Why is this surprising – when targets’ values in the upturn will inevitably reflect the underlying growth, to which an acquiror has to add for the deal to generate value? Still, even if obvious, the point is not wrong – or am I missing something?    

More important is that an acquisition can safely offer a solid, deliverable route to enhance sustained long-term growth in free cash-flow – which rarely gets captured in these kinds of short- to medium-term assessments of M&A performance in any case. That’s a task for strategic management, not wheeler-dealing.

The first is easily dealt with – stronger cash flow ‘growth’ than rivals can of course imply less decline when everyone is going backwards .. would you rather cash-flows fell by 50% or only 20%? We just need to add the check that this is sustainable – as I have argued with the Starbucks case, slashing costs to sustain immediate cash-flows [and support ROIC] is hardly welcome if it damages future cash flow.

I find the second response intriguing – that strategic management is all about survival, and anything extra management may achieve is just a welcome bonus. First, this does not seem to have been the primary concern of CEOs for most firms during reasonable economic conditions [at least after the high infant mortality of start-up!]. Maybe it should have been.

But there’s a bigger question as to whether survival should be the aim in any case. It is easy to see situations in which it would be in everyone’s interests for a firm not to survive, but to be acquired – both in positive and negative circumstances.

• In my time practising strategy, we constantly sought out promising smaller businesses to acquire and develop. This was good for their owners, who got good cash returns for their investment – good for customers, who got faster and wider access to the good products and services of those businesses – good for employees, who got more job and career opportunities – good for suppliers, who got a stronger, faster-growing  customer to supply – good for their management, who often had access to bigger jobs or else also left with a nice cash handout. Apart from competitors, I can’t think of any group who suffered. Indeed, many smaller businesses start up with the deliberate intent of being acquired in this way. For a big-scale example of a serial-acquiror who has exploited this phenomenon, it’s worth checking out Cisco – here’s an interview with their head of business development and just one case study on the story .. you will find a ton more case studies at European Case Clearing House.
• It’s not even clear that death necessarily does harm when it’s the final outcome of business failure. If death = acquisition by another company, investors can get value that would otherwise have disappeared, customers can get continued provision of products and services that may otherwise have discontinued, suppliers get a continuing sales opportunity, and employees get the chance of a continued job rather than redundancy.

Unfortunately, even when others would benefit hugely from a business being absorbed by another, one small group likely to suffer unfortunately dominates whether it happens or not – management themselves. So I find myself wondering how many firms are currently strugging to survive when it would be best if management spent their time seeking a buyer instead.

The only form of survival I can see that might be a reasonable aim for strategic management is the avoidance of bankruptcy – but that’s the extreme case, and responsible management should be able to find better solutions in almost all cases, well before that becomes unavoidable.

The article by Shumeet Banerji CEO of Booz & Co and Neil McArthur MD of Booz Europe helpfully groups firms into 4 categories – strong, stable, struggling and failing. You would expect stable companies to be strengthening their position by seeking complementary acquisitions, and the weaker groups to be conserving cash, for example, but neither group is by and large pursuing these or other appropriate actions.

The survey also confirms another finding I expected – that most firms expect to emerge stronger from the downturn [especially in developing economies]. ‘Most’ may be disappointed, but many firms should do so and be working towards making it happen.

Boom times create all kinds of difficult industry conditions – competitors charging into ‘strategic’ initiatives that make no sense, new entrants taking on markets they have no hope of succeeding in, everyone expanding too fast and creating over-capacity. It’s when things get tough that all these challenges pile up and get too much for weaker firms – and that’s when strong firms can sort out the mess. So, for example, we should be seeing more acquisitions and faster rationalisation than seems to be the case. No surprise either that developing economy firms are more optimistic – in addition to their lower basic cost base, their recent arrival means many have been able to grow a ‘clean’ business model, while established firms in old economies were adding on bits and pieces and complicating their businesses. I know which position I would rather be starting from today!

I asked for two ratings – Useful [no, a little, very] – and Dangerous [no, a little, very] – and allowed people to respond with both if they felt a suggestion was both potentially useful, but also came with dangers. Following are the most common views – with no initial prompting from me! Note that other views were justified in specific cases.

De-layer management

Useless and dangerous in most cases. Most felt it should only to be done in extreme crisis – like danger of bankruptcy.

Consolidate support functions

Possibly useful and not too dangerous, provided it did not distract management from other important tasks.

Redefine your business model

Useless in most cases and dangerous diversion from managing the business.

Save the core at the expense of the periphery

Very useful, and not too dangerous. With prompting, most felt their firms had over-expanded away from their core in the first place.

Buy up cheap assets – or whole businesses

Very useful and not dangerous if current business was not struggling too much.

Pick up good people who become available

Very useful and not dangerous. Most have found it tough to get the people they needed before the crisis, so see this as a great opportunity.

Keep going with all strategic initiatives

Could be useful but also dangerous … most thought they had way too many ‘strategic’ initiatives that should never have been started. Conflicted with the better advice above to focus on the core.

With the downturn accelerating, there will be many more examples of weak firms forced to surrender potentially valuable resources – especially capacity and people – to those whose sound strategic management avoided getting into trouble. In the extreme, this will involve absorbing those weaklings in total. Smart firms in cyclical industries, from petrochemicals to paper to insurance to construction, have long known how to exploit the short-sightedness of others. See for example ‘Managing Capacity in Basic Materials‘ – though the principles are far more widely applicable than just in ‘basic materials’.

Alibaba.com started in 1998, offering  eBay-like trading services to smaller Chinese firms who wanted to grow business globally but found existing options too expensive. In spite of the apparent potential from serving either consumers or larger firms, Alibaba maintained this focus on SMEs, and limited itself at first to simply connecting buyers and sellers. Having initially not charged for the service the company started selling advertising space and research reports to users in 2000, but revenues were still just $1million. It started charging for its core service in 2001, but its well-known quality kept membership climbing, passing 1 million in 2002.
From this focused start, however, the company was able easily to extend its activities in several directions, first establishing a within-China service in the local language, but then making a major thrust to develop business-to-consumer (B2C) and consumer-to-consumer (C2C) services, taking eBay head-on. By 2007 the group was serving 24 million users and had effectively sealed victory over eBay, who exited the market.

Next – who is the smart money on during the down-turn? Those who did some or all the above should be in great shape now to cash in on their good sense – there will be fire-sale oppportunities out there to acquire assets or whole businesses at knock-down prices. I see, for example, Lufthansa taking a stake in Brussels Airlines.