Personal Finance. Money. Investing.
Updated at 16:56

Jason Varney, Corporate Partner at Thomson Snell & Passmore LLP, explores some of the most useful funding sources for business acquisitions.

Although pursuing an M&A transaction may not currently be on every company’s “key priorities” list given the current economic uncertainty as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, such times do inevitably bring about a number of consolidation opportunities – whether that be as a result of a company insolvency and subsequent fire sale of its business and assets, or through the need to take better advantage of economies of scale by merging two similar businesses.

Whatever the reason behind the proposed business acquisition, a share or business purchase agreement is unlikely to be touched by ink until the acquirer has secured acquisition finance.

There are numerous ways that an acquiring company can secure funding for a business purchase, but the key sources we tend to see in our M&A and finance practice are as follows:

Cash reserves

As the old saying goes, “cash is king" – and this is still the case when acquiring a business. Although the vendor of said business will likely, if well advised, require evidence proving the availability of cash reserves to fund the acquisition before signing any documentation; the fact that third party funders do not need to be involved in the acquisition itself means that this is by far the simplest way to fund an M&A transaction.

As the old saying goes, “cash is king" – and this is still the case when acquiring a business.

Debt finance

Debt finance comes in a variety of forms but in essence it involves the borrowing of money and paying it back with interest. The issues to consider when entering the market for acquisition finance are what debt products are available and what is affordable for your business. Incurring debt means providing for the regular expense of loan repayments and will invariably involve a certain amount of control by the financier. In addition, any already existing finance facilities may contain restrictions on further borrowing which may make it difficult to borrow enough money to finance a large acquisition entirely through debt.

Typically cheaper in the long term than issuing equity and advantageous from a tax point of view (as principal and interest repayments are usually tax deductible), issuing debt has many other benefits. Ultimately, the borrower retains control and ownership of its business; once the loan is paid back the borrower’s relationship with the lender ends and the company ceases to be subject to the financier’s restrictions. The lender’s return is fixed, any profit after repayment of debt is for the shareholders.

Depending on the complexity of an acquisition transaction, borrowers may choose the path of incurring senior debt, which typically carries lower interest rates depending on the collateral. Another way of raising finance is issuing bonds or raising mezzanine finance, which is used to fill the missing gap in acquisition finance structures. The riskier a transaction is, the higher the interest rate a lender will typically charge. Interest rates are currently at historic lows, so the cost of borrowing can be low.

Equity finance

A key benefit of raising finance through the issue of further shares in the acquiring company/corporate group (rather than through debt finance, as detailed above), is that in the majority of cases such an investment would not need to be paid back to the relevant investor. The downside, of course, is that the new shareholder(s) will want to see a return on their investment (by way of a preferential dividend, ordinary dividend and/or a capital gain) and most will want some input into the management of the company (whether by way of voting rights or a shareholders’ agreement containing veto rights).


If the newly acquired business which was funded through equity finance is a success, both the existing and the new shareholders are likely to benefit from such success; but it is in situations where such an acquisition fails to provide the benefits that were envisaged (or where the “failed” acquisition starts to put the wider corporate group under financial pressure), that tensions between the investors will start to emerge. In such circumstances, it is imperative to have a detailed shareholders’ agreement in place to manage any disputes between the investors should the company or its group take a turn for the worst.

How best to fund my acquisition? 

Ultimately, the final decision as to how best to fund an acquisition really depends on a number of considerations – such as the market, availability and cost of debt, investor appetite, the company’s current gearing (being the ratio of a company’s debt to its equity), etc.

When considering acquisition funding it would be wise for companies to seek advice not only from lawyers but also, in regards to larger acquisitions, from a corporate finance house; as most companies would benefit from corporate finance input at some stage during their life-cycle.

Global stocks rose on Monday following news of several high-profile mergers and acquisitions, in addition to a statement from AstraZeneca and Oxford University confirming that trials for their prospective COVID-19 vaccine have restarted.

