Paper代写范例：Waves of Mergers and Acquisitions

Paper代写范例-并购浪潮。本文是一篇留学生Paper写作范文，主要内容是讲述并购一直有助于维护发展中国家和发达国家的企业健康和增长模式，只是消除了行业中的疾病，并购的概念在塑造业务方面发挥了真正至关重要的作用，近年来已成为国际业务的一部分。

并购一直是一个有趣的研究领域。正如我们所知，我们所有的日报都充斥着合并、收购、分拆、要约收购和其他形式的公司重组的案例。据指出，兼并和收购占所有外国直接投资的78%，其中97%是收购。下面就是这篇Paper范文的具体内容，供参考。

Introduction 引言

Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A) have always assisted in nursing corporate health and growth pattern of developing and developed countries just taking out sickness in industries, the concept of mergers and acquisitions have played a truly crucial and pivotal role in shaping the business and have been part of international business in recent times.

Mergers and acquisitions (M&A) have always been an interesting area to study. As we know all our daily newspapers are filled with cases of mergers, acquisitions, spin-offs, tender offers, & other forms of corporate restructuring. It have been stated that mergers and acquisitions account consist of 78% of all foreign direct investment, with 97% of that being acquisitions. Van Marrewijk (2006, pg 294)

The year 2007 had undoubtedly been landmark of the year for Indian corporate buisness with respect to recession taking toll of many Indian business. With passage of time ,the Tata announced the acquisition Corus , a US$ 12.2 billion deal . India industries has not looked back since. The continued growth in the Indian economy and investment and operating climate has resulted in improved health and growth appetite for Indian compines.

2007年无疑是印度企业发展的里程碑，因为经济衰退给许多印度企业带来了损失。随着时间的推移，塔塔宣布以122亿美元收购康力斯。自那以后，印度工业再也没有回头看。印度经济、投资和经营环境的持续增长改善了印度公司的健康状况和增长意愿。

What are Mergers and Acquisitions? 什么是并购？

Mergers and acquisitions are arguably the most popular and influential form of discretionary business investment (De Witt & Meyer, 1998).In simple terms merger is the combination of the assets and liabilities of two companies, mainly of similar size, into one business entity.

并购可以说是最受欢迎和最具影响力的自由支配商业投资形式（De Witt&Meyer，1998）。简单来说，合并是将两个主要规模相似的公司的资产和负债合并为一个商业实体。

The term ‘acquisition’ is used when the assets and liabilities of a smaller company is purchased by a larger one by paying shares, cash or other assets to the target company’s shareholders. When there is a merger between two similar sized firms, the shares are exchanged and one firm issues new stock to the other in an agreed ratio. The value of two firms before and after a merger is the same when you exclude the synergies resulting from it, considering that the valuation of the shares and the exchange ratio has been correctly formulated. Target firm’s shareholders are normally paid a premium, which means that the exchange rate is skewed.

“收购”一词是指较大公司通过向目标公司股东支付股份、现金或其他资产购买较小公司的资产和负债。当两个规模相似的公司合并时，股票进行交换，一家公司以约定的比例向另一家公司发行新股。考虑到股票估值和汇率已经正确制定，如果排除由此产生的协同效应，两家公司在合并前后的价值是相同的。目标公司的股东通常会得到溢价，这意味着汇率是扭曲的。

Overview of M&A Waves 并购浪潮概述

A merger wave is an intense period of merger activity in a particular sector or industry and last from a short period to a long time partly depending on the performance of the market and the participating companies. In his paper released on September 14, 2006 “Merger Waves in the 19th, 20th and 21st Centuries”, Martin Lipton of York University talk about merger waves – “Economists and historians refer to five waves of mergers in the U.S. starting in the 1890s. As I said, I believe a sixth wave started three years ago. The starting date and duration of each of these waves are not specific, although the ending dates for those that ended in wars or financial disasters, like the 1929 crash or the bursting of the Millennium Bubble, are more definite. Indeed, it could be argued that mergers are an integral part of market capitalism and we have had a continuous wave of merger activity that has ebbed and flowed since the evolution of the industrial economy in the latter part of the 19th Century, with interruptions when fundamental forces turned exogenous merger factors negative.” The merger activity needs to show a pattern in which the peak year had “a greater than 100 percent increase from the first year followed by a decline in acquisition activity of greater than 50 percent from the peak year” to qualify as a wave. In some industries the waves were as long as six years.

并购浪潮是特定部门或行业中激烈的合并活动，持续时间从短到长，部分取决于市场和参与公司的表现。在2006年9月14日发表的论文《19世纪、20世纪和21世纪的并购浪潮》中，约克大学的Martin Lipton谈论合并浪潮——“经济学家和历史学家提到了美国从19世纪90年代开始的五次合并浪潮。正如我所说，我相信第六次合并浪潮始于三年前。每一次合并浪潮的开始日期和持续时间都不具体，尽管那些以战争或金融灾难告终的合并浪潮的结束日期，如1929年的经济崩溃或Millennium Bubble，更确切。事实上，可以说，合并是市场资本主义不可分割的一部分，自19世纪后半叶工业经济发展以来，我们一直在经历一波又一波的合并活动，当基本力量将外生合并因素转为负面时，合并活动就会中断。”合并活动需要表现出一种模式，即高峰年“比第一年增长超过100%，然后收购活动比高峰年下降超过50%”，才有资格成为浪潮。在一些行业，波动长达六年之久。

Lets us see the five merger waves below: 让我们看看下面的五个并购浪潮：

First Period – 1893 to 1904 “Merger for Monoploy”- This was the time of the major horizontal mergers creating the principal steel, telephone, oil, mining, railroad and other giants of the basic manufacturing and transportation industries in the U.S. The Panics of 1904 and 1907, a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1904 making the recently enacted antitrust laws applicable to horizontal mergers, and then the First World War are pointed to as the causes of the end of the first wave, which some view as continuing beyond 1904.”

