Example collocations logo

Mergers in sentence

127 examples of Mergers in a sentence

No 10-year-old goes to law school to do mergers and acquisitions.
Again, whether we're talking health policy, education, environment, energy, litigation, mergers, all of these are complicated problems that are predictable, that this sort of technology can be applied to.
Unfortunately, the science is probably closer to being climatology in that in many cases, very, very small changes can have disproportionately huge effects, and equally, vast areas of activity, enormous mergers, can actually accomplish absolutely bugger-all.
The OECD concurs, and has frequently called on authorities to address “anti-competitive mergers, abuse of dominance, cartels and price fixing, vertical restraints, and exclusive practices” in the food sector.
Unless the regulated financial system is systematically audited, with weak entities stabilized through capital injections, asset purchases, or mergers, or liquidated quickly, the overhang of distressed institutions will persist, constraining lending.
Although such restructuring so far often takes the form of mergers and bankruptcy, a great many SOEs have been converted into some kind of share-holding corporations, with the majority of shares held by workers in the firms.
The problem is that the French government is barred from doing this under an EU directive that it signed last year, which was specifically introduced to improve transparency in banking mergers.
After Italy’s former central bank governor, Antonio Fazio, flagrantly abused his position to block a takeover of an Italian bank by ABN Amro, member countries agreed that future mergers would be assessed on five objective criteria, the idea being to prevent governments from blocking foreign bids purely for protectionist reasons.
Noyer’s diplomatic skill certainly will be put to the test if he has to navigate the treacherous waters between the Scylla of French protectionism and the Charybdis of the EU’s five criteria for bank mergers.
Foreign bank mergers have proved poisonous for euro-zone central bankers.
Thanks to the trillions of dollars of liquidity that major central banks have pumped in to the global economy over the past decade, asset markets have rebounded, company mergers have gone into overdrive, and stock buybacks have become a benchmark of managerial acumen.
Many mergers and acquisitions require the president’s personal approval.
Cross-border mergers and acquisitions are likely to continue apace once the current market turbulence is over, further increasing the likelihood of a major cross-border banking crisis.
Having previously supported Chinese investment abroad, they are now blocking outbound mergers and acquisitions to keep domestic companies from exporting capital.
That’s one reason why mergers and acquisitions are increasingly common (and why some observers see M&As as the new R&D).
If these banks also have a commercial bank division, they may have an incentive to maintain credit lines beyond a prudent level, because to cut such lines would put at risk high potential future revenues from mergers and acquisitions and stock and bond issues.
But there also seems to be a bit of a reaction against the “new kids on the block,” namely multinational enterprises from emerging markets, especially when these are state-owned and seek to enter the US market through mergers and acquisitions.
A back-of-the-envelope calculation of mine in 2007 suggested that the world paid financial institutions roughly $800 billion every year for mergers and acquisitions that yielded about $170 billion of real economic value.
The central bank stands in the way of cross border financial mergers; union bosses stand in the way of free choice for workers; business leaders have too much to gain from the State to see their interest in rocking the boat.
Once a bank had the 10% capital, it could neither be stopped from key mergers nor be determined to be systemically important and risky.
In a quest for economies of scale and a strategic repositioning of facilities in order to survive in a world of fast growing competitive pressures, globalization adds to the process of corporate restructuring, mergers, and acquisitions.
For starters, a decline in investment during the deflationary period – together with firm closures, mergers, and acquisitions – reduced overcapacity, clearing the way for investment to rebound strongly in 2002.
At this point, the authorities could eliminate overcapacity through firm closures, mergers and acquisitions, and other structural measures.
Indeed, an increasing number of firms have started to deploy the massive stocks of cash held on their balance sheets, first to increase dividends and buy back shares, and then to pursue mergers and acquisitions at a rate last seen in 2007.
FDI in developed countries (and increasingly in emerging markets) often takes the form of cross-border mergers and acquisitions (M&A’s).
It would also oversee mergers and acquisitions in the education sector, establish its own private-equity and venture-capital education investment funds, and operate as a fund of funds.
With this in mind, policymakers began to dismantle the economic rules and regulations that had been implemented after the Great Depression, and encouraged vertical and horizontal mergers.
Its scale is staggering: more than $4 trillion of mergers and acquisitions this year, with tradable and (theoretically) liquid financial assets reaching perhaps $160 trillion by the end of this year, all in a world where annual global GDP is perhaps $50 trillion.
Consider the $4 trillion of mergers and acquisitions this year, as companies acquire and spin off branches and divisions in the hope of gaining synergies or market power or better management.
The traditional Chinese investment model – mergers and acquisitions – is no longer appropriate, because concentrated M&A activity entails tremendous risk.
Next