Roger Altman Quotes

The historical evidence shows that shareholders usually greatly benefit from mergers.

We continue to see acquisitions as an opportunity area for us. It's one of the tools that we use to grow.

Reasonable mergers generate substantial synergies, so that provides for earnings and cash-flow growth even if it doesn't provide for revenue growth, and I think that's a big driver.

We get talent and scale from mergers.

We understand that conglomerates have no future.

Typical mergers happen when there are two competitors coming together, and they reduce overhead.

Private equity firms aren't necessarily evil by definition. There are many stories of successful turnarounds fueled by private equity, often involving multiple floundering businesses that are rolled into a single entity, eliminating duplicative overhead.

If you have six corporate centres, six treasuries, six of everything, and then if you bring it down to one of everything, obviously there are some savings.

M&A is always an opportunistic tool to grow a company.

We have believed at CA that consolidation of this industry is something that was required ten years ago.

Companies buy customers when they cannot win new business on their own. They merge when their executives do not have a better idea of what to do.

Great businesses can be built on scale. I think Amazon has built a phenomenal commerce business largely on scale. Their network effect isn't obvious to me, but boy, have they used scale effectively.

Goodrich is a perfect addition to our Hamilton Sundstrand business. And with a strong portfolio of complementary products, Goodrich also brought great leadership balance, great opportunities to provide more integrated systems.

It's not about revenues: The fundamental economics in digital business is scale and margins. The top line has become the bottom line.

Wal-Mart does not do big mergers, though it will buy much smaller competitors in so-called 'tuck-in acquisitions.'

I'm sure some people will say, 'Why do this?' And my response is, 'Why wouldn't you?' The film business in general is using a model that is outdated and, worse than that, inefficient.

John D. Rockefeller wanted to dominate oil, but Microsoft wants it all, you name it: cable, media, banking, car dealerships.

Americans have made the common sense discovery that it is inefficient for women to bake their own bread and brew their own beer when the lot can be produced more cheaply by the cooperative cooking establishment.

It [a merger] will eliminate the two firms' vigorous competition against each other.

Early consolidation of hospitals was for efficiency to reduce costs. However in local market's consolidations have become monopolies and have increased costs.

Divestitures have long been the preferred remedy for horizontal mergers, where there's an overlap between the two companies. Airlines, for example, may have to sell routes or airport gates where the two airlines compete; cable operators may have to sell operations in cities where both companies operate.

By 2002, I realized that what was classically called a rollup strategy was not generally effective, at least not for me.

I think a lot can be said for consolidation, but I think it should be done for the right reasons.

Speed is the No. 1 thing. Our core competency has been doing exactly this: buying companies and integrating them quickly.

Mergers and acquisitions, we are always looking for that.