第一阶段——1893年至1904年“Monopoloy合并”——这是主要的横向合并时期，产生了美国基础制造业和运输业的主要钢铁、电话、石油、采矿、铁路和其他巨头。1904年和1907年的恐慌，1904年美国最高法院的一项裁决使最近颁布的反垄断法适用于横向合并，然后第一次世界大战被认为是第一波浪潮结束的原因，一些人认为第一波浪潮将持续到1904年之后。”

Second Period – 1919 to 1929 “Merger for Oligopoly”- This period saw further consolidation in the industries that were the subject of the first wave and a very significant increase in vertical integration. The major automobile manufacturers emerged in this period. Ford, for example, was integrated from the finished car back through steel mills, railroads and ore boats to the iron and coal mines. The 1929 Crash and the Great Depression ended this wave.”

第二个时期——1919年至1929年“寡头垄断合并”——这一时期，作为第一波浪潮主题的行业进一步整合，垂直整合显著增加。这一时期出现了主要的汽车制造商。例如，福特从成品车经过钢铁厂、铁路和矿石船，再到铁矿和煤矿，都被整合在一起。1929年的经济崩溃和大萧条结束了这一浪潮。”

Third Period- 1955 to 1969-73 “Conglomerate merger”- This was the period in which the conglomerate concept took hold of American management. Major conglomerates like IT&T (Harold Geneen), LTV (Jimmy Ling), Teledyne (Henry Singleton) and Litton (Tex Thornton) were created. Messrs. Geneen, Ling, Singleton and Thornton were viewed as visionaries and heroes of the new concept of business organization. Many major established companies accepted the concept and diversified into new industries and areas. The conglomerate stocks crashed in 1969-70 and the diversified companies never achieved the benefits thought to be derived from diversification.”

第三阶段-1955年至1969-73年“企业集团合并”-这是企业集团概念占据美国管理地位的时期。成立了IT&T、LTV、Teledyne和Litton等大型企业集团。Geneen先生、Ling先生、Singleton先生和Thornton先生被视为商业组织新概念的梦想家和英雄。许多大型老牌公司接受了这一概念，并向新的行业和领域多元化发展。1969-70年，企业集团的股票暴跌，多元化公司从未获得被认为可以从多元化中获得的好处。”

Fourth Period – 1974-80 to 1989 “The Megamerger”- Generally referred to as the merger wave, or takeover wave, of the 1980s and frequently said to be the period from 1984 to 1989. However, its antecedents reach back to 1974 when the first major-company hostile bid was made by Morgan Stanley on behalf of Inco (the same Inco that has been involved in the four-way takeover struggle that has now ended with its takeover by Vale) seeking to take over ESB. This successful hostile bid opened the door for the major investment banks to make hostile takeover bids on behalf of raiders. In addition to hostile bids, this period was noted for junk bond financing and steadily increasing volume and size of LBOs. In Europe in the latter half of the 1980s companies sought to prepare for the Common Market through cross-border horizontal mergers. In the U.S. this was the period that saw corporate raiders like Boone Pickens run rampant with two-tier, front-end-loaded, boot-strap, bust-up, junk-bond, hostile tender offers until the playing field was leveled by the poison pill in the mid-1980s. However, even after the poison pill, merger activity increased through the latter part of the 1980s, pausing for only a few months after the October 1987 stock market crash. It ended in 1989-90 with the $25 billion RJR Nabisco LBO and the collapse of the junk bond market, along with the collapse of the savings and loan banks and the serious loan portfolio and capital problems of the commercial banks.”

第四阶段——1974-80年至1989年“大合并”——通常被称为20世纪80年代的合并浪潮或收购浪潮，通常被认为是1984年至1989年间。然而，它的前身可以追溯到1974年，当时摩根士丹利代表国际贸易公司（也就是参与了四方收购斗争的国际贸易公司，现已被淡水河谷收购）提出了第一次大公司敌意收购要约，试图收购ESB。这次成功的恶意收购为主要投资银行代表收购者进行恶意收购打开了大门。除了恶意投标外，这一时期还出现了垃圾债券融资和杠杆收购数量和规模稳步增加的现象。在20世纪80年代后半期的欧洲，公司试图通过跨境横向合并为共同市场做准备。在美国，这一时期，像Boone Pickens这样的企业掠夺者以双层结构、前端加载、自举、破产、垃圾债券、恶意投标报价猖獗，直到20世纪80年代中期，毒丸使竞争环境变得平坦。然而，即使在服用了毒丸之后，合并活动在20世纪80年代后半段仍在增加，在1987年10月股市崩盘后仅暂停了几个月。它于1989-90年结束，当时价值250亿美元的RJR Nabisco LBO和垃圾债券市场的崩溃，以及储蓄和贷款银行的崩溃，商业银行的严重贷款组合和资本问题。”

