“Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards.”

The approach to life suggested by the Danish theologian and philosopher Søren Kierkegaard could, in some way, also be adopted in trying to interpret the evolution and the dynamics of the VC market.

We are far from the figures that characterized VC funding in 2021 and actually 2023 has shown a significant decline in VC commitments, with nearly 70% fewer investments compared to the average of the previous decade, as indicated by a comprehensive analysis of over 10,000 limited partner (LP) commitments to VC in Europe and the U.S. from PitchBook Data.

High-interest rates, uncertainty about the economy due to the geopolitical situation, in particular the Russia-Ukraine war, inflation spiking, and the lingering aftermath of bank failures are among the reasons for this slowdown. These factors have had a deep impact on society, the economy in general, and, obviously, the startup ecosystem too.

As far as Spain is concerned, especially in the last years, the startup ecosystem has been particularly active, attracting significant investment and managing to remain stable even in critical periods such as the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic.

In January 2013, in Spain the Law for the Promotion of the Startup Ecosystem came into effect, encouraging the creation of startups in the country and contributing to a vibrant and robust startup scene.

Homegrown unicorns such as Factorial, Domestika, and TravelPerk, have driven the country to rank 6th in Europe and 16th in the world for total investment raised in 2022.

What does Q4 2023 have in store for the startups’ ecosystem in Spain?

Miguel Arias, General Partner at K Fund and the leader of Leadwind, has shared his views about the Spanish VC scenario. Miguel is positively convinced that Q4 will bring a resurgence of VC in Spain..

The resurgence of VC in Q4

How corporations and tech giants are acquiring startups

A few days ago, I was writing about the possible evolution of financing rounds in Q4 2023, but there’s an interesting effect I didn’t mention. It’s highly possible that we will witness a resurgence of M&As: the acquisition of startups by corporations and tech giants.

Companies with healthy balance sheets and hundreds of millions of dollars in cash will have a significant strategic card to play in the coming months by acquiring startups. Coinciding with the wave of fundraising efforts that will be attempted starting in September, many startups will have no choice but to seek early exits, and corporations will be able to find interesting technologies and strong teams at reasonable costs.

Although it won’t be imaginable to engage in the multiples arbitrage as in past years –where it was possible to buy startup revenues at multiples lower than those of publicly traded companies – the increase in Nasdaq valuations in 2023 (+40%) and, above all, the fact that many investors will want to provide some liquidity to LPs who are a bit more stressed than usual, will shift the negotiation power into the hands of buyers.

The case of scale-ups

Likewise, scale-ups that have raised tens of millions and are encountering some difficulty in maintaining annual growth rates of 2-3x can use part of that cash, or their shares at the last valuation round (effectively using favorable multiples arbitrage) to acquire struggling companies or those without access to funding.

They can also use that cash to make stronger bets on marketing and sales (as long as the business’s unit economics support it and with an eye on profitability) and thus gain market share at a time when many competitors will have to make adjustments. Capital has once again become a strong competitive advantage.

Market maturity 

In Spain, the startup ecosystem has matured by leaps and bounds in the last decade, and Spanish startups, known for their creativity and adaptability, have become attractive targets for large companies and international funds. Acquisitions in the Spanish market offer an entry into a market of not only more than 40 million consumers but also the possibility of serving as a bridge to Latin America.

The return of summer promises to be exciting.

Today, an unfortunate term frequently appearing in the news is the tech layoff, referring to companies making mass firings.

These layoffs are directly related to the global economic crisis, with widespread price inflation and rising interest rates. If you are unfamiliar with those terminologies, I simply refer to the most didactic video I’ve ever seen that explains it in a way that reminds a CBN broadcast.

Going back to the question, what are the roots of the startups’ mass layoffs worldwide?

Less interest and more money in the market do not mean better economy

Many recent events, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, have deeply shaped our world; for tech specifically, I will highlight the following:

So going back to the statement: less interest equals to more money in the market equals more the economy moves. Right? Up to a point, yes. However, a potential side effect of those listed factors is runaway inflation, when prices rise at a rate that dramatically accelerates. 

