Mergers and Acquisitions Boom! Is This a Good Sign for the Economy?

  • Share
  • Read Later
Getty Images

Wall Street dealmakers are off to a busy start to 2013, as some of corporate America’s most recognizable names have become involved in multi-billion-dollar mergers and acquisitions. Just yesterday, American Airlines and US Airways announced they would be merging in an $11 billion deal, while private equity firm 3G and Warren Buffett‘s Berkshire Hathaway announced a $28 billion joint acquisition of  food conglomerate H.G. Heinz. And these two deals follow hard upon $24.4 billion leveraged buyout of Dell by private equity firm Silver Lake Partners and the firm’s founder, Michael Dell.

Indeed, according to data from Deallogic, U.S. companies have spent $219 billion on mergers and acquisitions so far in 2013, a sharp increase from 2012, when firms spent just $85 billion during the same period. And U.S. firms are on pace to have the biggest year in M&A activity since 2000.

While all this activity will be surely benefit shareholders of acquired firms — as well as lots of Wall Street investment bankers — what does it say about the health of the economy? Since the late 19th century, mergers and acquisitions have tended to come in waves, spurred by the availability of credit, changes in government policy, or bursts of private-sector innovation. Deregulation, for instance, motivated a wave of mergers in the airline industry in the 1970s and the consolidation of the banking industry in the 1990s. But perhaps the most important factor in motivating these bursts of M&A is economic conditions, particularly the strength of the stock market. Mergers in particular are often financed with stock, and high stock values give companies the resources with which to make purchases.

(MOREWhy Can’t This Economy Really Get Going?)

But the stock market has been doing pretty well for a few years now, with the S&P 500 up more than 138% since its bear-market lows of 2009. So why are we only now seeing the first glimmer of an M&A boom?

Surely one reason is that today’s market is heavily fortified by quantitative easing. The Federal Reserve has taken unprecedented action to keep interest rates low in both the short and long term, and those efforts have kept stock prices high despite the weak economy. In other words, given central bank stimulus, a rising stock market isn’t quite the indicator it used to be. We can see this in GDP growth figures as well.

In addition to predicting M&A activity, the stock market is also considered a leading indicator of economic growth, meaning increases in GDP generally follow bull markets.  This is because stock prices reflect investors expectations for a company’s future income. A high stock price today represents investors’ belief in big profits tomorrow. Taken in the aggregate, a surging stock market index is a predictor of increases in GDP down the line.

But, just as we’ve seen the link between rising stock prices and M&A severed, the huge gains we’ve seen in stock prices since 2009 have also not been followed by robust economic growth. Again, this is probably because Fed action has done more to promote stock price increases than economic fundamentals. But this is exactly why we should be encouraged by this fast start to M&A activity in 2013, especially if it keeps up in the coming months. It may mean that recent stock market gains are once again reflecting confidence about future profits, and not just central bank stimulus.

What makes this plausible is the fact management won’t seek out — and boards won’t sanction — expensive acquisitions if they’re not confident about future growth. And given the fact that corporate profits have been strong while unemployment remains high and wage growth stagnant means the corporate sector will eventually have to start spending if economy is to recover fully.

So while high profile M&A deals are often times more about CEO empire building than creating real shareholder value, this nascent boom may be a positive sign for the economy nonetheless. It may finally be that rising stock prices are actually telling us something about the real economy around us — and perhaps more important, that corporate leaders are finally feeling frisky once again.

(MORE: The Break-Up-the-Banks Drumbeat Gets Louder. But Is It Just a Bunch of Hot Air?)

23 comments
mrbomb13
mrbomb13

For those without a background in Economics, the mergers occurred at the microeconomic level, or at the level of the dominant individual firms in separate industries.  For those particular firms, they will garner increased market share, and thereby maximize earning/earnings potential.  They will furthermore ensure their position atop their respective industries for at the short-term.

However, those microeconomic events are by no means indicators of macroeconomic progress.  The act of firms merging with/acquiring other firms says nothing about the economy in general (which is the realm of macroeconomics).  At most, the M&A events are indicators of dominant firms identifying and seizing upon an opportunity to bolster their competitive advantage in the marketplace.  

At the same time, the firms being acquired may have been weakened over time by the fragile economic conditions.  If that is true, than the M&As could indicate that the economy is not as strong as portrayed in the article.  In other words, instead of expressing the author's optimistic "hope," one would instead want to exercise realistic caution.

zdoker
zdoker

“@amymwilkinson: Mergers and Acquisitions Boom! Is This a Good Sign for the #Economy? http://t.co/aXFtyWCB via @TIMEBusiness” @Forbes KEY!

CyrusRupa
CyrusRupa

@TIME @TIMEBusiness. This is face saving,survival efforts to sustain existance from extinsion.

sarah3o6
sarah3o6

“@TIME: Mergers and acquisitions boom! Is this a good sign for the economy? | http://t.co/T0isiFgT (via @TIMEBusiness)” @Anella_B

famulla5
famulla5

An even greater usurpation of the democratic process is the two party primary system. Nearly a third of all voters self describe themselves as independents, but the two party primary is designed to disenfranchise them. The system in place selects for candidates from extremes with the result that gridlock in Congress should be no surprise. What we need is a single open primary, where all the candidates run against each other and all voters are eligible to participate (this is supposed to be a democracy isn't it?); with the top two facing off in the general election in the fall. With all the votes in play in the primary this would force candidates to moderate their positions and give voters in the middle a chance at fair representation. And by the way, the single open primary is something else that has already been adopted by California. I thank you Firozali A.Mulla DBA

famulla5
famulla5

The anomalous results in Arizona, where Democrats received only 43% of the House popular vote (vs. 52% for Republicans), yet won 5 out of 9 seats, arguably arose from a different cause. After the chair of the independent redistricting commission was fired by Gov. Jan Brewer, but reinstated by the Arizona Supreme Court, no Republican candidate ran in District 7, the state's most heavily Democratic one. This district covers southwestern Arizona, Yuma, and the largest part of the border with Mexico, is majority Hispanic, and contains seven sovereign Native American nations. Democratic incumbent Ed Pastor won with 82% of the vote, vs. 18% for his Libertarian opponent. Of the remaining districts, Republicans won 4 with large margins and Democrats won 4 with relatively small margins. Although some might claim, with Gov. Brewer, that the redistricting commission engaged in gerrymandering, a more plausible explanation is that the Arizona Republican Party acknowledged the toxicity of its brand in that part of the state, and directed its campaign resources elsewhere.

Actually, the U.S. isn't the first democracy, "The history of democracy traces back from classical Athens in the 6th century B.C. to the present day. According to one definition, democracy is a political system in which all the members of the society have an equal share of formal political power. In modern representative democracy, this formal equality is embodied primarily in the right to vote."* Wikipedia. Let's hope we don't lose are democracy by gerrymandering, voter suppression and confused or apathetic citizens.

1.) Republican gerrymandering is still not near as bad as the Dem's 65 Immigration Act 'elect a new people' strategy of importing mass 3rd world immigrants bound to be dependent on government and vote Dem. Gerrymandering can be reversed every 10 years.
2.) I tend to agree with political philosophers going all the way back to the Greeks who highly doubted the merits of total democracy: no one regards the opinions of completely uninformed everyday folk in such fields as carpentry or auto mechanics to be of equal value as people who have spent years studying these fields. Why should the vastly more complicated field of government be an 'everybody's opinion is equal' field? Literacy tests used to serve the function of forcing people to show that they have the ability to get informed about government. They probably would still be the best method but since they were not equally administered in the past, they are no longer politically viable. Voter ID and knowledge about the importance of redistricting serve as a far less pure proxy for voter knowledge about the working of gov't. They are probably better than nothing.
I thank you Firozali A.Mulla DBA



famulla5
famulla5

From USA papers .The GOP has plans for a comeback. But it may cost you a lot. The idea is to capitalize on recent Republican state takeovers to conduct an austerity experiment known as the new “red-state model” and prove that faulty policies can be turned into gold. There will be smoke. There will be mirrors. And there will be a lot of ordinary people suffering needlessly in the wake of this ideological train wreck. We already have a red-state model, and it’s called Mississippi. Or Texas. Or any number of states characterized by low public investment, worker abuse, environmental degradation, educational backwardness, high rates of unwanted pregnancy, poor health, and so on. Now the GOP is determined to bring that horrible model to the rest of America. In Kansas,the Governor Sam Brownback is aiming to up his profile “by turning Kansas into what he calls Exhibit A for how sharp cuts in taxes and government spending can generate jobs, wean residents off public aid and spur economic growth.” In remarks quoted in the same article, Brownback announced, "My focus is to create a red-state model that allows the Republican ticket to say, 'See, we've got a different way, and it works.’ " Brownback’s economic inspiration is Reagan-era supply-side economist Arthur Laffer and the folks at Americans for Prosperity, the conservative outfit backed by the deep coffers of the Koch brothers. This new austerity talk focused on “fiscal innovations” is emboldening Republicans in other states that have beengerrymandered into submissionto the GOP, including Indiana, Louisiana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, and alas, my home state of North Carolina. Republications have been eyeing the Tar Heel state with interest due to its recent swing status in presidential elections. The state was also the target of a gerrymandering strategy that worked out wonderfully for the Republicans, but not so well for democracy. Sam Wang, the founder of the Princeton Election Consortium wrote recently in theNew York Timesabout how Republican redistricting thwarted Democratic voters: "Although gerrymandering is usually thought of as a bipartisan offense, the rather asymmetrical results may surprise you....I have developed approaches to detect such shenanigans by looking only at election returns. To see how the sleuthing works, start with the naïve standard that the party that wins more than half the votes should get at least half the seats. In November, five states failed to clear even this low bar: Arizona, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. ... In North Carolina, where the two-party House vote was 51 percent Democratic, 49 percent Republican, the average simulated delegation was seven Democrats and six Republicans. The actual outcome? Four Democrats, nine Republicans — a split that occurred in less than 1 percent of simulations. If districts were drawn fairly, this lopsided discrepancy would hardly ever occur." I thank you Firozali A.Mulla DBA

