"Synergy" is a common qualitative motive for an acquisition, but it cannot be represented in a valuation model of the target company.

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

Question restatement: The statement asserts that “Synergy” is a common qualitative motive for an acquisition, but it cannot be represented in a valuation model of the target company.
Option 1: True. This would claim that synergy is never captured in valuation models. In reality, synergy is a central concept in many acquisition valuations, and analysts attempt to quantify and incorporate expected synergies (cost savings, revenue enhancements, tax benefits, etc.) into the model through adjustments to cash flows, discount rates, or terminal value. Therefore, labeling synergy as something that cannot be represented in a valuation model is inaccurate, making this option unlikely.
Option 2: False. This option contends that synergy can indeed be represented in a valuation model. In practice, M&A valuations often include synergy forecasts by adding projected incremental cash flows from cost savings or revenue synergies to the acquirer’s pro forma projections, applying a discount rate to those incremental cash flows, and sometimes modeling integration costs and risks. While quantifying synergy involves estimation uncertainty, this does not mean it cannot be represented at all; it can be modeled, tested, and scenario-analyzed. This makes the statement that synergy cannot be represented false, aligning with standard valuation practice.
Option 1 revisited: The claim that synergy cannot be represented ignores common valuation techniques such as pro forma cash flow adjustments and scenario analysis used to reflect potential synergies. Misconceptions here often stem from the difficulty of forecasting exact amounts, not from an impossibility of representation.
Option 2 revisited: The idea that synergy can be represented does not require perfect accuracy; it requires disciplined estimation, transparent assumptions, and sensitivity analysis to reflect uncertainty. This is consistent with how practitioners treat synergy in investment banking and corporate finance.
In summary, the reasoning shows that the premise in Option 1 is flawed because it underestimates the ability of valuation models to incorporate synergies, while Option 2 correctly acknowledges that synergy can be modeled, albeit with estimation challenges and risk adjustments.

FINA3301.MERGED.202530 Quiz 2 (Fri. 4/11)

"Synergy" is a common qualitative motive for an acquisition, but it cannot be represented in a valuation model of the target company.

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

In the context of M&A, which of the following statements is correct?

What happens in the takeover market when a company performs poorly?

Which of the following statements is CORRECT?

Which of the following best explains why M&A activity tends to cluster in waves:

Which of the following is true about motivations for takeovers?

A conglomerate merger between two unrelated firms is most likely to create value when:

According to the Australian Financial Review, 2015 was called as _________________ because China Investment Corporation won $2.45 billion investment office portfolio.

More Practical Tools for Students Powered by AI Study Helper

Homework AI Solver

Stylized AI Paper Writer

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation AI Academic Writing Tool

In-Class Translation Assistant

AI Note Generator

AI Quiz Answers

Past Exam Questions from University Test Bank

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler