A Quote by Robert Rinder

I propose that matchmaking should be approached like a corporate business venture. It can be risky, but I have discovered that the potential profits from acquisitions and mergers cannot be underestimated.
Much of what is called investment is actually nothing more than mergers and acquisitions, and of course mergers and acquisitions are generally accompanied by downsizing.
Most corporate name changes are the result of mergers and acquisitions. But these tend to be unimaginative.
Something out of the ordinary course of business is taking place that creates an investment opportunity. The list of corporate events that can result in big profits for you runs the gamut—spinoffs, mergers, restructurings, rights offerings, bankruptcies, liquidations, asset sales, distributions.
Mergers and acquisitions, we are always looking for that.
How do you make money? Spinoffs, split-ups, liquidations, mergers and acquisitions.
When you buy enough stocks to give you control of a target company, that's called mergers and acquisitions or corporate raiding. Hedge funds have been doing this, as well as corporate financial managers. With borrowed money you can take over or raid a foreign company too. So, you're having a monopolistic consolidation process that's pushed up the market, because in order to buy a company or arrange a merger, you have to offer more than the going stock-market price. You have to convince existing holders of a stock to sell out to you by paying them more than they'd otherwise get.
Don't you know what marriage means in this world? They are mergers and acquisitions disguised as marriages. In other words, the takeover syndromes.
It's such a nice change to get to play a wretched, shallow, mergers-and-acquisitions woman. My true colors come out.
Part of America's industrial problems is the aim of its corporate managers. Most American executives think they are in the business to make money, rather than products or service. The Japanese corporate credo, on the other hand, is that a company should become the world's most efficient provider of whatever product and service it offers. Once it becomes the world leader and continues to offer good products, profits follow.
Wal-Mart does not do big mergers, though it will buy much smaller competitors in so-called 'tuck-in acquisitions.'
The big-business mergers and the big-labour mergers have the appearance of dinosaurs mating.
Some people would argue the other side: that the business of business is business, and companies should only be focused on profits. But in today's world, I don't think corporations can only be focused on profits, because they are inextricably linked with the communities that they serve. I do not believe you can be a leader in your industry without being a leader in your community. It's a fundamental shift in how you think about business.
I have targets for business achievements; I do not have targets for acquisitions. Because if you have targets for acquisitions, you end up making compromises in terms of valuations, and you buy things because you have a target, and it is not good for business.
I mean look at all these acquisitions and mergers - WhatsApp and Oculus and et cetera. There's no way that you can envision these tech companies as the underdog anymore. They're always presented as though they were these little guys who you should be championing - Facebook will overthrow the cable television complex, blah blah - but it's more likely they will merge with them.
Ours is a system of corporate socialism, where companies capitalize their profits and socialize their losses…in effect, they tax you for their accidents, bungling, boondoggles, and mismanagement, just like a government. We should be able to deselect them.
As president, I will appoint tough, independent authorities to strengthen anti-trust enforcement and really scrutinize mergers and acquisitions, so the big don't keep getting bigger and bigger.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!