famulla5
famulla5

Ben S. Bernanke, chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve, on Friday strongly indicated that theGroup of 20industrialized nations did not intend to censure Japan for weakening its currency over the past several months, something that has aided Japanese exporting companies and angered its competitors. Mr Bernanke, who has advocated loose monetary policy in the United States to stimulate the economy, suggested that distinctions should be drawn among the reasons a country was pumping money into its system, which could in turn weaken its currency. “The United States is using domestic policies to advance domestic agendas,” Mr. Bernanke said in brief introductory remarks at a conference in Moscow of the G-20, a club of the world’s wealthiest countries. “We believe that by strengthening the U.S. economy, we are helping to strengthen the global economy as well. We welcome similar approaches by other countries.” The comments come after a statement by theGroup of 7industrialized countries

issued this past week caused turmoil in currency markets by suggesting that they would take a collective stand against any country that was intentionally weakening its currency. At issue is a stimulus program under way in Japan to revive the country’s economy, which was begun last autumn by Prime Minister Shinzu Abe, who advocates supporting Japanese manufacturers through loose monetary policy. As a result, the yen has lost about 20 percent of its value against the dollar, meaning products produced in Japan, like some Sony electronics or models of Toyota cars, are relatively less expensive. I thank you Firozali A.Mulla DBA

famulla5
famulla5

We may have to wait to 2015. When USA has the law reforms on the guns, immigration, how many to keep in Afghanistan, hyped Fiscal Cliff and the complete world seems to have the battered economy I guess one can expect this The S&P 500 dipped in a late decline on Friday as Wal-Mart dropped following a report of a weak start to February sales, though the index just barely extended its streak of weekly gains to seven. Equities were little changed for much of the session, with investors finding few reasons to make big bets following an extended rally on Wall Street, but stocks turned lower in afternoon action. Wal-Mart Stores Inc (WMT.N) dropped 2.1 percent to $69.30 after Bloomberg News reported a weak start to February sales, citing internal company e-mails. The stock was the biggest decliner on the Dow, while the S&P retail index. SPXRT fell 0.5 percent. "When a retailer of this size comes out with this kind of lousy news, the whole market can fall off, especially on a Friday afternoon," said Mike Shea, trader at Direct Access Partners in New York. "However, I'm not worried that this is indicative of any larger macro issue with retail." I thank you Firozali A.Mulla DBA

JasaniBhavin69
JasaniBhavin69

@amymwilkinson does any one has a choice .. Survival of the fittest. Healthy Synergy does help the economy in the long run

psnively
psnively

@amymwilkinson To the extent it implies liquidation of malinvestment. Tough on those displaced, but probably necessary. /cc @TIMEBusiness

allung89
allung89

@TIME @timebusiness it reduces competition, raising prices in order to maximize profits.

Vedchetan
Vedchetan

@TIME The M&A is still a buff at High Court Bombay. The economy boom gets entangled with Court Procedures!!!

lordofthefly
lordofthefly

A good economic sign for whom? All the people out of work for months who proabblay can get hired only as retail clerks or, if young enough, waiters? Sixty percent of the jobs created during the past four years have been low wage. What will this "economic boom" do for working people - not just those already earning north of $600,000 - and who have health benefits to accompany their big salaries?

lifesmandarin
lifesmandarin

@TIME @TIMEBusiness You always hav smth to say and comment.