tech ly less depth of information. Serial tech
industry experts, to broaden the search for acquirers often borrow a tactic from the
targets in emerging technologies and private equity sector. They augment their
industry segments. deal teams with senior advisors, such as
former CEOs, from the target industry, order to avoid smothering innovative
who can give the entire deal team a head drive with corporate bureaucracy or
start by providing insights into the target undermining a successful, entrepreneurial
companys business environment and culture. Many serial buyers set up incuba-
identifying key success factors for the tors or accelerators for just this purpose.
team to focus on. (See Corporate Venturing Shifts Gears: How
the Largest Companies Apply a Broad Set of
PMI with a Lighter Touch. Reaping Tools to Speed Innovation, BCG Focus, April
synergies in M&A typically involves full 2016.)
and close integration of the target. But
experienced buyers of tech assets often Organizing for Tech M&A. There is no one
opt not to integrate the acquisition at all. right way to organize the internal M&A
Instead, they manage it at arms length in function for tech transactions. We have seen
Short-Term Value Creation (See the exhibit below for a graphic represen-
Although distinct samples were required in tation.2) We derive the cumulative abnormal
order to analyze different issues, all valuation return, or CAR, by aggregating the abnormal
analyses employed the same econometric returns day by day, starting three days before
methodology. For any given company i and the announcement date and ending three
day t, the abnormal (that is, unexpected) re- days after it. (See Equation 4.)
turns (ARi,t) were calculated as the deviation
of the observed returns E(Ri,t). AR are the dif- EQUATION 4
ference between actual stock returns and
+3
those predicted by the market model. (See
Equation 1.) CARi = (Ri,t E(Ri,t ))
t = 3
EQUATION 1
Long-Term Value Creation
ARi,t = Ri,t E(Ri,t ) We track the stock market performance of
the acquirers over a one-year period follow-
ing the acquisition announcement. Note that
Following the most commonly used ap- we cannot track the targets because, in most
proach, we employed a market model esti- cases, they are delisted from the public-equity
mation to calculate expected returns.1 (See markets.
Equation 2.)
200 21 3 +3
Days
First, we measure the total shareholder re- Note that we could not include deals
turn (TSR) generated by the acquirer from undertaken after December 31, 2015, because
the starting price (Pstart) over a 365-day peri- the time elapsed since the announcement
od. (See Equation 5.) To avoid short-term dis- was too short to calculate the one-year
tortions, we use the same periods and averag- relative returns.
es as for the market performance of the
acquirers.
EQUATION 5
Notes
Pstart = average [ Pt40 , Pt20 ] 1. See Eugene F. Fama, Lawrence Fisher, Michael C.
Jensen, and Richard Roll, The Adjustment of Stock
Prices to New Information, International Economic
P1yr = average [ Pt+360 , Pt+380 ] Review 10, February 1969; and Stephen J. Brown and
Jerold B. Warner, Using Daily Stock Returns: The Case
of Event Studies, Journal of Financial Economics 14,
1985.
Second, we subtract from the TSR the return 2. We apply Thomson Reuters sector indexes as proxies
made by a benchmark index over the same for the market portfolio, thus controlling for industry
period in order to find the relative total idiosyncrasies.
3. The benchmark indexes we apply are the relevant
shareholder return (RTSR) generated by the worldwide Thomson Reuters sector indexes.
acquirer acqin other words, the return in
excess of the benchmark return.3 (See Equa-
tion 6.)
EQUATION 6
We used a proprietary data set of tech M&A that was returned was further filtered into
transactions as the basis for this years M&A one of the nine high-tech trends.
report. The sample covers the years 1997
through 2016 and was gathered from state-of- We excluded all deals that were not consi-
the art databases, including Thomson ONE stent with the high-tech SIC code classificati-
Banker, Thomson Reuters Worldscope, and on established by Charles O. Kile and Mary E.
S&P Capital IQ, which are regularly used by Phillips in 2009.1 This generated a database
practitioners and researchers in the M&A of 46,777 digital deals. We added 98,280 deals
field. on the basis of Thomson ONE Bankers High
Tech industry classification.
