#Merger and Acquisition

[vanillalaw]

Strategizing Success with Expert Merger and Acquisition Services

Mergers and acquisitions (M&A) are powerful tools for business growth, allowing companies to expand their market presence, acquire new capabilities, and achieve strategic objectives. However, M&A transactions are complex and require meticulous planning and execution. Expert legal guidance from firms like VanillaLaw is essential to navigate the intricacies of these deals, ensuring successful outcomes and minimizing risks.

The Importance of M&A: 

M&A transactions offer numerous benefits, including increased market share, diversification, and access to new technologies. However, they also present significant challenges, such as regulatory compliance, cultural integration, and financial due diligence. Expert legal counsel is crucial in managing these complexities, providing strategic advice and ensuring that all aspects of the deal are carefully considered and executed.

Due Diligence and Risk Management: 

One of the critical stages in any M&A transaction is due diligence. This involves a comprehensive review of the target company's financial, legal, and operational aspects to identify potential risks and liabilities. Experienced M&A lawyers at VanillaLaw conduct thorough due diligence, uncovering any issues that could impact the transaction. By identifying and addressing these risks early, they help clients make informed decisions and avoid costly pitfalls.

Negotiation and Deal Structuring: 

Successful M&A transactions require effective negotiation and deal structuring. M&A lawyers at VanillaLaw play a pivotal role in negotiating terms, ensuring that the deal aligns with their client's strategic objectives and interests. They draft and review agreements, such as purchase agreements, shareholder agreements, and employment contracts, to ensure that all legal aspects are covered. Their expertise ensures that the deal is structured in a way that maximizes value and minimizes risks.

Case Studies: 

Consider a tech company seeking to acquire a competitor to enhance its market position. With the help of experienced M&A lawyers from VanillaLaw, they conducted thorough due diligence, identified synergies, and negotiated favorable terms. The transaction was completed smoothly, resulting in significant growth for the acquiring company. Similarly, a family-owned business planning to sell its operations benefited from their lawyer's expertise in structuring the deal, ensuring a smooth transition and favorable financial outcome. These examples demonstrate the critical role M&A lawyers play in facilitating successful transactions.

Regulatory Compliance: 

M&A transactions are subject to various regulatory requirements, including antitrust laws, securities regulations, and industry-specific rules. M&A lawyers at VanillaLaw ensure that all regulatory aspects are addressed, obtaining the necessary approvals and ensuring compliance with relevant laws. This minimizes the risk of regulatory issues that could derail the transaction.

Conclusion: 

Mergers and acquisitions are complex transactions that require expert legal guidance to navigate successfully. From due diligence to deal structuring and regulatory compliance, experienced M&A lawyers at VanillaLaw provide the strategic support needed to achieve successful outcomes and drive business growth.

CTA: 

Planning a merger or acquisition? Contact the expert M&A lawyers at VanillaLaw for strategic legal guidance and support.

[bigdreamercollective]

Business Management Consulting in Qatar | Perfect Plan

Perfect Plan is a leading business solutions company, providing top class business management consultancy services in Qatar. Perfect Plan is an accredited Business Management Consultancy firm having years of experience in the field of business management.

[mistrymehta]

Grow Your Business With Mistry And Mehta

[procurement-insights]

Redefining the role and responsibilities of analysts and consultants to achieve procurement's digital transformation success

The key to digital transformation success - turnkey services versus turnkey system assimilation.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The best way to “hash out” an idea or concept is through open and honest dialogue. The following exchange is a perfect example of respectful debate and discussion toward a conclusion. By the way, what are your thoughts—should analysts/consultants take more responsibility for client success? Dr. Thierry Fausten • Procurement Excellence | On-demand Procurement Director | Switzerland…

[capitalnomics]

Comprehensive Business Valuations and Appraisal Services

Are you seeking business valuations services in Central Oregon and beyond? Capital Nomics is here to address comprehensive business valuations and appraisal service needs. Its experienced professionals have served clients hailing from diverse niches including banking, hospitality, healthcare and finance with aplomb.

Business Valuation Consultants of Capital Nomics are available in places like Medford, Redmond, Eugene and Bend.

These ace consultants deal with client cases involving Estate and gift tax, Mergers and acquisitions, Employee buy-outs and even family business transactions. Also, avail tailor-made and effective Succession Planning services.