Fifth Period – 1993 to 2000 “Strategic Restructuring” – “This was the era of the mega-deal. It ended with the bursting of the Millennium Bubble and the great scandals, like Enron, which gave rise to the revolution in corporate governance that is continuing today. During the fifth wave companies of unprecedented size and global sweep were created on the assumption that size matters, a belief bolstered by market leaders’ premium stock-market valuations. High stock prices simultaneously emboldened companies and pressured them to do deals to maintain heady trading multiples. A global view of competition, in which companies often find that they must be big to compete, and a relatively restrained antitrust environment led to once-unthinkable combinations, such as the mergers of Citibank and Travelers, Chrysler and Daimler Benz, Exxon and Mobil, Boeing and McDonnell Douglas, AOL and Time Warner, and Vodafone and Mannesmann. From a modest $342 billion of deals in 1992, the worldwide volume of mergers marched steadily upward to $3.3 trillion worldwide in 2000. Nine of the ten largest deals in history all took place in the three-year period 1998-2000, with the tenth in 2006. Most of the 1990s deals were strategic negotiated deals and a major part were stock deals. The buzzwords for opening of merger discussions were, “would you be interested in discussing a merger of equals.” While few if any deals are true mergers of equals, the sobriquet goes a long way to soothe the egos of the management of the acquired company. The year 2000 started with the announcement of the record-setting $165 billion merger of Time Warner and AOL. However, after a five-year burst of telecommunications, media and technology (TMT) mergers, there was a dramatic slowdown in the TMT sector, as well as in all mergers. It started with the collapse of the Internet stocks at the end of the first quarter followed by the earnings and financing problems of the telecoms. While merger activity in 2000 exceeded 1999 by a small amount by the end of the year, the bubble had burst. The NASDAQ was down more than 50% from its high, many TMT stocks were down more than 50% (some as much as 98%), the junk bond market was almost nonexistent, banks tightened their lending standards and merger announcements were not well received in the equity markets. So ended the fifth wave, with merger activity in 2001 half of what it was in 2000. To my surprise (and I think to the surprise of most) the sixth wave started just three years later.” The sixth period of merger wave is what Lipton believes started in 2003.

第五阶段——1993年至2000年“战略重组”——“这是一个大交易的时代。它以千禧年泡沫的破灭和安然等大丑闻而告终，这引发了今天仍在继续的公司治理革命。在第五波浪潮中，规模空前、席卷全球的公司都是在规模重要的假设下创建的，这一信念得到了支持市场领导者对股票市场的溢价估值。高股价同时给公司壮胆，迫使它们进行交易，以保持令人兴奋的交易倍数。全球竞争观，即公司经常发现自己必须做大才能竞争，而相对克制的反垄断环境导致了一度难以想象的合并，例如花旗银行和旅行者、克莱斯勒和戴姆勒-奔驰、埃克森美孚、波音和麦道、美国在线和时代华纳的合并，以及沃达丰和曼内斯曼。全球并购额从1992年的3420亿美元小幅上升到2000年的3.3万亿美元。历史上十笔最大的交易中有九笔发生在1998-2000年的三年期间，第十笔发生在2006年。20世纪90年代的大多数交易都是战略性谈判交易，其中很大一部分是股票交易。开始合并讨论的流行语是，“你有兴趣讨论平等的合并吗？”虽然很少有交易是真正的平等合并，但这种说法在很大程度上安抚了被收购公司管理层的自尊心。2000年，时代华纳和美国在线宣布以创纪录的1650亿美元合并。然而，在经历了五年的电信、媒体和技术（TMT）合并之后，TMT行业以及所有合并都出现了急剧放缓。它始于第一季度末互联网股的暴跌，随后是电信的盈利和融资问题。虽然2000年的合并活动在年底前比1999年略有增加，但泡沫已经破裂。纳斯达克指数较高点下跌超过50%，许多TMT股票下跌超过50%（有些甚至高达98%），垃圾债券市场几乎不存在，银行收紧了贷款标准，合并公告在股票市场上反响不佳。第五波浪潮就此结束，2001年的合并活动是2000年的一半。令我惊讶的是（我认为也令大多数人惊讶的是）第六波浪潮在三年后才开始。”利普顿认为，合并浪潮的第六阶段始于2003年。

Sixth Period: “From a low of $1.2 trillion in 2002 the pace of merger activity has increased to what appears will be a total of $3.4 trillion by the end of 2006. Among the principal factors are globalization, encouragement by the governments of some countries (for example, France, Italy and Russia) to create strong national or global champions, the rise in commodity prices, the availability of low-interest financing, hedge fund and other shareholder activism and the tremendous growth of private equity funds with a concomitant increase in management-led buyouts.”

第六阶段：“合并活动的速度从2002年的1.2万亿美元低点上升到2006年底的3.4万亿美元。主要因素包括全球化、一些国家政府的鼓励（例如法国、意大利和俄罗斯）为了创造强大的国家或全球冠军，大宗商品价格的上涨、低息融资的可用性、对冲基金和其他股东行动主义，以及私募股权基金的巨大增长，同时管理层主导的收购也在增加。”

CROSS BORDER MERGERS & ACQUISITIONS – GLOBAL SENARIO 跨国并购&全球巨头

Globalisation is a key feature of the new competitive landscape within which the mergers and acquisitions frenzy is taking place. . Globalization has spurred an unprecedented surge in cross-border merger and acquisition activity. (Child J.et al, 2001).

全球化是新竞争格局的一个关键特征，在新竞争格局中，并购狂潮正在发生。全球化刺激了跨境并购活动的空前激增。

Cross border M&As have become a fundamental characteristic of the global business landscape. Cross-border M&As are one mode of entry for foreign direct investors to host economies. The ownership advantage,location advantage and internalization advantage, factors such as the search for market power, efficiency gains through synergies, size, diversification, and financial motivations affect the decision of firms to undertake cross-border M&As. Organizations which aspire to expand across geographies are funding their cross-border acquisitions through a mix of local and foreign financing. According to World Bank statistics, new capital raised through corporate securities offerings and loans from international bank syndicates totalled US $400 billion in 2006, a threefold increase from 2003. Multi-national companies based in developing countries made more than 700 cross-border M&A purchases in 2006, up from just 11 such deals in 1987. These developments have put some of these companies on par with large companies from developed countries. As many developing-country governments have eased their policies toward capital outflows their companies have expanded their operations abroad. 15000 multinational corporations have their presence in developing countries. Cross border M&A activity was one of the primary reasons for increasing FDI outflows from developing countries. The total cross-border M&A activity from the developing countries was valued at $80 billion in 2007, up from $75 billion in 2006. The activity was across sectors with service sector contributed about 60% of the total activity.