In Europe, the FTSE 100 rose 0.8% as markets opened, with surges of 0.9% reported by the Stoxx 50, CAC 40 and DAX.

US futures also saw a boost, with Nasdaq-100 futures rising by 1.3% in Monday trading, alongside S&P 500 futures at 1.2% and Dow Jones Industrial Average futures at 1%.

The gains follow a week of losses for Wall Street as tech stocks were sold off en masse. The sudden resurgence of investor hopes can be attributed in part to a series of landmark M&A events over the weekend, including Nvidia’s purchase of SoftBank’s Arm Holdings and Oracle’s purchase of TikTok from Chinese parent ByteDance.

“Mergers and acquisitions activity showed there was still a bit of life in the market,” said Russ Mould, investment director of AJ Bell, citing US pharma giant Gilead’s purchase of a cancer specialist for upwards of $20 billion as another significant event.


Also encouraging was the news from AstraZeneca, whose stock fell 6% after news broke last week that its COVID-19 vaccine trials had been halted in response to a patient reportedly developing a rare spinal inflammation. Currently, only UK trials have been resumed.

“The Company will continue to work with health authorities across the world and be guided as to when other clinical trials can resume to provide the vaccine broadly, equitably and at no profit during this pandemic,” AstraZeneca spokesperson Michele Meixell wrote in an emailed statement.

Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, Japan’s largest pharmaceuticals firm, announced on Monday that it would sell its Japan-side consumer healthcare business to US private equity company Blackstone Group Limited.

Takeda has been selling its over-the-counter assets in several nations in a bid to refocus its business towards the development of new drugs and reducing the debt it acquired from its $59 billion purchase of Shire Plc in 2019.

During an online briefing, Takeda chief executive Christophe Weber said that the company had decided to sell its Japanese consumer business unit due to the difficulty of continuing to invest in OTC businesses while keeping this new focus.

“My responsibility is to make sure that we don’t destroy value (for OTC businesses) but create value, and to create value we need to grow businesses and it’s not good to keep business and not invest sufficiently into that,” the CEO said.

Takeda stated that the proceeds from the sale of Takeda Consumer Healthcare Company would add 108 billion yen to its net profit, and that it expected the transaction to close by 31 March.


Blackstone outbid competition from Japanese pharmaceutical group Taisho and other private equity companies to acquire TCHC. In a statement, the company said that the purchase would be its second acquisition in Japan after acquiring Ayumi Pharmaceutical Corp in a $1 billion deal in March 2019.

This new purchase will give Blackstone control over TCHC’s Alinamin line of energy drinks and vitamin supplements, and its Benza Block cold medicine.

 Though it’s exciting to think about the additional efficiencies your business will gain in absorbing or being absorbed by another company – such as increased capital, wider market reach, economies of scale in production and manufacturing, increased technological capacity, and more – it is important to get to know the company you are merging with first. You want to make sure that it’s a safe and sound transaction, and mutually advantageous to both parties. You wouldn’t want to get married to a person with skeletons in the closet, after all.

The following two tenets are probably the most important things to consider when talks of a merger are in the works.

1. Ask yourself the question: are your businesses a good fit? Why?

How would partnering with each other improve your brand equity, as well as your bottom line? Here, you get to kill two birds with one stone. The first job is to assess how reputable the partner company is deemed by the general public. Would partnering with them align with your company’s values and ethos? Will you still be regarded by the market as the honourable enterprise you have always been seen as, or maybe even improve how you are perceived? Do the brands banding together create the image you have always wanted to be seen by your customers?

Also, will the combination of your businesses increase efficiency overall? Will it contribute to an improvement of your business? Will it be a boost to the company’s overall profitability? Answering these questions in a positive way are the basic and most important concerns you need to cover from the beginning.

2. Take into account all the objective financial considerations.

Of course, there are a lot of figures that need to be studied when getting into a merger. Basically, you have to make sure that a company’s assets, liabilities, and equity are all that they declare them to be. Make sure that assets standings are accurate, are not over declared, major capital investments such as equipment or real estate values are declared as well as corresponding depreciation and amortization for these, not to mention other deeds, title policies, and permits.