Prices rise

Let’s look at a hypothetical example, Henrique Tormena Carrot Cake House:

• Before, an average of 50 people bought carrot cake. Next, demand is increasing; now it’s 200 people. In that case, I’m going to increase stocks, buy more raw materials, and hire more people to scale it. But if prices rise, e.g., the carrot is more expensive, I need to “earn more.” So, I need to raise my price too

This type of behavior affects the whole production chain. In tech, it is no different:

• More people are buying our software/app and demand is increasing. I’m going to increase “my stocks,” so let’s hire more people. Are prices going up? Mine will go up too

Startups’ valuations rise 

It is precisely this effect that we’ve seen in the valuation of startups. The price went up. Investments in tech companies have increased considerably. Companies took the opportunity to raise new rounds and make IPOs and follow-ons. The money comes directly via growth plans that include expansions of the current operation, as well as new directions, ranging from:

• Geographic expansion to new cities, regions, countries
• Product expansion, new solutions, and businesses
• Acquisitions (M&A) and investments (CVC) in other startups
• Moving to other models that require an increase in resources and justify the need for capital

In general, in the low-interest scenario, startups have more funds because Venture Capital do too. And Venture Capital has more money because investors have more appetite for risk.

Less interest is equal more money for startups

When interest rates are low, safer investments are less profitable, opening the faucet for riskier investments. Companies then started to receive more money, which was especially marked in Brazil because, historically, the country lived with higher interest rates, and the Venture Capital market is growing as an asset class.

Between 2020 and 2021, we saw a boom in IPOs, venture rounds, and many acquisitions by tech companies. Several funds were founded in this period as well.

But if interest rates rise…

What happens when interest rates increase? Less risky financial market products pay better. Government or large company bonds pegged to interest rates also start to pay better when rates are higher. From an investor’s point of view, this is when your basket of riskier assets starts to look too heavy,  and given that the returns on safer financial products are more attractive, money begins to migrate). In the world of startups, Venture Capital is the primary funding source, mainly private companies, which do not have access to credit with the banks or trade shares on the open market).

A Venture Capital fund also has its investors. And to satisfy these investors,  a venture capital product has to deliver more return because the product’s risk is higher than fixed-income security. In a rising interest rate scenario, Venture Capital needs to deliver even more, which usually means being more diligent with potential investments, and demanding more from startups (better metrics, more capital efficiency). 

The market is not binary. The fund will still invest, but it will be more diligent in the process. The Venture Capital investor will allocate capital but be more diligent. Companies will raise money but must prove that they can adapt to the new conditions. Those willing to step on the accelerator in a low-interest-rate scenario may need to revise their plans.

If a startup is less attractive, does it costs less?

The two charts below show the top 10 US companies in saas/cloud, looking at the company’s market value by projected revenue (also known as a revenue multiple). The one on the left compiles recent data from Nov/2022. The one on the right uses data from mid-Nov/2021.

In short, a year ago, the top 10 companies with the highest revenue multiple traded at an average of 57x their projected revenue. Today, that value is almost 80% lower than it was a year ago.

In essence, a lower valuation means these companies are cheaper (or less expensive). However, it also means that the cost for them to raise capital is higher. It is more difficult and more expensive to bring investment in-house. So, how can they keep the business operating in a cash-burn scenario? Reducing the burning is not just an obvious alternative. It’s often the only one.

In the end, it is necessary to balance the accounts

In our carrot cake example, if the number of people willing to pay R$10 for a carrot cake decreases, I will sell less. On the other hand, how do I keep my business standing with fewer sales? Simply put, I need to have fewer costs.

In tech, the highest costs are personnel, the main expenses in marketing and sales, administration, and research and development related to people – and part of the operating costs too. Layoffs emerge as a (quite tough) alternative to balance the accounts. The reality is that companies don’t get from small startups to big techs like Stripe and Twitter without making tough decisions.

A scenario of 8% inflation means one month less cash burn per year. Macroeconomic scenarios are challenging to predict, but they influence the plans for many production chains, and technology/saas/cloud/I.T. is no different.

This article does not intend to give an opinion on any measure (including layoffs) taken by startups or investors in the technology market. The article also does not reflect scenarios for all startups – but it works as a general reading of the market now.

Despite volatility in the capital markets, IPOs remain one of the fastest and most compelling ways to raise funds.

With the uncertainty of market recovery looming over investors and executives, 2022 has seen a 41% global decrease in IPO volumes and a 57% decrease in IPO values year-over-year.

Considering the current landscape, we will continue to bring you insights as events unfold.

IPO trends 2022

According to Paul Go, the EY global IPO leader, the main IPO trends for 2022 were the following:

• Decrease

There were 992 IPOs raising $146B in proceeds, reflecting decreases of 44% and 57%, respectively, year-over-year.

