This message was deleted.

There has to be for reasons of defense, strategic advantage (like I can get more from my economies of scale), or synergy/network effect. Essentially it has be that from purchasing, I am able to make 1 + 1 = 3. There's a ton of research on this, but tldr its that historically too often companies buy when they should have just hired/grown internally as buying ended up being negative value add in the long haul. Are companies going to change? Eh, probably not, Its a quick lazy way for the CEO to say "look how much I grew our company"

Thanks Paul, you're right about it being a lazy way to play the "optics for valuation game". But in terms of gaining a strategic advantage, isn't it more resourceful to have a preset team of experts?

Maybe. Maybe not. Is it just people you need? Why not just poach those experts? probably less expensive to markup salaries of select people over a markup of the entire firm. Do I just need the firms services? Typically a contract can cover that. I’m not saying never acquire, I’m just saying there’s probably other cheaper, potentially more value adding options to explore before jumping through a M&A process

I agree with your approach, M&A is never the first option, a skeleton team is always the goal. Any kind of acquisition has to be strategy-based, seller financing, most importantly cost effective and results oriented.