Capital Nomics has the expertise to analyze tax payments for all complex and diverse business valuation deals flawlessly.

Its qualified appraisers meet IRS requirements and adhere to IRS valuation guidelines.

[investment-banking-advice]

Complete Investment Banking Solutions in 120 Days - IBGrid

So you've got a fantastic startup idea, or maybe you're looking to grow your business through a merger or acquisition (M&A). Awesome! But let's be honest, building a successful business in India isn't easy. Finding the money you need and making smart deals can feel like navigating a maze blindfolded.

That's where IBGrid comes in. They're an investment banking team focused on helping Indian startups like yours win.

Why You Need Help (and Why Most Startups Fail)

The truth is, most startups fail. Like, 90% of them. Yikes! One big reason is funding. You need money to get your idea off the ground, but convincing investors to take a chance on you can be tough.

Even if you're an established business, M&A deals can be risky too. Believe it or not, a whopping 90% of them don't work out as planned. Often, it's because people jump in without a clear plan or the right guidance.

How IBGrid Gets You Funded and Makes Winning Deals (Fast!)

IBGrid gets it. They know the challenges Indian startups face. That's why they offer a special 120-day program designed to help you secure funding or navigate an M&A smoothly and quickly.

Here's what makes them different:

Laser Focus, Maximum Results: They keep things tight with a 120-day program, so you don't waste time or resources.

Your Indian Startup Dream Team: Their team is packed with experts who know the Indian market inside and out.

Your Plan, Not a Template: They don't just churn out cookie-cutter solutions. They take the time to understand your specific needs and craft a strategy just for you.

Getting Things Done Right: Fundraising and M&A involve a lot of moving parts. IBGrid is there to make sure everything runs smoothly from start to finish.

Don't Be a Statistic - Let IBGrid Help You Win

Those scary failure rates shouldn't hold you back. With the right partner and a solid plan, you can significantly increase your chances of success.

IBGrid: Your Bridge to Funding and Growth

IBGrid has a team of experienced investment banking tam (25+ years of experience) and provides complete investment banking solutions in 120 days Indian startups looking to raise capital or conquer M&A. Their expertise, focus, and commitment to getting things done can be the difference between just getting by and achieving your entrepreneurial dreams. So don't wait. Partner with IBGrid and take control of your financial future!

[indiabizforsale]

Ditch the Dream, Own the Reality: Be a Rule Breaker Entrepreneur

As an seasoned professional and Co-Founder, I've witnessed the electrifying energy of startups. However, the statistics paint a different picture: a daunting 90% of startups fail within their first decade. Building a business from scratch is a commendable pursuit, but it's a marathon, not a sprint.

The M&A Advantage: Owning Success Sooner

There's a smarter way to achieve entrepreneurial success – mergers and acquisitions (M&A). It's not about diminishing the startup spirit; it's about offering a strategic shortcut with less risk and a faster path to ownership.

Here's why M&A makes you an entrepreneur on a fast track:

Instant Traction: Forget years of audience building. Existing businesses come with a loyal customer base and brand recognition, giving you a launchpad for growth.

Proven Profits: Ditch the risky financial projections. Established businesses generate immediate revenue, providing a solid foundation for expansion.

Reduced Risk, Quicker Rewards: You inherit valuable knowledge from the previous owner. Existing infrastructure, streamlined processes, and potentially a seasoned team minimize risk and accelerate your success.

Think of it like this: startups are like launching a rocket from scratch.  M&A is like taking the controls of a pre-built spaceship – it's already fueled and ready for liftoff.

Thousands of Opportunities to Be Your Boss Today

Finding the right business to buy is easy nowadays, platform like IndiaBizForSale unlocks a vast network of 10,500 M&A opportunities for established businesses across India.  Imagine – thousands of thriving ventures waiting for a visionary entrepreneur like you.

Don't wait years to build your dream. Own a successful business faster with M&A.  Ready to explore the possibilities? Let's chat. My expertise can help you find the perfect business and become your own boss sooner than you think.

