IBJNews

Megadeals drive torrid pace for M&A activity

Bloomberg News
April 29, 2014
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The value of corporate takeovers announced in 2014 hit the $1 trillion mark Monday, reaching that level at the fastest pace in seven years.

That threshold was crossed 54 days earlier than in 2013, after more than $300 billion in purchases were announced by companies from Eli Lilly and Co. to Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc. to Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. in April, data compiled by Bloomberg show. The total excludes another $175 billion in proposals by Pfizer Inc., Mylan Inc. and others that have been rebuffed or are still awaiting final agreements.

CEOs, with more than $4 trillion in cash on company balance sheets globally, have gone from being wary of making big deals to facing pressure to strike deals or be beat to opportunities by their major rivals, said Michael Shaoul at Marketfield Asset Management LLC.

“Literally this past week we maybe just entered an M&A boom,” said Shaoul, who oversees more than $20 billion as CEO of Marketfield in New York. “Management teams are starting to build this mentality that they’re going to be a buyer or be bought. It puts pressure on everybody to think about who they could be buying.”

If dealmaking continued at April’s rate for the rest of the year, 2014 would see almost $4 trillion of deals announced, making it the second most active year for M&A ever, behind 2007, data compiled by Bloomberg show.

Deals continue

There are more to come this month. Merck & Co. is close to picking the winner of an auction of its consumer-products business, while Alstom SA—the French maker of power plants and trains that has received offers for its energy business from both General Electric Co. and Siemens AG—says it will make an announcement this week.

That the $1 trillion figure was hit in April this year, compared with June last year, is owed largely to the drug industry, which has accounted for nearly one-third of April’s deal announcements. Those companies could pressure rivals to strike their own takeovers or risk missing out as the industry recalibrates, said Mark Lubkeman, a senior partner at the Boston Consulting Group.

A three-way deal that will have Novartis AG, GlaxoSmithKline Plc and Indianapolis-based Lilly swapping assets, for example, will give other drugmakers the courage to think about creative ways to do M&A, he said.

‘Get busy’

“There’s a real imperative for management teams to think expansively about value-creation and to get busy.”

Even the deals that aren’t getting off the starting block highlight a change in thinking by chief executives whose confidence in economic growth has turned a corner. Pfizer’s proposal to acquire AstraZeneca for about $98.7 billion, which was rejected Monday by the British drugmaker, would rank as the industry’s biggest-ever takeover.

Barrick Gold Corp. and Newmont Mining Corp. called off merger talks that might’ve led to the largest mining-industry transaction since Glencore and Xstrata Ltd. merged in 2012, data compiled by Bloomberg show.

“Mega deals are opportunistic. Opportunistic deals are born out of confidence,” said Richard Jeanneret, Americas vice chair of transaction advisory services at Ernst & Young LLP. “CEOs are starting to pull the trigger on bigger bets now that they are feeling more confident about the stability in Washington and the stronger U.S. economy.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. PJ - Mall operators like Simon, and most developers/ land owners, establish individual legal entities for each property to avoid having a problem location sink the ship, or simply structure the note to exclude anything but the property acting as collateral. Usually both. The big banks that lend are big boys that know the risks and aren't mad at Simon for forking over the deed and walking away.

  2. Do any of the East side residence think that Macy, JC Penny's and the other national tenants would have letft the mall if they were making money?? I have read several post about how Simon neglected the property but it sounds like the Eastsiders stopped shopping at the mall even when it was full with all of the national retailers that you want to come back to the mall. I used to work at the Dick's at Washington Square and I know for a fact it's the worst performing Dick's in the Indianapolis market. You better start shopping there before it closes also.

  3. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  4. If you only knew....

  5. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

ADVERTISEMENT