• Technology sector

The technology sector continued to lead by number, but the average IPO deal size decreased from $261m to $123m.

• Energy sector

The energy sector was the top IPO fund raiser with an average deal size increase of 176%.

• Consumer products sector

Consumer products sector saw a most significant decrease in average deal size of 69%.

• 10 largest IPOs

The 10 largest IPOs by proceeds raised $40B, with energy dominating three of the top four deals.

Compared to 2021, which was a record-breaking year for IPO, 2022 experienced a dramatic slowdown. Here are some fuels and outcomes from such a dramatic decline of the IPO market:

• Skyrocketing inflation

The global inflation surge made central banks hike interest rates and tighten monetary policy.

• Increased volatility

Heightened volatility caused by macroeconomic factors, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and other geopolitical strains decreased IPO activity significantly.

• Lockdowns in China

Dozens of Chinese companies suspended their planned IPOs because of the restrictions and inability to complete due diligence.

• Poor performance of companies that went public in 2021

80% of IPO stocks from 2021 were trading below their offer prices. The return of offerings from 2021 was minus 30%.

• Fall of the SPAC market

The number of IPOs by special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs) decreased to the level of 2016 and 2017.

IPO trends in H1 2022

Let’s take a closer look at the IPO trends of the H1 2022.

General overview 

The global IPO activity in the first half of 2022 was characterized by:

• Geopolitical uncertainty
• Market volatility
• Growing concerns about the rise in prices for commodity and energy

Now let’s focus more on what was happening with public markets and the global IPO activity in Q1 and Q2 separately.

As of Q1 2022, there were 321 IPO deals with $54.4 billion of IPO proceeds raised in total. This is a decline of 37% and 51% respectively compared to the same period in 2021.

Paul Godescribed the IPO sector of Q1 2022 as follows: “A decrease in IPO activity was not unexpected when compared with Q1 2021 as the latter was the most active quarter in the last 21 years. However, the market shock from geopolitical tensions and other economic concerns in the second half of the quarter created volatility and impacted the capital markets.” 

Also, two other important trends emerged in Q1 2022:

• The biggest number of IPOs took place in the technology and materials sectors with 58 deals (18% of global IPOs) in each sector. The total IPO proceeds were estimated at $9.9 billion in the technology sector and $5.9 billion in the materials sector.

•  The energy sector led by proceeds with $12.2 billion.

As of Q2, the IPO sector saw 305 IPOs with $40.6 billion of proceeds in total. This is a 54% and 65% decline compared to the same period in 2021.

There are a few more facts about IPO sectors in Q2 2022 that are worth to mention:

• Many IPO deals were postponed because of increasing market volatility.
• The overall decline in IPO activity was typical for all major markets.
• IPO markets of the Middle East and India demonstrated the best performance. 

Geographical peculiarities

A brief look at the IPO H1 2022 activity around the world across most major markets outlined the following scenario.

Americas

• The Americas market saw the biggest drop in deal numbers: 80% less than the same period in 2021.
• SPAC IPOs represented half of the activity. There were 17 deals and $2.2b of proceeds.
• The finance sector dominated and took up about 35% of all IPOs. It was followed by the health technology sector, which took approximately 20%. 

Asia-Pacific (APAC)

• Almost 50% of all deals in the global IPO market were completed in the Asia-Pacific region, making it the most active worldwide.
• The activity was mainly driven by India and China IPO where over 90% of total Asia-Pacific proceeds took place.
• The most active sectors were biotech, health care, and technology.

Europe

• The European IPO market was largely closed for most issuers. It represented 15% of global IPO deals and 4% of proceeds.
• Italy saw the most activity in IPO as a chemicals company raised $500M by going public. 
• The UK experienced a 71% decline in volume and 99% in proceeds, having 13 IPOs that raised $149M.

The Middle East and North Africa (MENA)

• Despite the tensions in the global economy, the MENA region saw a 500% year-over-year increase in the number of companies going public.
• There were 15 IPOs in Q1 2022 and nine IPOs during Q2 2022 that together raised about $13B.
• UAE and Saudi Arabia dominated IPO activity. UAE experienced its largest IPO in its history with DEWA raising $6.1B.

IPO trends in H2 2022

Below are key highlights of IPO markets in the second half of 2022.

General overview

First, let’s define the main characteristics of H2 2022:

• Strong headwinds such as declining valuation, skyrocketing inflation, the weak performance of capital markets, and geopolitical tensions continued to prevent companies from going public.