Identifying tech deals demands careful analy-
sis and expert knowledge. BCG developed its In total, this years deal sample included
own classification taxonomy for tech transac- 145,057 tech M&A transactions. However, we
tions based on the nine digital and high-tech excluded such transactions as self-tenders,
trends cited in Exhibit 9. Our goal was to recapitalizations, and repurchases because
develop a working definition of technology they were not pertinent to our analysis, and
targets that goes beyond the broad categories we focused only on the period 19972016. As
of the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) a result, our active sample consisted of 43,101
system to include companies that have some completed and unconditional deals. Depend-
form of technology as an essential attribute ing on the analysis, the sample size varies
or part of their business model. due to additional data requirements.
Corporate Transactions
Sale of restaurants
in the Nordics
Subsea cables
Strategic advisor to Strategic advisor to Strategic advisor to Strategic advisor to Strategic advisor to
the buyer the buyer the buyer the seller the seller
$5.2 billion $160 million $0.9 billion $1.9 billion Value not disclosed
Strategic advisor to Strategic advisor to Strategic advisor to Strategic advisor to Strategic advisor to
the buyer the buyer the buyer the seller the seller
$173 million $6.8 billion $80 million $310 million Value not disclose
Strategic advisor to Strategic advisor to Strategic advisor Strategic advisor to Strategic advisor to
the buyer the buyer to the buyer the buyer the buyer
1.3 billion Value not disclosed $218 million $513 million $547 million
Pharma CMO
business of
Strategic advisor to Strategic advisor to Strategic advisor to Strategic advisor to Strategic advisor to
the buyer the buyer the buyer the buyer the buyer
$2.3 billion $131 million 270 million $599 million Value not disclosed
Strategic advisor Strategic advisor to Strategic advisor Strategic advisor to Strategic advisor
to the buyer the buyer to the buyer the buyer to the buyer
Value not disclosed $8.1 billion $142 million $19.1 billion Value not disclosed
2015 2015
Strategic advisor to Strategic advisor to Strategic advisor to Strategic advisor to Strategic advisor to
the buyer the buyer the buyer the seller the buyer
Value not disclosed Value not disclosed $579 million 462 million Value not disclosed
Strategic advisor to Strategic advisor to Strategic advisor to Strategic advisor to Strategic advisor to
the buyer the seller the seller the buyer the buyer
Value not disclosed Value not disclosed Value not disclosed Value not disclosed 18 million
Strategic advisor to Strategic advisor to Strategic advisor to Strategic advisor to Strategic advisor
the seller the buyer the buyer the buyer to the seller
$664 million Value not disclosed Value not disclosed 388 million Value not disclosed
Strategic advisor Strategic advisor Strategic advisor Strategic advisor Strategic advisor to
to the buyer to the buyer to the buyer to the seller the buyer
$344 million $360 million $124 million $3.7 billion Value not disclosed
Strategic advisor to Strategic advisor to Strategic advisor to Strategic advisor to Strategic advisor
the seller the seller the seller the seller to the buyer
Value not disclosed Value not disclosed 24 million 714 million Value not disclosed
Strategic advisor to Strategic advisor Strategic advisor Strategic advisor Strategic advisor
the buyer to the buyer to the buyer to the buyer to the buyer
$258 million Value not disclosed $98 million Value not disclosed $800 million
Shareholders
Strategic advisor Strategic advisor Strategic advisor to Strategic advisor to Strategic advisor to
to the buyer to the buyer the seller the buyer the seller
Value not disclosed Value not disclosed Value not disclosed Value not disclosed $1.9 billion
Strategic advisor to Strategic advisor to Strategic advisor to Strategic advisor to Strategic advisor to
the buyer the buyer the buyer the buyer the seller
Value not disclosed Value not disclosed $543 million $28 million $154 million
The Boston Consulting Group Cracking the Code in Private The 2016 M&A Report: Masters of
publishes many reports and articles Equity Software Deals the Corporate Portfolio
on corporate development and A Focus by The Boston Consulting A report by The Boston Consulting
finance, M&A, and PMI that maybe Group, May 2017 Group, August 2016
of interest to senior executives. The
following are some recent Six Essentials for Achieving In a Tough Market, Investors
examples. Postmerger Synergies Seek New Ways to Create Value
A Focus by The Boston Consulting An article by The Boston Consulting
Group, March 2017 Group, May 2016
Decker Walker
Partner and Managing Director
BCG Chicago
+1 312 993 3300
walker.decker@bcg.com
To find the latest BCG content and register to receive e-alerts on this topic or others, please visitbcg.com.
9/17
bcg.com