Liabilities are also very important to consider. Make sure you have a detailed schedule of all short and long term debt, a full list of creditors and suppliers, corresponding terms and interest rates, and most importantly, the company’s current standing in terms of ability to pay these creditors.

These details can be pretty tedious; so it is wise to hire the appropriate accountants, lawyers, and due diligence companies such as Diligence International Group. It may be an expense for you up front, but it should be seen as an investment – it is better to have all important details ironed out in the beginning before getting into any binding contracts.

These two are probably the two basic pillars in assessing and properly evaluating your merger. The rest may fall under these two categories, such as company culture and corresponding effects on your human resource team, their corporate social responsibility and environmental sustainability practices, patents and other intellectual property concerns, among others.

Activity was particularly subdued in the difficult to interpret third quarter of the year, when USD 622.2bn worth of deals were struck globally, down 21.2% on 3Q18 (USD 789.7bn) and with 1,164 fewer deals than last year.

The US market, which had so far seemed immune to the global downward trend at play since the middle of last year, is starting to be impacted. At USD 262.9bn in 3Q19, US M&A is down 32.1% on 3Q18 (USD 387.1bn). Worth USD 1.25tn YTD, US M&A is still marginally up on the same period last year (USD 1.23tn), just about retaining a 50% share of global M&A activity, down from 52.5% in 1H19. Marred by the trade and tech war between Washington and Beijing and persistent political instability in Hong Kong, YTD M&A activity in Asia is down 26.5% over last year to USD 417.2bn.

Despite a small recovery over the summer, European M&A remains 29.4% lower compared to the same period last year, as a weakening European economy and geopolitical tensions continue to dampen activity. However, London Stock Exchange’s USD 27bn acquisition of US-based financial data provider Refinitiv, the largest deal globally in 3Q19, exemplifies the strength of European outbound M&A, which at USD 187.1bn is up more than 20% on last year and at its highest YTD level since 2016.

Beranger Guille, Global Editorial Analytics Director at Mergermarket commented: “Whether they are motivated by the desire to get more growth, or a way to secure future survival, deals are getting larger. On the back of the longest equity bull market in history, and amid persistently low interest rates, corporates have ample cash reserves and appealing debt financing options at their disposal to pursue M&A. This context and the growing feeling that it will not last forever are pushing valuations up.”

Based in northern Israeli town Yokneam, ADT develops and produces blades and machinery for the dicing of silicon-based integrated circuits, package singulation, and hard material microelectronic components. The company, which employs around 100 people worldwide, was founded in 2003 by a group of private investors who bought the dicing equipment and blade divisions of Singapore-based semiconductor company Kulicke and Soffa Industries Inc.

Tel Aviv-based law firm Barnea Jaffa Lande & Co. represented Neng Yang in the deal. ADT was represented by Be’er Sheva-based law firm Tulchinsky Stern Marciano Cohen Levitski & Co.

Tapia, Linares y Alfaro (“Talial”) through Linklaters LLP, London, advised a group of Banks on a high yield bond offering by means of which Blackstone would finance a portion of the acquisition price of Cirsa Gaming Corporation S.A (“Cirsa”). LHMC Finco S.à r.l., a Blackstone special purpose vehicle, has completed a Rule 144A and Regulation S offering of €1.5 billion (equivalent) of euro denominated and dollar denominated Senior Secured Notes.

Talial first assisted the Blackstone Group, through Urina Menendez, London, with multi-jurisdictional legal due diligence regarding Cirsa and a selected number of its direct or indirect subsidiaries. Talial performed legal due diligence on all of Cirsa Gaming Corporation’s Panamanian subsidiaries and assisted Blackstone in obtaining the necessary governmental authorizations and all Panama Law related matters.

Later, Talial was also contacted by Linklaters LLP, London, to advise the group of Banks (initial purchaser) involved in the transaction on Panama Law related matters and the issuance of bonds.