• Mainland China and the Middle East were more attractive to investors in comparison with other regions.

• The green energy sector led by proceeds from bigger deals as oil prices were skyrocketing. It made people switch to renewable sources of energy faster.

• The technology sector continued to lead in terms of deal number as more technology companies were looking for platforms that can offer consumers a wider range of services.

• ESG remained a core value for investors and IPO candidates. Companies committing to make the world a better place and incorporating ESG (environmental, social, and corporate governance) values in their culture attract more investors.

A brief analysis of the IPO stock market in Q3 and Q4 of 2022 reveals that, as of Q3 2022, there were 991 IPOs with $146 billion in IPO proceeds raised in total. Among other trends of Q3 2022 are the following: 

• Market uncertainty

IPO investors and companies were facing market uncertainty, macroeconomic challenges, increased market volatility, and falling global equity prices.

• Market volatility

Market volatility increased from 19.7 in 2021 to 25.6 in 2022 compared to the same period.

• Technology sector

In Q3, tech companies were leading by the number of global IPOs, despite the average deal size being $123 million compared to $261 million in Q3 2021. 

• SPAC

The Q3 2022 has also witnessed the lowest SPAC IPO proceeds since Q3 2016: there were only 17 deals raising $0.9 billion.

As of Q4 2022, there were 334 IPOs with $31.9 proceeds, which is a significant decline of 50% and 73% respectively compared to Q4 2021.

The Q4 of 2022 was also characterized by the fact that:

• It was the Q4 with the lowest rates by the number of deals and proceeds for more than 10 years.

• Despite the sharp decline in global IPO activity compared to the previous year, there still were some bright spots: Japan, for example,has completed its largest IPO of the year and there was a slew of listings in Saudi Arabia.

Geographical peculiarities

Below are the key H2 2022 IPO statistics across major markets.

Americas

• In Q3, the American market saw the most significant decline in the IPO activity — 116 deals raising $7.5 billion in proceeds. This is a 72% and 94% decrease compared to the same period in 2021.

Q4 figures were even worse — 16 IPOs with $1.5 billion of proceeds in total. This is an 86% and 96% decline respectively year-over-year.

5 largest IPOs in 2022

1. LG Energy Solution Ltd

LG Energy Solution is a South Korean eco-friendly battery company. It created Korea’s first lithium-ion battery in 1999. Later, it became a supplier to global car producers, such as Audi, Volvo, Ford, Chrysler, and Renault.

In the first quarter of 2022, the company had the largest IPO worldwide and raised about $10.7B. Its shares surged 68% on the first day and 40% in a month after it went public. 

Now LG Energy Solution is worth over $98 billion which makes it the second-largest Korean company after Samsung. 

2. Dubai Electricity & Water Authority (DEWA)

The Dubai Electricity & Water Authority (DEWA) is a public service infrastructure company formed in 1992 by the merger of the Dubai Electricity Company and the Dubai Water Department. Both organizations were founded by Sheikh Rashid who ruled Dubai at that time.

Today DEWA provides electricity and water to almost 1 million customers with a happiness rate of about 95%. It’s also ranked as one of the best utility companies in the world.

After it went public, the company’s shares jumped 16% on the first day and 10% in a month.

Today this is the largest listing in the UAE, having raised $6.1B. Besides, this is the largest listing in the Middle East since the IPO of Saudi Aramco, a Saudi Arabian oil company that raised $25.6B in 2019. 

3. Jinko Solar Co Ltd

Jinko Solar is a Chinese solar panel manufacturer based in Shanghai. The business focuses on the research and development of photovoltaic products and clean energy solutions. The company serves more than 3,000 customers and markets its products worldwide in 160 countries.

Jinko Solar was listed on the STAR Board of the Shanghai Stock Exchange in January 2022. It’s the second largest IPO in the first quarter of 2022. 

The organization raised $1.6B and showed an excellent after-market performance. It closed 111% above the issue price on the first day of trading and 132% one month after it.

4. Life Insurance Corp of India

Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) is an insurance and investment company. It was founded in 1956 and is owned by the Indian Government. It’s the most trusted insurance company in the country with over 250 million customers.

It went public in May 2022 and raised $2.7B, breaking India’s record as the country’s biggest IPO. It also became the fourth-largest IPO in the world in 2022.

But a record-breaking and oversubscribed IPO raised far less than the government expected. LIC’s shares slid nearly 8% in its market debut. And since May, the shares have plunged 29%. India’s biggest-ever IPO now ranks second in terms of market capitalization loss.