跨国并购已经成为全球商业格局的一个基本特征。跨国并购是外国直接投资者进入东道国经济体的一种方式。所有权优势、区位优势和内部化优势、寻求市场力量、通过协同效应获得的效率收益、规模、多元化和财务动机等因素影响企业进行跨境并购的决策。渴望跨地区扩张的组织正在通过本地和外国融资的混合方式为其跨境收购提供资金。根据世界银行的统计，2006年通过公司证券发行和国际银行集团贷款筹集的新资本总额为4000亿美元，比2003年增加了三倍。2006年，总部位于发展中国家的跨国公司进行了700多次跨境并购，而1987年只有11次。这些发展使其中一些公司与发达国家的大公司不相上下。随着许多发展中国家政府放松了对资本外流的政策，它们的公司扩大了海外业务。15000家跨国公司在发展中国家设有分支机构。跨国并购活动是发展中国家外国直接投资外流增加的主要原因之一。2007年，来自发展中国家的跨境并购活动总额为800亿美元，高于2006年的750亿美元。活动涉及多个行业，其中服务业约占总活动的60%。

M&A ACTIVITY IN INDIA 印度的并购活动

Indian M&A activity totaled US$19.8 billion in FY08 as compared to US$33.1 billion in FY07. The decline in M&A activity was in line with the global activity. The average size of deals in FY08 was US$23.4 million; far lower than that of US$70.5 million in FY 07. Cross-border M&A totaled US$8.2 billion in FY08 after declining of 56.3% from the previous year, where the total cross-border M&A was US$18.7 billion. The sector which witnessed highest decline (97.6%) in M&A activity was the telecommunication sector due to the base effect of acquisition of Hutchison by Vodafone in FY07. Followed by telecommunications sector was the healthcare sector; declining 72.3% in FY08 again due to the base effect of US$1 billion acquisition of Matrix Laboratories in FY07. Financials sector was the third sector to experience decline in the M&A activity.

印度2008财年的并购活动总额为198亿美元，而2007财年为331亿美元。并购活动的下降与全球活动一致。2008财年的平均交易规模为2340万美元；远低于07财年的7050万美元。2008财年，跨境并购总额为82亿美元，比前一年下降了56.3%，前一年跨境并购总额达187亿美元。由于2007财年沃达丰收购和记黄埔的基数效应，并购活动下降幅度最大（97.6%）的行业是电信行业。紧随其后的是电信部门，即医疗保健部门；由于2007财年以10亿美元收购Matrix Laboratories的基数效应，2008财年再次下降72.3%。金融板块是并购活动中第三个出现下滑的板块。

Trends & Patterns of Indian acquisitions abroad 印度海外收购的趋势和模式

M&A activity has seen phenomenal rise in India in the past few years and some patterns are discernible in this mass of financial transactions.India has passed several milestones and come a long way from overseas investments of about $0.7 billion in 2000-01 to $2.7 billion in 2005-06 and finally to $11 billion in 2006-07.

过去几年，印度的并购活动出现了惊人的增长，在大量的金融交易中可以看出一些模式。印度已经走过了几个里程碑，从2000-01年的约7亿美元海外投资到2005-06年的27亿美元，再到2006-07年的110亿美元，印度已经取得了长足的进步。

Save a slight lull in cross-border deals in 2000-2002,M&A has only been rising in India. The number of overseas acquisitions was 38 in 2003 and rose to 177 in 2006. The first six months of 2007 saw a whopping 123 transactions. The value of outflows has increased from $649 million in 2003 to $32.9 billion in 2007. The value of overseas acquisitions by Indian firms far exceeded the value of foreign firms’ acquisitions in India for the first time in 2006. The African nations have especially opened up their economies to FDI flows from India hoping that the funds transfer; knowledge transfer and skill development will give their nearly stagnant economies a much needed boost.

除了2000-2002年跨境交易略有停顿外，印度的并购只在上升。2003年，海外收购数量为38宗，2006年增至177宗。2007年前六个月，交易量高达123笔。流出的价值已从2003年的6.49亿美元增加到2007年的329亿美元。2006年，印度公司的海外收购价值首次远远超过外国公司在印度的收购价值。非洲国家特别向来自印度的外国直接投资开放了经济，希望资金能够转移；知识转移和技能发展将给几乎停滞的经济带来急需的提振。

The Indian services sector was the first entrant to the area of overseas M&A and later the primary & manufacturing sectors ventured into it. However, eventually the manufacturing sector surpassed the services sector both in terms of number of transactions and value of transactions with overseas acquisitions in the services sector rising 2-3 times as compared to 5-22 times increase in the manufacturing sector in the period 2001-2007

印度服务业是第一个进入海外并购领域的行业，后来初级和制造业也开始涉足。然而，最终制造业在交易数量和交易价值方面都超过了服务业，服务业的海外收购增长了2-3倍，而2001-2007年期间制造业增长了5-22倍

Literature review 文献综述

According to Jankowitz (1991) have given more emphasises on the importance of the literature review by stressing that ‘knowledge does not exist in a vacuum and your work only help in relation to others’. He describes the literature review as providing a theoretical framework and condition for the project.

Jankowitz强调了文献综述的重要性，强调“知识不存在于真空中，你的工作只对他人有帮助”。他将文献综述描述为为该项目提供了理论框架和条件。

An attempt has been made in the present paper to understand the motives and implications of the Merger-wave in the second half of the nineties. The analysis has been conducted in a comparative perspective by classifying the Acquiring firms into two categories in terms of ownership, namely, Indian owned and foreign owned. The paper is divided into seven sections

本文试图了解90年代后半期合并浪潮的动机和影响。该分析是从比较的角度进行的，根据所有权将收购公司分为两类，即印度所有和外国所有。这篇论文分为七个部分

iii) Policy-shift regarding M&As during the 1990s 20世纪90年代有关并购的政策转变

iv) Impact of M&As on the performance of Acquiring firms 并购对收购公司业绩的影响，

v) Source of financing and some plausible issues for corporate governance 融资来源和公司治理的一些合理问题

Section I: Theories on Motives and Implications of M&As 第一节：并购动机和影响理论

According to Cantwell and Santangelo 2002 the theories on M&As have been spreaded over the vast terrains of industrial organisation, financial, economic and international business studies. Thus researcher has been pointed out that the trends of M&As can be theoretically traced back to particular motives for M&As emphasized by industrial organization theories that is market power and defensive reactions, the financial economic literature that is managerial ego and international business research which is access to markets or technologies.