Talial’s  Due Diligence M&A team was led by Fernando A. Linares, with the assistance of  Eloy Alfaro de Alba, both partners of the firm, and other firms’ experts in the corporate, regulatory, labour, taxation, intellectual property, real state and compliance fields, among others. Partners Eloy Alfaro de Alba and Fernando A. Linares also assisted with the financing part of the transaction (bond issue).

Baird Capital, the direct investment arm of Robert W. Baird & Co., announced that it has acquired a majority interest in Collingwood Lighting (“Collingwood”). Collingwood is a leading designer and supplier of residential, commercial and exterior luminaires into the professional refurbishment and new-build markets in the UK and France. Baird Capital Partners James Benfield and Dennis Hall will join the Collingwood board of directors.

Collingwood is headquartered in Northamptonshire, England. The Company’s strong position in its markets is underpinned by its products’ energy efficiency, innovation and quality alongside the high levels of service the company provides its longstanding customer base.

“We are delighted to bring Collingwood into the Baird Portfolio. Its high quality products fit well with our energy efficient products strategy and our global portfolio resources are well positioned to help expand the business and optimise its global supply chain. Collingwood is committed to continue to invest in innovation and technology as lighting maintains its central position within intelligent and connected built infrastructure”, said James Benfield, Baird Capital Managing Director.

Steve Grao, Collingwood CEO commented: “We are excited to work alongside Baird Capital. Their culture is a strong fit with Collingwood and their expertise and global resources will be invaluable as we focus on driving future innovation and growth”.

Humatica provided organisational due diligence services for this transaction.


Interview with Patrick Mina, Managing Partner, Humatica

Can you tell us about Humatica’s involvement in the transaction?

We conducted an organisational due diligence which identified the key organisational bottlenecks for Collingwood to take on and execute a significantly more aggressive growth plan and adapt to a faster paced, numbers focused private equity environment.

What was your specific role?

Humatica has been conducting organisational assessments over the past 15 years and built up a proprietary database of behaviours and management processes that drive accelerated value growth. These are tested in structured interviews with management team members using a maturity model i.e. what good looks like for a company at that stage of evolution, in that type of industry, with that type of value creation plan. We also use targeted data analysis from the data room and other sources, psychometric assessments (where feasible) and deal team interactions to gain further insights.

Based on this approach, we identified to what extent the current “baseline” operating model, management and operational processes were scalable and, at a sufficient level, not to have to spend a disproportionate amount of time initially fixing the basics versus growing the business. We also identified the support the management team might need in identifying required organisational changes to their operating model, management and operational processes to deliver the value creation plan on or ahead of time. This involved highlighting any potential skill and behavioural gaps that the management team would need to address to operate as a high performing team on an ongoing basis in the context of an ambitious growth plan.

What were some of the key challenges you faced and how did you overcome them?

We weren’t faced with any challenges apart from some initial scepticism from the portfolio company as to the purpose of our organisational due diligence. This was however allayed once it became clear we were focused on identifying potential bottlenecks and ways to address these to enable them to successfully deliver the value creation plan on time.

A decade on from the great financial crisis and the fall of Lehman Brothers and Europe’s financial services is the only sector not to have returned to pre-crash levels. Below Finance Monthly hears some expert commentary from Beranger Guille, Global Editorial Analytics Director at Mergermarket, an Acuris Group company, on the current state of European M&A in the Financial services sector.

Despite an appetite for large-scale banking mergers and an eagerness to create pan-European banks capable of challenging rivals across the Atlantic, Europe still operates under strict rules that have so far prevented such merger ideas from materialising.

Between 2006 – 2008, Europe saw a total €607.9bn change hands across 1,592 deals. Since 2016 to date, activity remains still nowhere near these pre-crisis levels, with a mere €221.1bn traded over 1,251 deals and a spectacular absence of mega-deals that were once a prominent fixture in the build up to last financial crisis.