5. Borouge

Borouge is a provider of innovative polyolefin solutions and produces plastics for manufacturing and consumer goods. The organization was founded in 1998 and now supplies polyolefin to customers in 50 countries across the Middle East, Asia, and Africa. 

In May 2022, the company was listed on the Abu Dhabi Securities Exchange and became Abu Dhabi’s largest IPO, raising $2B. 

The shares surged 22% on the first day of trading, valuing Borouge at $24B. It made Borouge the sixth largest company on ADX.

IPO trends YTD 2023

Now, let’s overview the state of the IPO market in the first half of 2023, according to Ernst & Young. 

• By the first half of 2023, there were 615 IPOs with $60.9 billion of capital raised. This is a decline of 5% and 36% respectively compared to the same period year-over-year (YOY).

• The technology sector continued to lead in the IPO activities by the number of deals and proceeds raised. 

• Due to the lower global energy prices, IPO proceeds received by the companies in the energy sector declined as well.

• The American IPO market has experienced an 86% increase in proceeds, raising $9.1 billion YOY. Such an improvement in market sentiment could be a sign of better IPO activity in late 2023 or 2024.

• The Asia-Pacific IPO market has been a leader in IPO volume and share, with about 60% share.

• The European IPO market has seen very limited activity so far, mainly due to the volatility in the banking sector.

• Some of the emerging markets such as India and Indonesia were flourishing with IPO activity thanks to the increased global demand for mineral resources and a growing number of SMEs and unicorns.

• Most large IPO deals took place in Mainland China and one in Japan.

Key takeaways

• There’s a considerable decline of 44% in the number of IPOs and a 57% drop in proceeds in 2022, in contrast to IPO trends 2021. 

• The main reasons for the decline are COVID-19 restrictions, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, geopolitical uncertainties, economic tension, and rising interest rates.

• The technology sector led by deal number, and the energy sector led in proceeds.

• The Americas and Europe markets recorded the most considerable decline in 2022, while MENA and the Asia Pacific regions were the most active in terms of volume and number of IPOs.

• The five largest IPOs in 2022 were LG, DEWA, Jinko Solar, Life Insurance Corp of India, and Borouge.

• The first half of 2023 has experienced 615 IPOs with $60.9 billion of capital raised so far.

Guide on going public

Preparation is prized in the IPO market, and starting early is crucial to success. 

To support executives during this stage, the M&A Community, in collaboration with iDeals, published the IPO Consideration Stage white paper, painting the full picture of the key points to consider before deciding to go public while doing so is still under evaluation. 

Download the whitepaper here. 

One of the most relevant topics in corporate finance is the role of synergies in operations of mergers and acquisitions (M&A’s). Likewise, one of the most relevant themes in antitrust policy is the role of static economic efficiency in concentration acts (CA’s). On the other hand, dynamic economic efficiency forms one of the great drivers of synergies in M&A’s. However, dynamic economic efficiency is usually neglected in CA’s analyses.

The reader may have noticed the fact that, when I refer to the operations of purchase and sale of assets and corporate transactions, I use the term M&A’s; and when I refer to the analysis of concentrations by antitrust authorities, I use the term CA’s. This distinction is intended to highlight a point that normally generates a lot of confusion: an M&A, which is capable to generate great synergies and dynamic efficiency, may not necessarily generate great static economic efficiency.

I suppose the reader may have been confused. In fact, the topic itself is scarcely confusing. We will need to understand better each of these concepts. 

One of the most comprehensive books on the topic of synergies in M&A’s is “The Synergy Trap: How Companies Lose the Acquisition Game, by Mark L. Sirower . The author defines synergy as the “addition of the combined companies’ performance over what they would be expected to achieve as independent companies”. (Sirower, 1997 p. 20). Therefore, the author continues, synergy means incremental gains and competitive advantages above what “companies need to survive in their competitive markets”.

The next question to be addressed would be: what are the sources of these synergies?

Many authors believe that synergies originate from the dynamic capabilities arising from M&A’s operations. Therefore, dynamic capabilities would result in dynamic (or Shumpeterian) economic efficiency. “Dynamic capabilities are the antecedent organizational and strategic routines by which managers change the basis of their resources, acquire and create resources, integrate and combine them to generate a new value creation strategy (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2014, p. 214).

The notion of competitiveness gains in the theory of dynamic capabilities results from the company’s innovative potential to generate value from the accumulation and creation of new rare and exceptional resources, combined with already existing resources.