根据Cantwell和Santangelo 2002的说法，并购理论已经传播到工业组织、金融、经济和国际商业研究的各个领域。因此，研究人员指出，并购的趋势在理论上可以追溯到产业组织理论所强调的特定并购动机，即市场力量和防御反应，作为管理自我的金融经济学文献和作为进入市场或技术的国际商业研究。

We have classify these theories into four categories, namely, i) Mergers as efficiency enhancing measures: Mergers can lead to increased efficiencies. Such efficiencies and cost savings can flow from economies of scale and scope possible in the larger post-Merger operations, greater control over key inputs, product rationalisation, combining marketing, advertisement and distribution, or from cutting down overlapping Research and Development (Ansoff and Weston 1962. International M&As may be regarded as a new cross-border strategy that aims at increasing corporate global competitiveness by pursuing related diversification and by integrating affiliates into a global network (Cantwell & Santangelo 2002). Schemalensee (1987) argued that the cost-reducing effect of a particular proposed Merger might probably outweigh its collusion-enhancing effects. Sanjaya Lall rightly questions whether the positive economic effects that cross-border Acquisitions can have outweigh the concerns they arouse (Lall, 2002). ii)Mergers as enhancing concentration and monopoly: The immediate effect of a Merger is to increase the degree of concentration as it reduces the number of firms. Another effect of Mergers on 8competition is on the generation of barriers to entry. Artificial barriers can be raised or strengthened, if the Merger results in a strengthening of product differentiation through legal rights in designs, patents and knowhow. Williamson (1968) argued that a small efficiency gain would generally be offset by a large increase in market power, which creates a situation that sets prices above the competitive levels. Further, the motives behind transnational or cross-border Acquisitions differ from those, which drive purely domestic Acquisitions. An Acquiring firm might decide to go in for international Merger in order to take advantage of cheap raw materials and labour, to capture profits from exchange rates, or to invest its surplus cash (Weston et al. 1996). The entry and subsequent activities of Multinational firms affect the structure of markets for goods and services in host countries in several different ways. Numerous studies for individual ‘developing’ countries as well as ‘developed’ economies indicate a positive association between TNC activities and the concentration of producers in host country industries (UNCTAD 1997: 137). Some qualifications and exceptions have also been pointed out about this trend. ‘Greenfield investment’ in new production facilities adds to the number of firms engaged in the production of a good or service and it might reduce or at least, leave unchanged the concentration of producers in an industry. In contrast, “FDI-entry through a Merger or Acquisition would increase the concentration of producers if a Merger or Take-over results in increased sales for the newly created foreign affiliates; or leave it unchanged, if its size is the same as that of the incumbent firm acquired”(UNCTAD 1997: 141).

我们将这些理论分为四类，即：i）合并是提高效率的措施：合并可以提高效率。这种效率和成本节约可以来自更大的合并后运营中可能的规模经济和范围经济、对关键投入的更大控制、产品合理化、营销、广告和分销的结合，或者减少重叠的研究和开发。国际并购可以被视为一种新的跨境战略，旨在通过追求相关的多元化和将附属公司整合到全球网络中来提高企业的全球竞争力。Schemalensee认为，特定拟议合并的成本降低效应可能超过其共谋增强效应。Sanjaya Lall正确地质疑跨境收购的积极经济影响是否会超过它们引起的担忧，作为增强集中度和垄断的合并：合并的直接效果是在减少公司数量的同时提高集中度。兼并对竞争的另一个影响是产生进入壁垒。如果合并通过设计、专利和专有技术方面的合法权利加强了产品差异化，那么可以提高或加强人为障碍。Williamson认为，效率的小幅增长通常会被市场力量的大幅增长所抵消，这会造成价格高于竞争水平的局面。此外，跨国或跨境收购背后的动机与纯粹推动国内收购的动机不同。收购公司可能会决定进行国际合并，以利用廉价的原材料和劳动力，从汇率中获取利润，或投资其剩余现金。跨国公司的进入和随后的活动以几种不同的方式影响东道国的商品和服务市场结构。针对个别“发展中国家”和“发达”经济体的大量研究表明，跨国公司活动与东道国工业的生产者集中度之间存在积极联系。关于这一趋势，也有人指出了一些限制条件和例外情况对新生产设施的绿地投资增加了从事商品或服务生产的公司数量，这可能会减少或至少保持一个行业中生产者的集中度不变。相比之下，“如果合并或接管导致新成立的外国子公司的销售额增加，则通过合并或收购进入的外国直接投资将增加生产商的集中度；如果其规模与被收购的现有公司相同，则保持不变”。

