|
North Central Illinois | Not necessarily. One of the goals of a properly executed merger is to gain efficiencies and part of that is cutting people costs. If two similar companies merge they do not need two sets of upper management. If both sets of upper management are brought on board at the same or higher salaries it kind of sets the tone for how the merger will go moving forward. There are a few mergers that have made sense and served the patrons well. Unfortunately there are many that have gotten bogged down in bureaucracy and have not served their patrons well. It is getting tough for companies both small and large to make money with compressed margins the past few years. Getting bigger doesn't necessarily help with that problem. I think sometimes there are good reasons for mergers and other times these things are driven by someone with an interest other than that of the patrons/owners. Remember this. You are the owners of these companies. If you truly think a proposed merger is not in the best interests of those who own the companies, get out and work against it. It isn't easy and requires a lot of work but I have seen these mergers be defeated. Find out how a company's members vote their stock and what it takes as a percentage to stop a merger. Then you have a target. The rest it is doing your homework and having your facts straight. Start knocking on doors or making appointments to talk to share holders about why this is a bad idea. It can be done but it isn't easy. | |
|
Max Yield/New Coop “unification” study