An acquisition can be considered as a purchase of a bundle of resources in highly imperfect markets. By basing the purchase of a rare resource, one can, ceteris paribus, maximize this imperfection as well as the chances of buying that resource at a cheap price and achieving good returns.

Wernerfelt, 2014

An acquisition can be considered as a purchase of a bundle of resources in highly imperfect markets. By basing the

Two points should be highlighted about the theory of dynamic capabilities. The first one is that the company does not seek to accumulate strategic resources to increase its market power (market share). In fact, it seeks to “maximize this imperfection”, that is, it seeks to create a new and exclusive market just for itself, that is, to establish a monopoly. In summary, the company is looking for its “Blue Ocean”. The second point is that this approach highlights the strategy of competitive dynamics at the company level, not at the sectoral level, as the strategic approach in the neoclassical economic tradition often tends to be. This tradition provides all the analytical tools of antitrust authorities around the world.

Neoclassical economics works with the notion of static economic efficiency and the analysis of CA’s implies, in most cases, an exercise in cost-benefit analysis. The benefits would correspond to the reduction of operating costs resulting from economies of scale and scope arising from the concentration. On the other hand, costs would be associated with the greater market power of the incumbents, as a result of the reduction in the number of competitors in that market. In this sense, an CA’s would only be eligible for approval if its benefits exceed its costs.

The above paragraphs sought to elucidate the reasons why the issue of efficiency tends to be so controversial and “cacophonic” within the scope of the analysis of CA’s by antitrust authorities. The fact is that companies and authorities do not always speak the same language.

For example, antitrust authorities often ask companies to discuss the economic rationale of their M&A’s transactions and, in some cases, also to provide estimates of (static) economic efficiency. However, companies generally present their justifications in terms of synergies and economic (dynamic) efficiency. Therefore, the authorities tend to (quite often) dismiss the efficiency arguments presented by companies. In practical terms this means that, from a cost-benefit analysis point of view, the expected benefits calculated for the operation are minimal.

It’s clear that not all companies are oriented to engage in M&A’s because of the accumulation of strategic resources and innovation. It’s evident that many companies simply seek to eliminate competitors and increase market power. But wouldn’t an analysis of CA’s efficiency based solely on static economic efficiency be a problem? Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to incorporate the analysis of dynamic economic efficiency in the CA’s analysis “toolbox”?

This was exactly the point made in the article entitled “Dynamic Competition in Antitrust Law”, by J. Gregory Sidak and David J. Teece, published in the Journal of Competition Law & Economics, 2009. The authors sought, with the publication of this article, to instigate the discussion that would guide the revision of the Horizontal Merger Guidelines of the DOJ and FTC, which took place the following year, in August 2010.

In fact, the authors managed to instigate discussion and debate, mainly due to the opposition of economists and jurists linked to the antitrust tradition of the Chicago School. Sidak and Teece’s proposal did not succeed in the review of the US guide in 2010. It did not find repercussion in other jurisdictions either.

It is not possible to make an inference as to how much progress or setback we would get by introducing dynamic economic efficiency analysis into the antitrust economic analysis toolkit. The only completely clear point is that the discussion of economic efficiency analysis remains one of the most controversial and obscure topics in CA’s analysis.

Accordingly, Wernerfelt (2014) defines an acquisition in the following terms:

¹ This article was originally published in Portuguese by WebAdvocacy.

² SIROWER, M. (1997). The synergy trap: how companies lose the acquisition game. The Free Press: New York, NY.

³ EISENHARDT, K.M. & MARTIN, J.A. (2014). What are dynamic capabilities. In: LACERDA, D.P.; TEIXEIRA, R.; ANTUNES, J.; NETO, S.L.H. (org.). Resource Based Strategy. Porto Alegre: Bookman, 2014.

⁴ WERNERFELT, B. (2014). The resource-based view of the enterprise. In: LACERDA, D.P.; TEIXEIRA, R.; ANTUNES, J.; NETO, S.L.H. (org.). Resource Based Strategy. Porto Alegre: Bookman, 2014.

⁵ KIM, W.C. & MAUBORGNE, R. (2019). Blue ocean strategy: How to create new markets and make competition irrelevant. Sextant Publisher: Rio de Janeiro, RJ.

⁶ SIDAK, J.G. & TEECE, D.J. (2009). Dynamic Competition in Antitrust Law. Journal of Competition Law & Economics. Vol. 5(4): p. 581-631.