10 years later

A decade on from the crash, regulators continue to introduce new rules on top of what is already a very comprehensive rulebook. Basel III and Solvency II: the first ever set of rules on liquidity, placed a robust set of capital requirements on banks and insurers, with additional process still not complete. The capital conversation buffer, which ensures banks build up capital reserves to weather losses incurred during downturns, will take effect on 1 January 2019. In 2013, The European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR) drove the centralised clearing of derivatives and promoted robust reporting requirements to trade repositories. While most recently, the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II) and Central Securities Depositories Regulation (CSDR) has pushed more transactions to occur on exchanges to improve transparency and the overall efficiency and safety of securities settlement.

In the build up to the crash, Italian lender Unicredit conducted a string of mergers between 1998 – 2006, while Royal Bank of Scotland spent €71.1bn acquiring Dutch lender ABN Amro on the eve of disaster. Both left shareholders and taxpayers alike reeling from heavy losses.

The current situation

Today, mega-mergers are once more mooted with cross-border deal discussions between Unicredit and Société Générale reportedly taking place. However, “there is nothing on the table,” according to France’s Minster of the Economy and Finance, Bruno Le Maire.

There is also talk of potential national mergers afoot. In the UK, Barclays chairman John McFarlane is eager to do a deal with Standard Chartered, while German lenders Deutsche Bank and mull a merger of their own.

But, despite an apparent eagerness to get deals done, there is a lot of cold water that investors and analysts are only too quick to pour on such tie-ups.

There is a lack of strategic rationale behind a Barclays-Standard Chartered deal, with two banks having little to no geographical overlap, with the former boasting strong ties in the UK and US and the latter firmly focused on emerging markets in the Asia and Africa. Meanwhile, discussions between Deutsche Bank and Commerzbank certainly offer a stronger rationale, but it should not be forgotten that Deutsche Bank launched a €8bn rights issue – its fifth capital hike since the crash – to plug holes that continue to leak.

A political climate

Given the political environment in the EU, and that there is a degree of nationalism when it comes to banks, large-scale cross-border deals look anything but likely. Two years ago, Swedish lender Nordea made an approach to acquire ABN Amro but had its offer slapped down by the Dutch government. Some bankers were even brazen enough to pitch a merger between Barclays and Santander. Cross-border European deals for the time being at least seem off the table, but domestic mergers could provide dealmakers something to chew on.

The timing of renewed merger talks is interesting, with the next cyclical downturn expected to come to bear in the next two years.

Calls for consolidation amid so much uncertainty is cause for concern, but desperate times lend themselves to management contemplating desperate measures. Weak profitability is putting pressure on banks to take action at a time when big tech, fintech and alternative lenders threaten to grab market share. And while the appeal of cross-border mergers may provide a boost to the sector's profitability, bigger banks, history tells us, are not necessarily healthier banks.

To hear about valuations and middle market M&A, Finance Monthly reached out to the experts at IBG Business.

IBG Business exists to bring merger and acquisitions skills, resources and knowledge to middle market business owners selling (or buying) businesses. “The firm is defined by its expertise, character and commitment to delivering exceptional results”, says IBG Oklahoma Managing Partner and Principal John Johnson. “Our team brings extensive background, robust training and deep resources to each deal. Time and again, the precise execution of our refined professional process has yielded maximum value under optimal terms and timing for our clients.”

Owners should seek professional help prior to selling a business or planning an eventual exit. IBG Denver Managing Partner and Principal, John Zayac, explains the complexities sellers face: “Price is often a starting point in the discussion, a common marker for value. However, it is only the tip of the iceberg. Price is predicated on a complex foundation of components including shifting responsibilities for risk, tax treatment and intangible values, all of which may move dramatically as a sale is negotiated”. Regarding the question “What is my business really worth?” Gary Papay, IBG Pennsylvania Managing Partner, also asks “And why?  Knowing the reasons underlying the value of a business can reveal value-enhancing improvements or set up better initial positioning of deal terms.”

