引受合倂 時 價値評價의 方法論은 去來에 關聯된 質的 不確實性과 論難에 의하여 어떻게 決定되는가? 戰略諮問家, 辯護士, 投資銀行家의 方法論은 境遇에 따라 올바름

국문 초록 (Abstract)

인수와 합병 전략은 기업의 매우 중요한 전략적 의사결정이다. 인수 대상 기업의 가치평가를 할인현금모형 (discounted cash flow)와 같이 단지 재무적 관점에서 접근하는 것은 두가지 문제가 있다. 우선 Bower (1970)은 사회 정치적 요인을 기업의 투자결정에 포함시켜야 한다고 주장하였으며 따라서 재무적 접근방법으로만은 충분하지 않다고 결론을 내렸다. 또한 경험적으로도 재무적 접근방법은 M&A와 같은 기업의 중요한 자본투자결정에 있어서의 다양성을 설명하지 못한다고 할 수 있다. 따라서 이 논문에서는 Cyert & March (1963)의 행동이론과 Kang, Burton and Mitchell (2009)의 조직자본예산모형을 이용하여 Knightian uncertainty와 controversy framework를 적용한 새로운 가치평가 모형을 제시한다. 이 연구는 한국 재벌기업의 12개의 구조화된 M&A 사례분석을 통하여 M&A 과정을 분석하였다. 그 결과 desktop valuation methods, capability design methods, issue list methods, 그리고 storytelling methods 등과 같이 흔히 사용되는 의사결정 방법이 크게 Knightian uncertainty and controversy의 세부영역에 포함된다는 사실을 발견하였다. 이러한 일반적 모델은 따라서 "Behavioral Theory of the Firm"의 한 특별한 설명이라고 할 수 있으며 투자은행가, 경영컨설턴트, 변호사, 그리고 최고경영자들의 전략적 투자의사결정에 큰 도움이 된다고 판단된다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Mergers and acquisitions are significant corporate strategies. Valuations can drive M&A activities and determine their performances. The leading approach is standard valuation models, which incorporate expected future cash flow, investment, and discount rate. However, standard valuation models face two challenges. First, strategy and organization scholars such as Bower (1970) argue that social and political factors influence the investment process to render the standard valuation models ineffective. Second, standard valuation models cannot explain the wide variety of valuation methods in important investment decisions, such as M&A.

We propose four contributions to the resolution of these contentions around M&A valuations. First, we show that various views on M&A valuations are not conflictive, but special cases of a more general model. Standard valuation models or social-political approaches about M&A valuations are both right depending on the extent of Knightian uncertainty and controversy. Second, our models can explain why diverse patterns of valuation arise. The contexts of M&A process characterized with Knightian uncertainty and controversy determines which valuation methods are useful. Third, we provide rich descriptions about twelve M&A valuation practices in Korean market. These case studies provide information about Korean M&A practices. They can be also used as benchmarks for M&A practitioners and researchers. Fourth, we extend the organizational capital budgeting model (OCBM) proposed by Kang, Burton, and Mitchell ("KBM" 2009). We find KBM’s framework is valid in M&A valuation processes. Desktop valuation, storytelling, capability design, and issue list methods are kinds of standard valuation, social-political, plausibility, and negotiation approaches respectively, which are elements of OCBM by KBM. Since KBM’s OCBM is an extension of A Behavioral Theory of the Firm ("BTF"; Cyert and March, 1963), our findings validate BTF in M&A contexts as well.

Our results present many practical implications. First, merger valuation is not simply about assessing a deal with exogenous formulae. Instead, merger valuation also requires choosing the methods of valuation that determine the perceived value of the target. The value of a deal may not be preset, waiting to be discovered. The value can be endogenously constructed during the valuation process when Knightian uncertainty and controversy interfere. Second, firms can properly conduct M&A valuation in two ways: (a) by understanding a few valuation skills and opting to pursue targets at a particular uncertainty-controversy profile to suit those skills; or (b) by developing flexible valuation capabilities to employ suitable M&A valuation skills for different targets. Third, M&A valuation requires dynamic capabilities because Knightian uncertainty and organizational controversies concerning M&A fluctuate over time. Thus, firms need to develop valuation tools that address current and future M&A waves. Fourth, because M&A valuations are firm-specific, even deal-specific, it would be perilous to follow general recommendations of investment bankers or to benchmark the M&A valuation tools of successful cases. Fifth, firms should shun relying solely on seemingly scientific formulae, such as textbook methods of M&A valuation. Instead, firms need to build up and apply the valuation capabilities while accounting for Knightian uncertainty and controversy that M&A deals are commonly subjected to.