The actual impact of an Acquisition on competition depends upon the marketing strategies of TNCs, as well as on industry and country-specific circumstances (Dunning 1993). The risk that CB M&As may reduce competition tends to be greater in those industries in which shrinking demand and 9 excess capacity are important motivations for M&As and in countries in which competition policy does not exist or where its implementation is weak (Zhan & Ozawa 2001: 61). In sum, M&As as concentration enhancing and building oligopolistic market power is a rather familiar view in studies on Mergers internationally. iii) Mergers as driven by macro-economic changes: M&As areundertaken to compensate for instabilities such as wide fluctuations in demand and product mix, excess capacities related to slow sales growth and declining profit margins and technological shocks (Post 1994; Weston et al. 1996). Firms may pursue M&As for the sole reason of growing in size as size more than profitability or relative efficiency is considered to be the effective barrier against Takeovers (Singh 1975; 1992). It is also argued that the development of an active market for corporate control may encourage managers to ’empire build’, not only to increase their monopoly power but also to progressively shield themselves from Takeover by becoming larger (Singh 2003). What is referred to herein is the defensive tactics of firms in a ‘developing’ country like India. While there are firm-specific motives for undertaking CB M&As, there are also economic forces that have acted to encourage the CB M&As, such as the economic integration of the European Union (EU) and NAFTA represented by the creation of a common market (Caves1991;UNCTAD 1997). Macro-economic changes become the context or provide opportunities for M&As. Mergers may also be resorted to as defensive measures in response to major policy-shifts. iv) Mergers as driven by financial motives: Firms adopt M&As as a route to growth whenever alternative investment opportunities for financing corporate expansion in specific environments are less attractive. Availability of capital to finance Acquisitions and innovations in financial markets such as junk-bonds can also be among the reasons 10 for cross-border Mergers (Sudersanam 1995). The valuation differences of the share prices or economic disturbances lead to Acquisitions of firms that are low-valued from the viewpoint of outsiders (Gort 1969).

收购对竞争的实际影响取决于跨国公司的营销战略，以及行业和国家的具体情况。在那些需求萎缩和产能过剩是并购的重要动机的行业，以及那些不存在竞争政策或竞争政策实施不力的国家，CB并购可能降低竞争的风险往往更大。总之，并购作为提高集中度和建立寡头垄断市场力量的手段，是国际上对并购研究中一个相当熟悉的观点。iii）由宏观经济变化驱动的合并：进行并购是为了补偿不稳定因素，如需求和产品组合的大幅波动、与销售增长缓慢有关的产能过剩、利润率下降和技术冲击。企业进行并购的唯一原因可能是规模的增长，因为规模大于盈利能力或相对效率被认为是阻碍收购的有效障碍。也有人认为，积极的公司控制权市场的发展可能会鼓励管理者“建立帝国”，不仅是为了增加他们的垄断权，而且通过变得更大来逐步保护自己免受收购。本文所指的是印度这样的“发展中国家”企业的防御策略。虽然进行CB并购有特定的动机，但也有经济力量采取行动鼓励CB并购，例如以建立共同市场为代表的欧盟（EU）和北美自由贸易区的经济一体化。宏观经济变化成为并购的背景或提供了机会。为了应对重大政策转变，合并也可能被作为防御措施。iv）由财务动机驱动的合并：当在特定环境中为企业扩张融资的替代投资机会吸引力较低时，企业就会采用并购作为增长途径。资本的可用性为收购和金融市场创新提供资金，如垃圾债券，也是跨境合并的原因之一。股价的估值差异或经济动荡导致收购从外部人士的角度来看价值较低的公司。

Lower interest rates also lead to more Acquisitions, as Acquiring firms rely heavily on borrowed funds (Melicher et al 1983). It is also argued that the under-valuation of the dollar vis-a-vis pound and yen in the early eighties had resulted in some very substantial Acquisitions of assets in the United States by British and Japanese firms (Dunning 1993). The currency devaluations in the risis-affected countries as well as falling property prices reduced the foreign-currency costs of acquiring fixed assets in those countries and it has provided a golden opportunity for TNCs to enter their local markets (Zhan & Ozawa, 2001). Our own earlier study (Beena 2001) clearly pointed out how financial motives had a crucial role in M&As during the first half of the decade of liberalisation. The study argued that among the motives for Mergers, in many cases, could have been the desire to improve the financial position of the firm through a viable capital structure and the desire of firms to exploit the opportunity provided by the initial post-liberalization buoyancy in the Indian stock market. It should not be surprising if in latest phase of contemporary finance capitalism, financial motives are also the major determinants of M&As in our country. Paul Sweezy (1994[1999]: 249) had spoken of the enormous growth of a “financial superstructure” atop the real productive base of the world economy [over the last three decades]. However, the linkages between a huge financial superstructure of the global capitalist economy and the financial motives of M&As in India is not so apparent and would need further exploration. Our classification of the four categories of theorisations on M&As throw light on one or the other aspect of the phenomenon. Each of them is true in its own right. However, it is context-specific studies that could substantiate the validity of each of these arguments.

较低的利率也会导致更多的收购，因为收购公司严重依赖借来的资金。还有人认为，80年代初，美元对英镑和日元的估值过低，导致英国和日本公司在美国进行了一些非常大规模的资产收购。受危机影响的国家的货币贬值以及房地产价格下跌降低了这些国家购买固定资产的外汇成本，这为跨国公司进入当地市场提供了黄金机会。我们自己早期的研究清楚地指出，在自由化十年的前五年，金融动机如何在并购中发挥关键作用。该研究认为，在许多情况下，合并的动机可能是希望通过可行的资本结构改善公司的财务状况，以及公司希望利用印度股市自由化后最初的繁荣所提供的机会。在当代金融资本主义的最新阶段，金融动机也是我国并购的主要决定因素，这并不奇怪。Paul Sweezy曾谈到[在过去三十年中]世界经济的实际生产基础之上的“金融上层建筑”的巨大增长。然而，全球资本主义经济的巨大金融上层建筑与印度并购的金融动机之间的联系并不那么明显，需要进一步探索。我们对并购理论的四类分类揭示了这一现象的一个或另一个方面。他们每个人都有自己的权利。然而，只有针对具体情况的研究才能证实这些论点的有效性。

