An acquisition or the post-investment phase

Behind an acquisition decision there is usually a logic that makes the transaction make sense. Better procurement. Shared distribution. New customers. New products. Fewer duplicated costs. Access to technology or a market the buyer lacks. All of it goes into the numbers. Revenue. EBITDA. Synergies. Future growth. Return on investment. And it is on those assumptions that the decision was made about what the company is worth and what it makes sense to pay for it.

But once the contract is signed, Excel is no longer enough. Those assumptions now have to be turned into a real result. And that is where things often get much more complicated.

So the problem is not unusual. A transaction can be well structured and successfully closed. And then part of the expected value is lost in delivery.

At the same time, two organisations, two ways of working, two systems and often two different cultures have to be brought together. That is where the real challenge starts.

But after a few months it becomes hard to answer a very simple question: how much of the value we made the acquisition for have we actually captured so far? That is where the difference between integrating a company and realising an investment shows. They are not necessarily the same thing.

Suppose the acquisition case estimated that joint procurement could bring a million euros of annual savings. On paper that looks great and completely clear. But after the transaction someone has to decide which suppliers stay, who leads the negotiations, when contracts expire, whether material specifications match, and when the saving will actually show up in the P&L. Suddenly a single number from the investment case becomes a series of very concrete business decisions. And each of them needs someone who is accountable for it.

But practice can quickly show something else. Company B's customers may not need that product at all. The sales team may lack the knowledge, the interest or the motivation to sell it actively. Pricing policy may not be aligned. The product may need a different channel, a different way of selling or different commercial support. And then a synergy that looked almost automatic in the investment model becomes a new business task in practice.

Recognising a synergy is not enough. It has to be turned into a concrete result.

If the planned synergy is a million euros a year, it is not the same whether it arrives six months after the acquisition or after three years.

That makes the post-investment phase perhaps the single most decisive period for whether the investment logic behind the transaction becomes reality.

Management has to run the ongoing business and deliver the change at the same time. It cannot neglect customers, production or its best people because an integration is under way. Nor can it let competitors take advantage of a period of internal confusion.

How do we capture the value the transaction was made for without losing the value of the business we already have?

The transaction price says what was paid for the company. Only the result afterwards shows what that investment was really worth.