Source: https://medium.com/@indiabizforsale_57095/ditch-the-dream-own-the-reality-be-a-rule-breaker-entrepreneur-dc7a8b034b8b

[scaleupsolution12]

Ensuring a successful Merger and Acquisition requires a multi-pronged approach, including the following steps, Strategic Fit: Clearly define goals and identify targets with complementary strengths, not just size, Rigorous Due Diligence: Uncover hidden issues through financial & operational audits, cultural assessments, and legal checks, Transparent Communication: Keep stakeholders informed from start to finish, addressing concerns and fostering trust and Change Management: Proactively address employee concerns, provide training, and offer support throughout the transition.

[sayheykid]

trying to figure out how to say this delicately. i do think that the pwhl is going to make some progress, and already the support for the league is showing how much of a market there is for women's sports even from a few years ago. but it's kind of been irking me to see so many posts that act like there has never been any arena for women's pro hockey before. like do you understand how many people — how many leagues!! — came before this to even make the pwhl a possibility. do you know how many people have fought tooth and nail for women's pro hockey for DECADES. i'm not saying don't support the league, but don't act like it's the perfect solution to a brand new issue

[vanillalaw]

Top Challenges in Mergers and Acquisitions and How to Overcome Them

Mergers and acquisitions (M&A) are pivotal strategies for companies seeking growth, diversification, or competitive advantage. However, these transactions come with a host of challenges that can impact their success. From valuation issues to cultural integration, navigating these obstacles requires careful planning and expert guidance. This blog explores the top challenges in M&A and provides actionable strategies to overcome them, ensuring a smoother transition and a successful outcome.

1. Valuation and Pricing Discrepancies

Challenge: Accurate valuation is crucial in M&A transactions, but differences in valuation approaches between buyers and sellers can lead to disputes. Overestimating or underestimating the value of a company can result in financial losses or missed opportunities.

Solution:

Conduct Thorough Due Diligence: Engage in comprehensive due diligence to assess financial health, market position, and growth potential. Use multiple valuation methods (e.g., discounted cash flow, comparable company analysis) to reach a balanced valuation.

Hire Experienced Valuation Experts: Collaborate with valuation experts who can provide unbiased assessments and help reconcile differences in valuation expectations.

Negotiate Earn-Outs: Consider structuring deals with earn-out provisions that tie part of the purchase price to future performance, aligning the interests of both parties.

2. Cultural Integration Issues

Challenge: Merging companies with different corporate cultures can lead to conflicts, reduced employee morale, and operational disruptions. Misalignment in values, communication styles, and management practices can hinder the integration process.

Solution:

Conduct Cultural Assessments: Evaluate the cultural differences between the merging organisations to understand potential areas of conflict and synergy.

Develop an Integration Plan: Create a detailed integration plan that addresses cultural integration, including communication strategies, team-building activities, and management approaches.

Foster Open Communication: Encourage transparent and open communication throughout the integration process to address concerns and build trust among employees.

3. Regulatory and Legal Hurdles

Challenge: M&A transactions often require regulatory approvals and compliance with various legal requirements. Navigating these regulatory hurdles can be time-consuming and complex, potentially delaying or complicating the transaction.

Solution:

Engage Legal Counsel Early: Involve legal experts early in the process to ensure compliance with relevant laws and regulations, including antitrust laws, industry-specific regulations, and labour laws.

Prepare for Regulatory Scrutiny: Anticipate potential regulatory issues and prepare necessary documentation and justifications to facilitate smooth approvals.

Monitor Regulatory Changes: Stay informed about changes in regulations that may impact the transaction and adjust strategies accordingly.

4. Due Diligence Pitfalls

Challenge: Inadequate due diligence can result in unforeseen liabilities, financial issues, or operational challenges. Failing to uncover critical information about the target company can lead to costly surprises post-acquisition.

Solution:

Conduct Comprehensive Due Diligence: Perform exhaustive due diligence covering financial, legal, operational, and strategic aspects. Use a team of specialists to examine all relevant areas, including contracts, intellectual property, and market conditions.

Address Red Flags Early: Identify and address any red flags or concerns during due diligence to mitigate risks and avoid potential pitfalls.

Verify Information: Cross-check information provided by the target company with independent sources to ensure accuracy and completeness.

5. Post-Merger Integration Challenges

Challenge: Successfully integrating operations, systems, and teams post-merger can be a significant challenge. Poor integration planning can lead to operational inefficiencies, loss of key personnel, and diminished value realisation.

