>Bigger and established companies take the risk and it does mostly pan out ok in the end. But, they generally tend to use this strategy going forward.
Having been in several companies that been bought, disagree it's mostly pans out. Most of time, it's just a sub company that does whatever it was doing before and names on paychecks change.
However, revenue rarely increases to point purchase probably made sense or synergy is there.
That's why I said "ok" instead of "great" lol. sometimes it is a disaster, most of the time it's a minor loss or a break-even. when you consider that they could have just hired people and competed directly instead, it's usually a failure though.
It's a sign of executives feeling like they don't have enough control and influence over their own company to enable similar innovation and inventiveness like the competition.
Having been in several companies that been bought, disagree it's mostly pans out. Most of time, it's just a sub company that does whatever it was doing before and names on paychecks change.
However, revenue rarely increases to point purchase probably made sense or synergy is there.