M&A & Synergies Interview Questions for Finance

Synergies are the additional value created by combining two companies. They can be split into:

• Cost synergies (more credible): Savings from eliminating duplicate staff, consolidating facilities, bulk purchasing
• Revenue synergies (less credible): Cross-selling products, expanding pricing power, entering new markets

Cost synergies are typically easier to quantify and realize, while revenue synergies are riskier and often discounted more heavily.

In an all-stock deal with no synergies, the transaction should be EPS-neutral, since both companies trade at the same valuation multiple. Accretion or dilution arises only if:

• One company has a higher/lower P/E than the other
• Financing mix changes the share count or interest costs
• Synergies are added to the combined company’s earnings

Whether synergies are included depends on the purpose of the valuation.

• Standalone valuation: Synergies are excluded. The company should be valued “as is” based only on its own operations and cash flows. Methods like a DCF or trading comps focus on the target’s intrinsic value without buyer-specific benefits.
• Buyer’s valuation and purchase price: Buyers often factor in synergies when deciding what they can afford to pay. If expected cost savings or revenue gains increase the combined firm’s value, this raises the buyer’s maximum bid.
• Why transaction multiples are higher than trading multiples:
  • Trading multiples reflect the company’s current, standalone value in the stock market.
  • Transaction multiples are based on actual deal prices, which include a control premium (to convince shareholders to sell) and often expected synergies.

Goodwill arises when the purchase price of a target exceeds the fair market value of its net assets. It represents the premium paid for factors such as expected synergies, brand value, or customer relationships that are not recorded separately on the balance sheet. 

After the acquisition, goodwill appears as an intangible asset on the balance sheet. If the expected benefits do not materialize, the company may have to recognize a goodwill impairment, which reduces reported earnings and is often interpreted as a sign that the buyer overpaid.

Synergies are treated differently depending on the valuation method.

• DCF: Synergies are modeled explicitly as additional cash flows, often discounted more conservatively to account for execution risk.
• Trading comps: Synergies are excluded, since public company multiples reflect standalone valuations without buyer-specific benefits.
• Precedent transactions: Synergies are implicitly included, because buyers pay higher prices that reflect both synergies and control premiums.

Net Operating Losses (NOLs) can make a deal more attractive by reducing future taxable income, but their usability depends on how the transaction is structured.

• Tax benefit: NOLs can offset future profits, lowering cash taxes and effectively increasing deal value.
• Deal structuring: Buyers may prefer a stock purchase to preserve NOLs, since asset purchases often reset tax attributes.
• Restrictions: Many jurisdictions limit how much of the NOL can be used each year or require continuity of ownership to carry them forward.

Cross-border transactions add complexity compared to domestic deals because of additional risks and regulations. 

• Exchange rate movements can change the effective purchase price.
• Approvals may be required from foreign investment or antitrust authorities, which can delay or block a deal.
• Differences in accounting standards and tax rules also play a role, as do cultural and legal challenges that make post-merger integration more difficult.

An earn-out is a provision where part of the purchase price is paid only if the target meets certain performance targets after the deal closes. 

Buyers use them when there is uncertainty about the target’s future performance. They help bridge valuation gaps, reduce the buyer’s upfront risk, and ensure that sellers remain motivated to deliver results. 

Earn-outs are especially common in industries with volatile or hard-to-predict revenues, such as biotech or early-stage technology.

While there are many famous historical examples, several recent deals highlight the risks of overestimating synergies and underestimating integration challenges.

• AT&T–Time Warner (2018): Marketed as a transformative deal to combine distribution with content. The strategy faced regulatory hurdles, poor execution, and eventually led to a spin-off of WarnerMedia to Discovery in 2022, effectively unwinding the merger.
• Microsoft–Nokia (2014): Microsoft acquired Nokia’s handset business to strengthen its mobile presence. The integration failed due to lack of app ecosystem support and competition from Apple and Android, leading to a near-total write-off by 2015.
• Kraft Heinz–Unilever (attempted in 2017): The proposed $143B deal collapsed quickly after resistance from Unilever’s management and stakeholders. Even though not completed, it showed the dangers of cultural mismatch and aggressive cost-cutting strategies.
• Tesco–Booker (2018, UK grocery/wholesale): While not a complete failure, integration has been slower and synergies less impactful than promised, illustrating how difficult it is to deliver on revenue synergy assumptions in low-margin sectors.
• Broadcom–Qualcomm (blocked in 2018): Not a failure of integration but of execution — US regulators blocked the $117B takeover on national security grounds, showing that geopolitical and regulatory risks can destroy deals before they close.