Casual opinions of what a business is worth are as abundant as sparrows. Those opining rarely have knowledge of the particulars of the business, the deal terms, an understanding of the sector or any transaction expertise. All are imperative to formulating a competent view on value. Sellers often reach out to valuation specialists for a fair market value opinion, but these regimented, theoretical valuations - while an improvement on sparrows - are better suited to litigation, divorce, or estate planning.

The most useful guidance for prospective sellers will combine sophisticated appraisal techniques with recent ‘boots on the ground’ experience on actual transactions. A market-informed opinion of the value of a business will gauge how potential buyers might respond to its sale. The opinion should provide a range of values, articulate what factors underlie the opinion, and comment on possible impacts of different deal structures. Strategies to minimise obstacles and enhance value may be offered.

Seasoned mergers & acquisitions advisers can also expertly evaluate and manage the nuances and practicalities that arise in the ‘real world’. In any transaction, the buyer and seller have opposing goals: each seeks to best serve their own interests but must ultimately acquiesce in some part to the other while retaining sufficient benefit for themselves. The odds of success in this process dramatically improve when it is proactively managed by a seasoned professional who can keep polarising realities within a cooperative framework. The parties will also be more likely to work well together post-close.

Pre-sale valuation work and pro-active management of transactions are key, but subtle dynamics and market factors unique to a deal can also be vital determinants of value. IBG Arizona’s Principal and Managing Partner Jim Afinowich and Managing Director Bruce Black recently worked on a deal that perfectly illustrates such market dynamics. The client’s firm, a niche food manufacturer, initially might have had a competent fair market value of around $20M. IBG perceived growing demand in the industry vertical, and thought an opportunity existed with the evolving market dynamics. They advised the client to decline early offers and to continue to build value in the business. Improve it did, but IBG’s “read” on the market and recommendation on timing made a tremendous impact for the client:  a buyer seeking market control and expansion in the vertical ultimately out-bid several competitors to buy the company for the cash price of $120M. While such extreme opportunities are uncommon, the “savvy” of a seasoned dealmaker can radically impact what is already one of the biggest financial events in the lifetime of a business owner.

Business owners must understand optimal timing and valuation complexities prior to any sale. Today, demand remains robust for quality middle market businesses and valuations are still excellent, but a cooling in the market is anticipated. Active mergers and acquisition broker and advisory firms prepared to assess opportunities with a ‘real-time’ read on transaction market remain the most vital resource for owners seeking to sell for top value.


Contact details:



Direct: 480 327-6610

Main: 480 421-9789

Fax: 602-792-3811


Finance Monthly speaks with former tech entrepreneur Gary Moon, who turned tech investment banker 16 years ago. He is currently the Managing Partner of the boutique investment bank Nfluence Partners, which focuses on M&A and capital formation advisory across various technology, media & telecom sectors, as well as having a new growth capital fund for mission-aligned businesses.


What challenges arise in advising clients on their M&A strategy given the fluctuating nature of the sector?

If you are not active in the market across a significant number of assignments, it can be difficult to understand the nuances of what drives buyer behavior in various technology sectors where valuations can range from < 1x revenues to > 16x revenues. You need strong historical understanding and pattern recognition on how technology adoption cycles impact M&A. With the lack of an IPO market, consolidation of middle market companies by the tech elites and significant increases in private equity activity in the tech sector, the dynamics of what attracts various buyers and the valuations that they will pay shift regularly as well.


What have been the trends in the corporate M&A sector in the US in the past twelve months?

Over the past year, we’ve noticed that strategic acquirers are more selective and require a higher degree of strategic value to transact. The long-term trend of pursuing companies of more meaningful scale has continued, while a mix of deal consideration to ensure management continue for several years post-acquisition is also increasing.


What issues can bring a deal to a standstill? How would you overcome these?

The biggest and most common issue is missing revenue forecasts. While one can be optimistic, it is more important to have a realistic set of projections that can be delivered within a few percentage points of accuracy. The other common mistake for companies that are not well advised is not getting in front of bad news. Diligence teams are thorough and you can count on them to find any outstanding issues. Better to deal with them up front than to have a surprise as you are trying to close a transaction. Otherwise, not only will you have to deal with the issue, but you’ll also have to deal with the breakdown of trust given the lack of disclosure.


