Mergers are better than acquisitions, I plan to grab the attention of my readers by presenting them with evidences with credible sources that will back up my key points Mergers are better than acquisitions because of the obvious reason; owners are allowed to have rights and ownership in a company or the organization. In support of this statement, there are a number of arguments validated. Firstly, mergers contribute greatly towards the profitability of firms hence availing funds for research and development projects. Secondly, mergers allow for a collaborative interaction between parties involved; something that is not common with acquisitions. Additionally, mergers can be engaged without any charges involved generally considered as a transaction that is free from tax. The profitability of any firm is depended on mergers. Mergers make companies generate a lot more profits which are eventually utilized in development projects and scientific research programs aimed at boosting the performance of a company. When companies realize profits acquired from merging between one another, it is a way of raising funds for development projects for individual firms. The evidence I found is to support my point are the examples of actual companies that merged and have since made tremendous profits since like Bank of America and MBNA, Disney and Pixar just to mention a few. Referencing the sample companies mentioned above and using Disney and Pixar as an example, Pixar figured that the merge will benefit them considering Disney is a strong brand that was well known and had established marketing strategies that are working just fine making them a billion dollar brand. “Our partnership with Disney has probably been the most successful partnership in Hollywood history, and it’s been the best thing that ever happened for Pixar. We wouldn’t be here today without it”- Steve Jobs. Also, in the case of Bank of America and MBNA the merger created one of the greatest credit card portfolios. “Both companies benefit as cross-sell opportunities exist to sell MBNA products to Bank of America customers and Bank of America products to MBNA customers”. Mergers allow for a collaborative interaction between parties involved; something that is not common with acquisitions. Collaboration required working together on all fronts from their intents, to financials to risk and the final goal. The evidence I found to support this point indicates that collaboration is one of the most powerful tool that can be utilized during a merger to overcome the challenges that come with it. Mutual collaboration helps create a union between the two parties that are strengthened in one accord with similar objectives. The parties therefore are able to benefit from each other in sharing ideas, innovations and different ideologies that can positively contribute towards achieving their goals. The first step is to ensure that a conscious decision to pursue collaboration is made by both parties involved in the process wherever and whenever it is valuable. “Starting early in the game increases the confidence to make collaboration a habit as the deal progresses” Normally most business transactions are preceded with fees, taxes and or legal chargers that will allow an independent firm to run a business in a certain direction. This is not the case with some acquisitions. The process of merging at times is fee-free where transactions to join are not taxed. In other words, anyone can engage in mergers without any charges levied on transactions carried out. Mergers therefore are somewhat economical compared to acquisitions. There are different types of mergers and various provision with the IRS regulations that supports this fact like Code §368(a)(1)(A) Everyone is not in support of the argument that mergers are better. There are those who would basically center their interest in acquisition of course laying opposition against mergers. One of the counterarguments advanced is that mergers are not bettered because there could emerge frictions among the executives of the two companies. This is a misunderstanding, mergers can be termed as mutual while acquisition could be coined as a takeover which sometimes could be hostile causing more than that good to the process overall. The other counterargument is based on the difference in size of the two companies that merge. It is often believed this is an indication that there is a lot to do in order to achieve integration. Bigger companies do not measure the same value like smaller ones. The task of integration is really hard because if the two companies do not know the extent to which each one operates, they may fail to solve this problem. In response to this, mergers need to clearly come up with business strategies and agree on one stand that will help run the organization without feeling any differences. Indisputably, mergers stand higher chances of possessing more importance compared to acquisitions especially when it comes to company ownership and retention of rights. Their contribution towards company’s profitability, interactive collaboration and the tax-free transactions in engagement grants mergers and upper hand over other strategies in business. These advantages translate into one overall big advantage that is; there are lower risks involved in a business. Generating profits, keeping a mutual interaction and avoiding costs of engaging in mergers essentially the main values incurred. Mergers are better than acquisitions because of the obvious reason; owners are allowed to have rights and ownership in a company or the organization just like in the case of Disney and Pixar. In support of this statement, there are a number of arguments validated. Firstly, mergers contribute greatly towards the profitability of firms hence availing funds for research and development projects. Secondly, mergers allow for a collaborative interaction between parties involved; something that is not common with acquisitions. Additionally, mergers can be engaged without any charges involved generally considered as a transaction that is free from tax.