October 2015: Tamper at Your Peril
![victor-anderson-portrait-2015-low-res victor-anderson-portrait-2015-low-res](/sites/default/files/styles/landscape_750_463/public/import/IMG/371/329371/victor-anderson-portrait-2015-low-res.jpeg.webp?h=d3746af0&itok=3TSBvzFJ)
In our industry, mergers and acquisitions are a fact of life. They’re a sign that the industry is maturing, and that entities—be they capital markets firms or third-party technology vendors who serve them—have created something of value that someone else wants.
More than a decade ago, I remember sitting down with Gavin Lavelle, CEO of SunGard’s Panorama business unit at the time, where we attempted to establish the number of technology firms SunGard had acquired since its founding back in 1983 when it was spun off from the Sun Oil Company. We lost count somewhere between 150 and 160, illustrating the extent to which the firm had already grown through acquisition. Clearly, SunGard is an extreme example, but it does illustrate the extent to which M&A activity has shaped, and will continue to shape, our industry.
However, mergers and acquisitions tend to be troublesome beasts. They are often badly handled affairs that in many instances yield divisiveness and an “us and them” culture as opposed to one of unity and co-operation. While pretty much all M&A plans appear simple to execute when they are hatched, when it comes to bedding down one culture—along with its history, idiosyncrasies and objectives—within another, things can go pear-shaped pretty quickly.
As Investit’s Catherine Doherty explains in David Dawkins’ M&A feature on page 16, there exists a temptation to “fiddle” with an organization once it has been subsumed by a larger entity, an itch that clearly large numbers of technology firms cannot resist scratching. This fiddling might entail repositioning or rebranding products, or it might involve replacing key staff members who appear to be surplus to requirements. It might even involve something as drastic as mothballing existing offerings and migrating clients to alternative platforms.
Whatever the case, fiddling invariably leads to diluting the acquired firm’s secret sauce, which often proves debilitating, if not terminal. In most instances, fiddling tends not to be good for anyone—the acquirer, the acquiree, and especially their clients.
So what’s the answer? In short, acquirers should keep their fiddling to a minimum. Ideally, products and their owners should be left to operate in pretty much the same environment as they were used to, where they can adhere to their research and development schedules and client-interfacing activities that had served them so well over the years. Naturally, there will be synergies between the two firms and those need to be acknowledged, but in most instances, the rule of thumb is thus: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@waterstechnology.com or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.waterstechnology.com/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@waterstechnology.com to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@waterstechnology.com to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. Printing this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@waterstechnology.com
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. Copying this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@waterstechnology.com
More on Emerging Technologies
Waters Wrap: The changing definition and perception of blockchain
Anthony says that questions of definition and perception are killing DLT projects in the capital markets—oh, and a lack of proven implementations.
This Week: IPC extends Google Cloud partnership, BlackRock/AIA, DTCC and more
A summary of the latest financial technology news.
Waters Wavelength Podcast: Deutsche Bank’s Boon-Hiong Chan
Boon-Hiong Chan from Deutsche Bank joins the podcast to talk about blockchain interoperability.
SocGen pushes data, analytics use cases for SG Markets
The bank is letting a handful of clients experiment with its proprietary data and models to inform their research.
Ace high or busted flush? Digital Asset’s mixed fortunes mirror DLT adversity
The vendor hoped to remodel post-trade using blockchain technology—and it still might—but its bumpy progress raises questions over the future of DLT in finance.
AI could cut time for money laundering checks by 99%
Leading crypto exchange rolling out large language model for enhanced due diligence checks.
Standard Chartered keeps faith with quantum experimentation
The bank is aiming to future-proof itself with the ability to adopt new technology at an early stage.
Waters Wrap: CME, Google and the pursuit of ultra-low-latency trading
CME Group and Google have announced Aurora, Illinois, as the location for the exchange’s new co-location facility. Anthony explains why this is more than just the next phase of the two companies’ originally announced project.