Quote

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

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.

The merger mania which goes on and on and on is the sign of the disappearance of competition. As we deregulate, the mergers increase, which means there's less and less competition. At the national level, at the regional level, but also at the international level.

We get talent and scale from mergers.

A merger is hard to pull off under any circumstances. It's harder when everybody is against you.

We continue to look at accretive and synergistic acquisitions both in the domestic as well as international markets. Our emphasis, thus, will be on strategic acquisitions, and we will not be doing it just for the sake of making our name bigger.

Well, you would have to say what is the criteria to determine the success of any merger? It would have to be that the companies are stronger financially, that they took market share, and they are on a very steady footing in terms of their performance.

Every single time you make a merger, somebody is losing his identity. And saying something different is just rubbish.

What if the slowdown in merger activity isn't cyclical, but secular? What if corporations have learned the lessons of so many companies before them that the odds of a successful merger are no better than 50-50 and probably less? Is it possible that the biggest deals have already been done?