What advice would you give to a company considering a potential merger or an acquisition?

Make sure that the most likely companies to acquire you know who you are in advance through partnership or other market-based activity. The majority of transactions happen between companies that know each other in advance. It also provides you potential competitors in the sale process, as you do not want to be in a position where you are only negotiating with a single party for your acquisition.


What are the companies that Nfluence works with?

We work with expansion and growth stage companies across a number of sectors within TMT including both venture ecosystem and entrepreneurially financed. We are also excited about working with growth stage companies in the purpose economy - mission-aligned and/or impact-driven. These companies tend to have unique requirements from capital formation to acquisition and liquidity and we are spending a lot of time working in and developing this ecosystem.


About Gary Moon & Nfluence:

Spun out in 2018, Nfluence was originally founded in 2011 as the Technology, Media & Telecom (TMT) group at Headwaters MB. Gary Moon and his partners built Headwaters into a top 10 technology-focused boutique investment bank ranked by closed transactions in 2017. Over the past 12 years, Gary and the senior team at Nfluence have managed the completion of nearly 200 transactions, repeatedly demonstrating tenacity, creativity and effectiveness on behalf of their clients. Gary has been a strategic and financial adviser to numerous technology and growth firms and has extensive experience with both institutionally financed and founder financed ventures. Gary has advised on client exits to such prominent companies as AT&T, Cisco, Equifax, Microsoft, Nuance, Tyco International and WeWork, and has helped firms raise growth capital and complete private equity recapitalizations from name brand institutional investors.

Prior to joining Headwaters, Gary was the Managing Director of Europe for Ridgecrest Capital Partners, a boutique investment bank focused on technology mergers & acquisitions. In this capacity, Gary led the efforts of the firm in growing the European practice which ultimately comprised a significant percentage firm’s revenues. Prior to joining Ridgecrest, Gary led the Mobile, Wireless and Communications Technology practices for Viant Capital, a boutique investment bank in San Francisco. Prior to embarking on his advisory career, Gary was the founder and CEO of Luna Communications, a North American focused wireless systems integration firm. Luna Communications was sold to a publicly traded competitor, where Gary became the CTO and Managing Director of Client Services.



Billions lost, reputations ruined and company's that never recover. Business can be unforgiving. Saying yes to the wrong idea can lose you and your company millions or even result in bankruptcy and the demise of a business. So you have to make sure that the decisions you make are correct. But sometimes businesses get it very, very wrong, with disastrous consequences. So what are the worst decisions ever made in business history?

Welcome to Finance Monthly's video countdown of the Top 10 Worst Business Decisions in History. We examine the 10 most catastrophic choices made by companies ever and the effect each of these. Every one of the mergers, or new business ideas in the video above resulted in severe consequences for the parties involved, whether it be huge financial losses or reputational damage. In some cases, it was the reluctance to see a glittering opportunity in front of their own own eyes that led to the eventual demise of some of the industry's heaviest hitters. From Apple and Coca-Cola to Star Wars, we explore the business decisions that have cost companies and businessmen millions.

So sit back and enjoy our video highlighting the 10 worst business decisions ever made.

Have we missed any disastrous decisions that cost companies millions? Let us know in the comments below.

About Finance Monthly

Universal Media logo
Finance Monthly is a comprehensive website tailored for individuals seeking insights into the world of consumer finance and money management. It offers news, commentary, and in-depth analysis on topics crucial to personal financial management and decision-making. Whether you're interested in budgeting, investing, or understanding market trends, Finance Monthly provides valuable information to help you navigate the financial aspects of everyday life.
© 2024 Finance Monthly - All Rights Reserved.
News Illustration

Get our free weekly FM email

Subscribe to Finance Monthly and Get the Latest Finance News, Opinion and Insight Direct to you every week.
chevron-right-circle linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram