Barron’s has some interesting data points on deal activity in 2010:

• 1,701: volume of deals in the first half, about stable with the like period in 2009

• $362 billion: total value of deals in the first half

• 8.7%: rise in first-half deal value from the 2009 period

• $41.6 billion: value of private-equity exits in the period, versus $35 billion in all of 2009

All data via Mergermarket and Merrill DataSite.

Category: M&A

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

5 Responses to “2010 M&A by the Numbers (1H)”

  1. rktbrkr says:

    NYT:Small investors flee the stock market
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/business/22invest.html

  2. Chief Tomahawk says:

    Still have yet to get this question answered:

    During the recent financial crisis, things are so troubled at Goldman Sachs they have to call Warren Buffet because they were caught swimming without their shorts. Buffet, much maligned by the jockeys for missing out on the tech boom and then lackluster returns (2006-2007-ish?), gives Goldman a cash infusion (after receiving guarantees from the government) in a sweethart deal for Berkshire Hathway. My question is this, why did he risk exposure to Goldman’s ills rather than launch his own investment bank? He could’ve infused it with cash, it would’ve had clean books, little or no exposure to the bad paper clogging up the system, etc.? Further, he could’ve picked up/recruited the best talent on Wall St. to run it (seeing as how most of those folks would be out looking for work.) In a bubble burst environment, cash would indeed be king and Berkshire could’ve done a ton of M&A to enrich themselves and their shareholders.

  3. Greg0658 says:

    “why risk exposure to Goldman’s ills rather than launch his own ___” .. I could come off with some half baked Wiki-molester concept and risk jail until proven innocent or if I had some goods be rest assured … but .. out here in the forest and the subject needin investigation before spoutin .. I’ll be vigilant cute and watch this all go down because its really over my head .. care is near burnt

  4. [...] M&A thus far in 2010, by the numbers.  (TBP) [...]

  5. kaleberg says:

    I’m amazed at how little M&A is going on. After all, companies have lots of cash on hand and good cash flow. Meanwhile interest rates are incredibly low. Why not borrow at a pittance, pay down the loan with the cash and finance the rest with the cash flow. You can liquidate assets and fire people as needed to keep the numbers in line.

    Are the banks scared to lend for such a sure thing?

    Are the M&A guys just getting organized?

    Are too many companies loaded with poison pills?

    It’s sort of like watching pedestrians kicking a $100 bill up and down the street and no one scooping it up.