We permit the publication of our auditors’ report, provided the report is published in full only and is accompanied by the full financial statements to which our auditors’ report relates, and is only published on an access-controlled page on your website, to enable users to verify that an auditors’ report by independent accountants has been commissioned by the directors and issued. Such permission to publish is given by us without accepting or assuming any responsibility or liability to any third party users save where we have agreed terms with them in writing.

Our consent is given on condition that before any third party accesses our auditors’ report via the webpage they first document their agreement to the following terms of access to our report via a click-through webpage with an 'I accept' button. The terms to be included on your website are as follows:

I accept and agree for and on behalf of myself and the Trust I represent (each a "recipient") that:

  1. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (“PwC”) accepts no liability (including liability for negligence) to each recipient in relation to PwC’s report. The report is provided to each recipient for information purposes only. If a recipient relies on PwC’s report, it does so entirely at its own risk;
  2. No recipient will bring a claim against PwC which relates to the access to the report by a recipient;
  3. Neither PwC’s report, nor information obtained from it, may be made available to anyone else without PwC’s prior written consent, except where required by law or regulation; and
  4. PwC’s report was prepared with Hermes Property Unit Trust's interests in mind. It was not prepared with any recipient's interests in mind or for its use. PwC’s report is not a substitute for any enquiries that a recipient should make. The financial statements are as at 25 March 2017, and thus PwC’s auditors’ report is based on historical information. Any projection of such information or PwC’s opinion thereon to future periods is subject to the risk that changes may occur after the reports are issued and the description of controls may no longer accurately portray the system of internal control. For these reasons, such projection of information to future periods would be inappropriate.
  5. PwC will be entitled to the benefit of and to enforce these terms.
I accept

1. Select your country

  • United Kingdom
  • Austria
  • Australia
  • Belgium
  • Denmark
  • Finland
  • France
  • Germany
  • Iceland
  • Ireland
  • Italy
  • Luxembourg
  • Netherlands
  • Norway
  • Singapore
  • Spain
  • Sweden
  • Switzerland
  • USA
  • Other

2. Select your investor type

  • Financial Advisor
  • Discretionary Investment Manager
  • Wealth Manager
  • Family Office
  • Institutional Investor
  • Investment Consultant
  • Charity, Foundation & Endowment Investor
  • Retail Investor
  • Press
  • None of the above

3. Accept our terms and conditions

By clicking Proceed I confirm I have read the important information and agree to the terms of use.


The Hermes Investment Management website uses cookies to remember your preferences and help us improve the site.
By proceeding, you agree to cookies being placed on your computer.
Read our privacy and cookie policy.

M&A upswing – what’s in it for shareholders?

Home / EOS Blog / M&A upswing – what’s in it for shareholders?


On the back of record low interest rates, an ongoing improvement in the world economy, favourable financial market conditions and higher confidence by CEOs, a surge in global mergers and acquisitions (M&A) took place over the past year. In addition to the flurry of US deals, a growing number of cross-Atlantic mergers occurred, for example Walgreens buying Alliance Boots and Siemens buying Dresser-Rand. But the peak in the M&A cycle has yet to be reached, as indicated by the number of large deals announced so far in 2015. Against the backdrop of the likes of Shell buying BG Group, Heinz buying Kraft Foods and AbbVie acquiring Pharmacyclics, the number of large deals already exceeds last year’s.

M&A drivers

Companies undertake M&As for a variety of reasons, including the pursuit of growth, diversification of their businesses or to consolidate an industry. The most common rationales for such deals are industry capacity reduction, the extension of product or market lines, geographic roll-ups, industry convergence and a substitute for in-house research and development capabilities. Often, tax also acts as a motivator. In 2014, we saw increased M&A activity related at least partly to tax inversions, which involves companies’ deliberate relocation of their legal headquarters overseas to reduce tax payments. Among those were Pfizer’s attempted acquisition of AstraZeneca, which would have significantly reduced the company’s effective tax rate, AbbVie’s attempted acquisition of Shire and Burger King’s bid for Tim Hortons.

The value to shareholders

Empirical evidence[1] shows that on balance acquisitions create economic value. Shareholders of targets gain overall, while shareholders of acquirers experience mixed results[2]. The main reason why most M&A deals fail to create value for buyers is that acquirers tend to pay too much for targets. A host of factors might explain this tendency, including an overly optimistic assessment of market potential, an overestimation of synergies, poor due diligence and hubris.

While it stands to reason that company executives would seek to create shareholder value with the deals they agree, the evidence shows that most do not. Often, executives focus on accounting-based measures instead of considering the extent to which synergies can exceed the premium paid to shareholders. Executives view earnings per share (EPS) accretion favourably and dilution unfavourably. Nonetheless, just like with other investments, the immediate EPS impact gives little indication of a deal’s prospects for creating long-term value.

Long-term accountability

At Hermes EOS, we take a particular interest in the acquisitive growth of companies to establish that the investment plans have been critically analysed in terms of their ability to create long-term shareholder value. Equally important is to check whether the deals follow the communicated acquisition criteria. Unfortunately, on occasions even sensible self-imposed acquisition hurdles – such as the need to have positive economic value added or generate double-digit cash flow returns within a couple of years after closing of a transaction – are disregarded when a takeover is classified as strategic. While this may exceptionally be justified, disregarding communicated acquisition criteria without adequate explanation may impact the trust and confidence of investors.

[1] According to McKinsey research on 1,415 acquisitions from 1997 to 2009, the combined value of the acquirer and target increased by about 4% on average. Werner Rehm and Carsten Buch Siverstsen, “A Strong Foundation for M&A in 2010,” McKinsey on Finance, no. 34 (Winter 2010): 17–22.
 [2]Taking Stock of What We know about Mergers and Acquisitions: A review and Research Agenda,” Haleblian, Devers, McNamara, Carpenter, Davison, Journal of Management, Vol 35 No 3, June 2009
Share this post:
Roland Bosch Roland Bosch is sector lead for financial services and responsible for corporate engagements in Europe and the US. He engages with corporate boards on relevant strategic, governance, social and environmental issues to foster long-term sustainable value creation. Prior to joining Hermes EOS, he worked as an investment manager at F&C Asset Management, where he was responsible for managing institutional equity portfolios, as well as providing investment analysis and recommendations. Before that, Roland was based in the Netherlands, working as an investment manager for insurance group Achmea and as an equity analyst at HSBC. Roland is a certified investment analyst (RBA), EFFAS financial analyst and holds a degree in Business Economics from Groningen University. Roland is fluent in Dutch and English, with a good working knowledge of German and French.
Read all articles by Roland Bosch

Find posts by author

  • Alex Knox, ACA
  • Amy Wilson
  • Andrew Jackson
  • Bill Mackenzie
  • Bruce Duguid
  • Christine Chow
  • Claire Gavini
  • Colin Melvin
  • Darren Brady
  • Dominic Burke
  • Dr Michael Viehs
  • Emeric Chenebaux
  • Emma Hunt
  • Geoffrey Wan, CFA
  • Hans-Christoph Hirt
  • Harriet Steel
  • Ilana Elbim
  • Ingrid Holmes
  • Jaime Gornsztejn
  • Jonathan Pines, CFA
  • Joseph Buckley
  • Kimberley Lewis
  • Leon Kamhi
  • Louise Dudley
  • Mark Sherlock, CFA
  • Maxime Le Floch, CFA
  • Maxine Wille
  • Michael Russell, CFA
  • Michael Vaughan
  • Michael Viehs
  • Natacha Dimitrijevic
  • Nick Spooner
  • Nina Röhrbein
  • Peter Hofbauer
  • Philip Nell
  • Rochelle Giugni
  • Roland Bosch
  • Sachi Suzuki
  • Saker Nusseibeh
  • Silvia Dall’Angelo
  • Tatiana Bosteels
  • Tim Goodman
  • Tommaso Mancuso
  • Yasmin Chowdhury

Find posts by category

  • governance
  • strategy