Solution:

Develop an Integration Strategy: Create a detailed integration strategy that outlines goals, timelines, and responsibilities for merging operations, systems, and teams.

Prioritise Key Areas: Focus on integrating critical functions such as finance, HR, and IT to ensure smooth operations and minimise disruptions.

Monitor and Adjust: Continuously monitor the integration process and make adjustments as needed to address emerging issues and ensure alignment with strategic objectives.

6. Managing Employee Expectations

Challenge: M&A transactions can create uncertainty and anxiety among employees, leading to decreased morale and productivity. Addressing employee concerns and managing expectations is crucial for maintaining a positive work environment.

Solution:

Communicate Clearly and Frequently: Keep employees informed about the progress of the transaction, the impact on their roles, and any changes to the organisational structure.

Provide Support: Offer support through transition periods, including counselling, training, and career development opportunities to help employees adapt to changes.

Engage Leadership: Involve senior leadership in communication efforts to reinforce commitment to employees and address their concerns.

7. Financial and Operational Risks

Challenge: M&A transactions can introduce financial and operational risks, including integration costs, unforeseen liabilities, and disruptions to business operations.

Solution:

Conduct Risk Assessments: Perform thorough risk assessments to identify potential financial and operational risks associated with the transaction.

Establish Contingency Plans: Develop contingency plans to address potential risks and mitigate their impact on the business.

Monitor Performance Metrics: Track key performance metrics post-merger to ensure that the integration is on track and address any issues promptly.

Conclusion

Mergers and acquisitions offer significant opportunities for growth and strategic advantage but come with a range of challenges that require careful management. From valuation discrepancies and cultural integration to regulatory hurdles and post-merger integration, addressing these challenges proactively is essential for a successful M&A transaction. By engaging experienced professionals, conducting thorough due diligence, and implementing strategic plans, businesses can navigate the complexities of M&A and achieve their objectives.

CTA

Facing challenges in your M&A transaction? Contact Vanilla Law today to get expert guidance and support for your mergers and acquisitions. Our team of experienced legal professionals is here to help you overcome obstacles, ensure regulatory compliance, and achieve a successful integration. Reach out now to navigate your M&A journey with confidence.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Big Tech disrupted disruption

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/02/08/permanent-overlords/#republicans-want-to-defund-the-police

Before "disruption" turned into a punchline, it was a genuinely exciting idea. Using technology, we could connect people to one another and allow them to collaborate, share, and cooperate to make great things happen.

It's easy (and valid) to dismiss the "disruption" of Uber, which "disrupted" taxis and transit by losing $31b worth of Saudi royal money in a bid to collapse the world's rival transportation system, while quietly promising its investors that it would someday have pricing power as a monopoly, and would attain profit through price-gouging and wage-theft.

Uber's disruption story was wreathed in bullshit: lies about the "independence" of its drivers, about the imminence of self-driving taxis, about the impact that replacing buses and subways with millions of circling, empty cars would have on traffic congestion. There were and are plenty of problems with traditional taxis and transit, but Uber magnified these problems, under cover of "disrupting" them away.

But there are other feats of high-tech disruption that were and are genuinely transformative – Wikipedia, GNU/Linux, RSS, and more. These disruptive technologies altered the balance of power between powerful institutions and the businesses, communities and individuals they dominated, in ways that have proven both beneficial and durable.

When we speak of commercial disruption today, we usually mean a tech company disrupting a non-tech company. Tinder disrupts singles bars. Netflix disrupts Blockbuster. Airbnb disrupts Marriott.

But the history of "disruption" features far more examples of tech companies disrupting other tech companies: DEC disrupts IBM. Netscape disrupts Microsoft. Google disrupts Yahoo. Nokia disrupts Kodak, sure – but then Apple disrupts Nokia. It's only natural that the businesses most vulnerable to digital disruption are other digital businesses.

And yet…disruption is nowhere to be seen when it comes to the tech sector itself. Five giant companies have been running the show for more than a decade. A couple of these companies (Apple, Microsoft) are Gen-Xers, having been born in the 70s, then there's a couple of Millennials (Amazon, Google), and that one Gen-Z kid (Facebook). Big Tech shows no sign of being disrupted, despite the continuous enshittification of their core products and services. How can this be? Has Big Tech disrupted disruption itself?

That's the contention of "Coopting Disruption," a new paper from two law profs: Mark Lemley (Stanford) and Matthew Wansley (Yeshiva U):

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4713845

The paper opens with a review of the literature on disruption. Big companies have some major advantages: they've got people and infrastructure they can leverage to bring new products to market more cheaply than startups. They've got existing relationships with suppliers, distributors and customers. People trust them.

Diversified, monopolistic companies are also able to capture "involuntary spillovers": when Google spends money on AI for image recognition, it can improve Google Photos, YouTube, Android, Search, Maps and many other products. A startup with just one product can't capitalize on these spillovers in the same way, so it doesn't have the same incentives to spend big on R&D.

Finally, big companies have access to cheap money. They get better credit terms from lenders, they can float bonds, they can tap the public markets, or just spend their own profits on R&D. They can also afford to take a long view, because they're not tied to VCs whose funds turn over every 5-10 years. Big companies get cheap money, play a long game, pay less to innovate and get more out of innovation.

But those advantages are swamped by the disadvantages of incumbency, all the various curses of bigness. Take Arrow's "replacement effect": new companies that compete with incumbents drive down the incumbents' prices and tempt their customers away. But an incumbent that buys a disruptive new company can just shut it down, and whittle down its ideas to "sustaining innovation" (small improvements to existing products), killing "disruptive innovation" (major changes that make the existing products obsolete).

Arrow's Replacement Effect also comes into play before a new product even exists. An incumbent that allows a rival to do R&D that would eventually disrupt its product is at risk; but if the incumbent buys this pre-product, R&D-heavy startup, it can turn the research to sustaining innovation and defund any disruptive innovation.

Arrow asks us to look at the innovation question from the point of view of the company as a whole. Clayton Christensen's "Innovator's Dilemma" looks at the motivations of individual decision-makers in large, successful companies. These individuals don't want to disrupt their own business, because that will render some part of their own company obsolete (perhaps their own division!). They also don't want to radically change their customers' businesses, because those customers would also face negative effects from disruption.

A startup, by contrast, has no existing successful divisions and no giant customers to safeguard. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain from disruption. Where a large company has no way for individual employees to initiate major changes in corporate strategy, a startup has fewer hops between employees and management. What's more, a startup that rewards an employee's good idea with a stock-grant ties that employee's future finances to the outcome of that idea – while a giant corporation's stock bonuses are only incidentally tied to the ideas of any individual worker.

Big companies are where good ideas go to die. If a big company passes on its employees' cool, disruptive ideas, that's the end of the story for that idea. But even if 100 VCs pass on a startup's cool idea and only one VC funds it, the startup still gets to pursue that idea. In startup land, a good idea gets lots of chances – in a big company, it only gets one.

Given how innately disruptable tech companies are, given how hard it is for big companies to innovate, and given how little innovation we've gotten from Big Tech, how is it that the tech giants haven't been disrupted?

The authors propose a four-step program for the would-be Tech Baron hoping to defend their turf from disruption.

First, gather information about startups that might develop disruptive technologies and steer them away from competing with you, by investing in them or partnering with them.

Second, cut off any would-be competitor's supply of resources they need to develop a disruptive product that challenges your own.

Third, convince the government to pass regulations that big, established companies can comply with but that are business-killing challenges for small competitors.

Finally, buy up any company that resists your steering, succeeds despite your resource war, and escapes the compliance moats of regulation that favors incumbents.

Then: kill those companies.

The authors proceed to show that all four tactics are in play today. Big Tech companies operate their own VC funds, which means they get a look at every promising company in the field, even if they don't want to invest in them. Big Tech companies are also awash in money and their "rival" VCs know it, and so financial VCs and Big Tech collude to fund potential disruptors and then sell them to Big Tech companies as "aqui-hires" that see the disruption neutralized.

On resources, the authors focus on data, and how companies like Facebook have explicit policies of only permitting companies they don't see as potential disruptors to access Facebook data. They reproduce internal Facebook strategy memos that divide potential platform users into "existing competitors, possible future competitors, [or] developers that we have alignment with on business models." These categories allow Facebook to decide which companies are capable of developing disruptive products and which ones aren't. For example, Amazon – which doesn't compete with Facebook – is allowed to access FB data to target shoppers. But Messageme, a startup, was cut off from Facebook as soon as management perceived them as a future rival. Ironically – but unsurprisingly – Facebook spins these policies as pro-privacy, not anti-competitive.

These data policies cast a long shadow. They don't just block existing companies from accessing the data they need to pursue disruptive offerings – they also "send a message" to would-be founders and investors, letting them know that if they try to disrupt a tech giant, they will have their market oxygen cut off before they can draw breath. The only way to build a product that challenges Facebook is as Facebook's partner, under Facebook's direction, with Facebook's veto.

Next, regulation. Starting in 2019, Facebook started publishing full-page newspaper ads calling for regulation. Someone ghost-wrote a Washington Post op-ed under Zuckerberg's byline, arguing the case for more tech regulation. Google, Apple, OpenAI other tech giants have all (selectively) lobbied in favor of many regulations. These rules covered a lot of ground, but they all share a characteristic: complying with them requires huge amounts of money – money that giant tech companies can spare, but potential disruptors lack.

Finally, there's predatory acquisitions. Mark Zuckerberg, working without the benefit of a ghost writer (or in-house counsel to review his statements for actionable intent) has repeatedly confessed to buying companies like Instagram to ensure that they never grow to be competitors. As he told one colleague, "I remember your internal post about how Instagram was our threat and not Google+. You were basically right. The thing about startups though is you can often acquire them.”

All the tech giants are acquisition factories. Every successful Google product, almost without exception, is a product they bought from someone else. By contrast, Google's own internal products typically crash and burn, from G+ to Reader to Google Videos. Apple, meanwhile, buys 90 companies per year – Tim Apple brings home a new company for his shareholders more often than you bring home a bag of groceries for your family. All the Big Tech companies' AI offerings are acquisitions, and Apple has bought more AI companies than any of them.

Big Tech claims to be innovating, but it's really just operationalizing. Any company that threatens to disrupt a tech giant is bought, its products stripped of any really innovative features, and the residue is added to existing products as a "sustaining innovation" – a dot-release feature that has all the innovative disruption of rounding the corners on a new mobile phone.

The authors present three case-studies of tech companies using this four-point strategy to forestall disruption in AI, VR and self-driving cars. I'm not excited about any of these three categories, but it's clear that the tech giants are worried about them, and the authors make a devastating case for these disruptions being disrupted by Big Tech.

What do to about it? If we like (some) disruption, and if Big Tech is enshittifying at speed without facing dethroning-by-disruption, how do we get the dynamism and innovation that gave us the best of tech?

The authors make four suggestions.

First, revive the authorities under existing antitrust law to ban executives from Big Tech companies from serving on the boards of startups. More broadly, kill interlocking boards altogether. Remember, these powers already exist in the lawbooks, so accomplishing this goal means a change in enforcement priorities, not a new act of Congress or rulemaking. What's more, interlocking boards between competing companies are illegal per se, meaning there's no expensive, difficult fact-finding needed to demonstrate that two companies are breaking the law by sharing directors.

Next: create a nondiscrimination policy that requires the largest tech companies that share data with some unaffiliated companies to offer data on the same terms to other companies, except when they are direct competitors. They argue that this rule will keep tech giants from choking off disruptive technologies that make them obsolete (rather than competing with them).

On the subject of regulation and compliance moats, they have less concrete advice. They counsel lawmakers to greet tech giants' demands to be regulated with suspicion, to proceed with caution when they do regulate, and to shape regulation so that it doesn't limit market entry, by keeping in mind the disproportionate burdens regulations put on established giants and small new companies. This is all good advice, but it's more a set of principles than any kind of specific practice, test or procedure.

Finally, they call for increased scrutiny of mergers, including mergers between very large companies and small startups. They argue that existing law (Sec 2 of the Sherman Act and Sec 7 of the Clayton Act) both empower enforcers to block these acquisitions. They admit that the case-law on this is poor, but that just means that enforcers need to start making new case-law.

I like all of these suggestions! We're certainly enjoying a more activist set of regulators, who are more interested in Big Tech, than we've seen in generations.

But they are grossly under-resourced even without giving them additional duties. As Matt Stoller points out, "the DOJ's Antitrust Division has fewer people enforcing anti-monopoly laws in a $24 trillion economy than the Smithsonian Museum has security guards."

https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/congressional-republicans-to-defund

What's more, Republicans are trying to slash their budgets even further. The American conservative movement has finally located a police force they're eager to defund: the corporate police who defend us all from predatory monopolies.

Image: Cryteria (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAL9000.svg

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en

[notbecauseofvictories]

cute thing I have learned during this conference: a couple different players are working in the quantum computing space, and specifically working on encryption protection algorithms to defend against attacks---these algorithms are called "kyber" and "dilithium" respectively.

nerds.

[odinsblog]

“Only a handful of companies control the cereal market. And the cost to consumer is really interesting because Americans are used to fewer choices. I'm thinking about the impact of Walmart on smaller businesses. The trade-off was that the prices were cheap. But in reality, we are actually paying more because we have less choice.

What's happened is when you have concentrated power over any market, those who have the power get to dictate wages to the workers and also what they pay to their suppliers. And in the food system, that would be farmers, ranchers. And if you look at what's happened in the last 40 years in the United States, we've had remarkably stagnant wages for ordinary Americans and we've had a huge decline in the number of farmers and ranchers and the middleman is able to take the profit.

And that's why you need competitive markets. That's what capitalism is supposed to be about, but what we really have is a form of corporate socialism. And once four companies control about 40% of a market, you don't really have competition anymore because they're able to signal to one another price increases.

They're able to signal to one another how much they want to pay suppliers. A good analogy would be, let's say you want to sell your house. If you're going to sell your house, you want 50 to 60 people really eager to buy it. But if there's only one or maybe two, you're much more likely to get a lower price. And that's what America's farmers and ranchers have now found. And it's devastated the countryside as a result.

But when we go to the grocery store, we go right down any major city street and we see several grocery stores, we actually think we're looking at different stores with different options. And that’s really not true.

You know, when you go to the supermarket, there are thousands of products and you think they're independent companies, but they're made by a handful of companies. The Biden administration right now is trying to block the merger of Kroger's and Albertsons.

These are the two biggest supermarket chains, but you wouldn't necessarily realize it because they operate under dozens of different names. So I'm just going to give you some of Kroger's, for example, supermarkets. Ralph's, Dillon's, Smith's, King's Super's, Fry's, QFC, City Market, Owens, JC, Baker's, Harris Teeter, Pick and Save, Metro Market, Fred Meyer, and then Albertsons's, Safeway, Vaughan's, Shaw's, Tom Thumb, United Supermarkets, Pavilions, Cars, King Foods, on and on and on.

So you think you have a choice of dozens of different supermarkets, but it's only two. And if this merger is allowed to go through, it'll only be one.”

—The illusion of choice and the oligopolization of the food industry

[askagamedev]

With Microsoft buying out Activision and IGN buying out Gamer Network both resulting in layoffs I have to ask how do companies avoid acquisition?

Honestly, there are only two requirements to avoid an acquisition:

The studio's controlling stakeholders/majority owners want the company to remain independent and do not want to cash out

The company remains financially stable enough not to need a bailout

If the studio ownership decides they want to retire or cash out, they will be open to opportunities to sell. This is usually something of an inevitability - we are human and life priorities change over time. Things might be good for a few years, but a life-changing experience like having children, the death of a loved one, or other life-altering events could easily change circumstances.

The vast majority of the time, it's because the company is already in dire financial straits and needs a bailout. If the company can't afford to keep things running, they'll either look for a bailout (typically in the form of acquisition) or they'll be forced to shut down and lay everybody off. If the company can't earn enough to pay its debts, employees, and overhead costs, it won't be in business for long.

That's really it. All acquisitions happen when either the first or the second requirement (or both) is no longer being met. Either the owners decide they want to sell or the company is in desperate need of money and must either sell or close. Many companies don't even get to secure a buyout, they often die because they can't find a buyer (or other new source of funding) and run out of money.

[Join us on Discord] and/or [Support us on Patreon]

Got a burning question you want answered?

Short questions: Ask a Game Dev on Twitter

Long questions: Ask a Game Dev on Tumblr

Frequent Questions: The FAQ