Photo by Vlada Karpovich from Pexels
A company doesn’t create value the moment an acquisition closes. It creates a set of assumptions, and the years that follow decide whether those assumptions hold up.
Most deals get approved with real optimism about growth, technology, or market share, yet a large share of them end up destroying more value than they generate. The gap between the deal that gets signed and the outcome that gets delivered rarely comes down to one bad decision. It usually comes down to whether the buyer treated the acquisition as a strategy carried out over years, rather than a transaction completed in a day.
Start With the Strategy, Not the Target
The strongest acquisitions start with a clearly defined business need. Disciplined buyers first decide what they want to accomplish, whether that means entering a new market, adding a product line, acquiring technology, or reaching customers they cannot reach on their own. Only then does the question of what a target costs come into focus.
Buyers who skip that step, and simply pursue whatever business becomes available, often struggle to explain how one deal connects to the next. McKinsey research on serial acquirers found that the strongest performers link every purchase to a defined strategic priority, while a meaningful share of less disciplined buyers could not describe a consistent rationale across their own deals.
“The acquisitions that hold up over time are the ones a company can clearly explain before they’re announced,” says Alec Lawler. “If you can’t describe the problem the deal solves, the price doesn’t matter yet.”
Acquire What Would Take Longer to Build
Once the strategic reason is clear, the case for buying rather than building becomes easier to test. A well-chosen acquisition can hand a company customer relationships, technical talent, patents, manufacturing capacity, or entry into a new geography years faster than internal development would allow. That has become more relevant as artificial intelligence and other fast-moving technologies reshape entire industries before slower organizations can catch up.
In KPMG’s 2024 Technology M&A Integration and Value Creation Study, 82% of respondents said obtaining key technologies had been an important acquisition objective since 2020, ahead of corporate expansion at 68%. The value of a deal like that rarely sits only in the target’s current revenue. Much of it lies in the time and capability the buyer no longer must build alone.
Pay What the Deal Is Actually Worth
Strategic fit does not excuse a careless price. Buyers still need a clear view of what the target is worth on its own, what integration will cost, and how the deal compares with other places the capital could go.
Valuation now sits at the center of that discipline. In KPMG’s 2025 M&A Deal Market Study, 44% of U.S. dealmakers cited agreeing on valuation as a recent challenge to closing deals, making it the most frequently reported challenge in the survey. That does not mean disciplined buyers only pursue inexpensive targets. Sophisticated acquirers may pay a higher multiple when they have strong evidence that the combined business can create enough value to justify it.
“Paying a premium isn’t a mistake if you can point to exactly where the extra value comes from,” says Alec Lawler. “The mistake is assuming the synergy number just because it’s sitting in the model.”
Price discipline is not the same as cheapness. A buyer still must know where the additional value will come from and whether the combined business can realistically deliver it.
Plan Integration Before the Deal Closes
Signing day gets the attention, but the months that follow decide whether the economics behind a deal turn into results. Cost synergies, from combined procurement to shared facilities, tend to be the easiest to plan and the easiest to hit. Revenue synergies are harder to deliver.
In KPMG’s 2024 Succeeding in Complex M&A study, all 100 executives surveyed had experience with complex acquisitions valued above $1 billion. Every respondent reported a significant gap between projected and realized revenue synergies, with actual results reaching 50% or less of the target. That shortfall reinforces the broader point that the deal thesis has to survive execution. Integration planning that starts only after a deal closes is already late.
People can become a deciding factor. An acquisition’s value often depends on retaining the employees who hold the customer relationships, technical knowledge, or institutional memory that made the target worth buying in the first place.
Losing them early, through unclear communication or an abrupt overhaul of how they work, can quietly erode the value the deal was meant to capture. Culture and retention therefore belong in the financial case for the acquisition as much as they belong in the HR plan.
Build Acquisitions Into an Ongoing Capability
The buyers who create the most long-term value rarely treat acquisitions as isolated events. They build repeatable systems for identifying targets, running diligence, integrating operations, and learning from the deals that came before.
A large-scale McKinsey study found that companies following this programmatic approach were more likely to outperform occasional or opportunistic acquirers. They also divested underperforming businesses roughly twice as often, showing that long-term value creation involves actively reshaping the portfolio as conditions change.
Final Thoughts
Alec Lawler agrees that long-term value from an acquisition is not decided at signing. It is built through a strategy that justified the deal, a price that respected what the buyer could realistically deliver, and years of execution that tested whether the original thesis was right.
A deal should keep earning its rationale long after the announcement. Companies that continue measuring the acquisition against that rationale are more likely to know whether it truly created value.