Motivation of cross-border acquisition 跨境收购动机

There are four main reasons for Indian firms to have engaged in crossborder acquisitions, (see Acceenture, 2006). These include the need to enter new markets to maintain the current level of growth, to get closer to global customers to easily achieve market share and customer base via mergers compared to starting up new firms in foreign countries. Further, crossborder acquisitions help Indian firms to gain easier access to targets’ resources. Since 1995 over 60 percent of Indian M&As took place in Europe and North America; in the 2000-2006 period US firms followed by UK firms were the major target of 9 Indian acquirers. These developed markets were attractive due to their large customer base,advanced legal system, knowledge foundation, and sophisticated technologies. More importantly, acquisitions often prove to be the only way for Indian companies to be able to begin competing in these markets, due to the high level of existing competition in developed countries. However, to a lesser degree, Indian firms have also acquired firms in less developed countries. These deals are profitable because of high demand for foreign investment in some of these economies. These deals have also provided the Indian firms with access to resources.

印度公司进行跨订单收购的主要原因有四个。其中包括需要进入新市场以保持当前的增长水平，与在外国创办新公司相比，需要更接近全球客户，通过合并轻松获得市场份额和客户群。此外，跨订单收购有助于印度公司更容易获得目标公司的资源。自1995年以来，超过60%的印度并购发生在欧洲和北美；2000-2006年期间，美国公司和英国公司是9家印度收购公司的主要目标。这些发达市场由于其庞大的客户群、先进的法律体系、知识基础和先进的技术而具有吸引力。更重要的是，由于发达国家现有的竞争水平很高，收购往往是印度公司开始在这些市场竞争的唯一途径。然而，在较小程度上，印度公司也收购了欠发达国家的公司。这些交易是有利可图的，因为其中一些经济体对外国投资的需求很高。这些交易也为印度公司提供了获取资源的途径。

Many Indian firms participate in crossborder M&As to expand their overall technical capabilities and to update their existing knowledge base. In most cases, the knowledge and technical expertise earned abroad can help the acquirers in improving their productivity in the domestic Indian market as well. Furthermore, crossboarder M&As can create excess value for Indian acquirers, relative to their competitors, by allowing them to save on labour and production costs. Some Indian firms, especially in the pharmaceutical sector, strive to increase their market share by enhancing the size of their product range or in general, to diversify the portfolio of products or services. This is possible through two avenues: buying the technology, or acquiring firms who already own that technology. Indian firms seem to have used both methods.

许多印度公司参与跨订单并购，以扩大其整体技术能力并更新其现有知识库。在大多数情况下，从国外获得的知识和技术专长也可以帮助收购方提高其在印度国内市场的生产力。此外，跨国并购可以为印度收购方创造相对于竞争对手的超额价值，从而节省劳动力和生产成本。一些印度公司，特别是制药行业的公司，努力通过扩大产品范围或总体上实现产品或服务组合的多样化来增加其市场份额。这可以通过两种途径实现：购买技术，或收购已经拥有该技术的公司。印度公司似乎同时使用了这两种方法。

Trends of M&As: Indian Experience 并购趋势：印度经验

M&A activity has seen phenomenal rise in India in the past few years and some patterns are discernible in this mass of financial transactions There are four sectors in India which have experienced the most detectable M&A trend after deregulation, starting in 1991 (see Srinivasan, 2001).

在过去的几年里，印度的并购活动出现了显著的增长，在大量的金融交易中可以看出一些模式。从1991年开始，印度有四个行业经历了放松管制后最明显的并购趋势。

Consumer goods sector in which firms want to quickly achieve market share and banking and financial industry where “size” is an important factor due to higher capital requirements set by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) experienced many mergers. Sectors that are overloaded with many small players underwent consolidation. There were two sectors within which the need for high technology increased dramatically, such as telecommunication and pharmaceutical also underwent major merger activity.

企业希望快速获得市场份额的消费品行业，以及由于印度储备银行设定的更高资本要求，“规模”是一个重要因素的银行和金融行业经历了多次合并。许多小型企业超负荷运转的行业经历了整合。有两个部门对高科技的需求急剧增加，如电信和制药，也进行了重大的合并活动。

The motivations underlying domestic takeovers in India are similar to the ones that promoted crossborder M&As in recent years. Liberalizations and deregulations have been the main driver of domestic as well as crossborder takeovers. Political, financial, and cultural reforms have fueled both crossborder and domestic M&As in India.

印度国内收购背后的动机与近年来推动跨订单并购的动机相似。自由化和放松管制一直是国内和跨订单收购的主要驱动力。政治、金融和文化改革推动了印度的跨境和国内并购。

Why India leads China in cross-border M&A?为什么印度在跨境并购方面领先中国？

Although FDI flows to China are relatively higher than those to India, Indian firms have performed much better than their Chinese counterparts in terms of overseas M&A. A McKinsey analysis shows that Indian companies generate twice as much revenue from foreign sales as Chinese companies do! Other aspects like foreign asset-ownership and number of workers employed abroad also indicate a similar trend. In the year 2007, India registered a 126% jump in amount spent on international M&A deals as opposed to a mere 82% of China. Now let us see some of the specific characteristics of Indian crossborder of M&As.

尽管流向中国的外国直接投资相对高于流向印度的外国直接外资，但印度公司在海外并购方面的表现远好于中国同行。麦肯锡的一项分析显示，印度公司从海外销售中获得的收入是中国公司的两倍！其他方面，如外国资产所有权和在国外就业的工人数量也表明了类似的趋势。2007年，印度在国际并购交易上的支出增长了126%，而中国仅增长了82%。现在让我们看看印度跨国并购的一些具体特征。

There are a host of reasons why Indian firms have outperformed their Chinese rivals in corporate deal-making abroad. Indian M&As have several distinct characteristics compared to those done by firms in the west or from China 印度公司在海外企业交易中表现优于中国竞争对手的原因有很多。与西方或中国公司的并购相比，印度的并购有几个明显的特点

1) Language skills and know-how – English is the official business language in India and is built into the Indian education system. Chinese, on the other hand,have always been rigid and insisted on the use of their own language. Aversion to English language led to the isolation of the Chinese industry from the international corporate world. Now China, having realised this, is making concerted efforts to switch to English as the official language of communication.

语言技能和专业知识——英语是印度的官方商务语言，已融入印度的教育体系。另一方面，中国人一直很刻板，坚持使用自己的语言。对英语的厌恶导致中国工业与国际企业界隔绝。现在，中国意识到了这一点，正在共同努力将英语作为官方交流语言。

Chinese undervalue the role of soft skills in managing employees, business partners, stakeholders etc. Delegation of work,transparency, objective outlook, employee growth etc are aspects that are not yet developed in the Chinese work environment. This deters foreign employees from working in Chinese firms. Western employees are used to working with a high amount of latitude and things like close supervision, no clarity regarding management policies/expectations, corporate governance issues, favouritism and high level of political interference in the routine functioning of an organisation are deeply resented by western professionals. This impedes post-merger integration of a Chinese and western firm.

中国人低估了软技能在管理员工、商业伙伴、利益相关者等方面的作用。工作授权、透明度、客观前景、员工成长等都是中国工作环境中尚未发展起来的方面。这阻碍了外国员工在中国公司工作。西方员工习惯于高度自由地工作，诸如密切监督、管理政策/期望不明确、公司治理问题、偏袒和对组织日常运作的高度政治干预等问题都深受西方专业人士的不满。这阻碍了中西方企业合并后的整合。

China lacks the kind of leaders with international cultural understanding and flexibility to adapt to different markets and work environments. Leaders that can lead all employees without giving a sense of alienation to any specific group and successfully steer cross-border organisations are visibly lacking in China. Even though the economics of the deal make perfect sense, the inability to integrate the operations and most importantly employees of the two companies, spells doom for the new entity.

中国缺乏那种具有国际文化理解和灵活性的领导人，无法适应不同的市场和工作环境。中国显然缺乏能够在不给任何特定群体带来疏离感的情况下领导所有员工并成功引导跨境组织的领导者。尽管这笔交易的经济性非常合理，但无法整合两家公司的运营，最重要的是整合员工，这对新实体来说意味着厄运。

Inhibitions about western cultures and practices have a profound effect in that Chinese leaders are now increasingly wary of undertaking overseas assignments. They find it difficult to blend and work with completely different thought processes and working culture. The loss of face resulting from the failure to integrate prompts Chinese employees to shun overseas assignments. To overcome this, these days Chinese companies do organise mandatory international training and orientation programmes to prepare its workforce for cross-border experiences.

对西方文化和实践的抑制产生了深远的影响，因为中国领导人现在对承担海外任务越来越谨慎。他们发现很难与完全不同的思维过程和工作文化融合在一起。未能整合导致的丢脸促使中国员工回避海外工作。为了克服这一点，如今中国公司确实组织了强制性的国际培训和定向计划，为员工跨境体验做好准备。

Since Chinese companies are still vastly state-controlled, finance skills of Chinese managers are at a nascent stage yet. Indian firms however and especially the private ones have very well developed finance skills competing with some of the best in the world.

由于中国公司仍在很大程度上由国家控制，中国经理的财务技能尚处于初级阶段。然而，印度公司，尤其是私营公司，拥有非常发达的财务技能，可以与世界上最好的公司竞争。

Handling diversity and differences in race, religion, ideas, personalities etc is much easier for Indians as compared to Chinese due to the relatively homogeneous Chinese society. Although both nations are huge (China being much bigger), India is considered as one of the societies with the highest intra-country diversity and hence Indians are much more used to handling differences/conflicts.

由于中国社会相对同质，印度人比中国人更容易处理种族、宗教、思想、性格等方面的多样性和差异。尽管这两个国家都很大（中国要大得多），但印度被认为是国内多样性最高的社会之一，因此印度人更习惯于处理分歧/冲突。

2) Corporate structure – Many Indian firms have corporate structures similar to those prevalent in North America. These are companies with central leadership provided by owners but managed by professional managers. In contrast, most of the large Chinese companies are still state-owned and hence riddled with bureaucracy, political objectives. Senior management of these firms is always composed of members or people close to members of the Communist Party and strategy of the firm always is in line with the policy of the Chinese government. The lower management is ineffective, weak and resentful. Hence Indian firms’ responses to changes in the global industry are much quicker and strategic than those of Chinese firms.

公司结构——许多印度公司的公司结构与北美普遍存在的公司结构相似。这些公司的中央领导层由业主提供，但由专业经理管理。相比之下，大多数中国大公司仍然是国有的，因此充斥着官僚主义和政治目标。这些公司的高级管理层总是由党员或与共产党员关系密切的人组成，公司的战略总是符合中国政府的政策。下级管理层效率低下、软弱且充满怨恨。因此，印度公司对全球行业变化的反应比中国公司更快，也更具战略意义。

China’s IT industry tried hard to give tough competition to the booming Indian IT industry but the fragmented nature of China’s IT sector, along with poor product management and weak process controls failed China’s attempt. Consolidation is the key to exploring better opportunities for the Chinese IT industry since its top 10 IT-service companies command only 20% of the market share as opposed to 45% market share of India’s top 10.

中国的IT行业试图给蓬勃发展的印度IT行业带来激烈的竞争，但中国IT行业的分散性，以及糟糕的产品管理和薄弱的流程控制，使中国的尝试失败了。整合是为中国IT行业探索更好机会的关键，因为中国前十大IT服务公司仅占20%的市场份额，而印度前十大公司的市场份额为45%。本站提供各国各专业Paper代写或Paper写作指导服务，如有需要可咨询本平台。