← Every exhibit

Table Table 2 Growth that compounds

The claim, beside its test

One page, both columns: what the claim asserts and what the one program-level test found: with each side's own caveat in its own words.

DimensionThe claim, a McKinsey corpus from 2012 to 2023The test (Laamanen & Keil, 2008)
Question askedWhich realized deal pattern had the best excess TSR, by archetype, ex post?Does a program's rate, rhythm and scope predict excess returns?
PopulationTop 1,000 → "Global 2,000" companies, windows shifting by refresh611 U.S. acquirers with 4+ deals, 5,518 deals, 1990–99
FindingProgrammatic acquirers outperform (~2%/yr excess TSR in 2021; 3.9% vs 2.9% in 2023): under a definition that changes per telling (Table 1)Rate hurts; rhythm variability hurts; experience, size and focus buy tolerance; R² 0.02–0.04. Decade medians favor frequent acquirers (+12.6% vs −3.9%/yr): descriptive, no test reported
Own caveat, verbatim"[T]his is a correlation, not necessarily a causative relationship … it is possible that better-performing companies executed more deals in the wake of their success" (2012, fn. 9)"We cannot claim causality. Some of the performance effects we find for the most active acquirers could be due to superior prior performance of the acquirer"
Prior result on the same dataApr 2011, same shop, same population: size and frequency patterns "widely distributed and overlapping":
What it licensesA hypothesis worth testing on your own program's termsConditions worth checking before and during any program

Swipe or scroll horizontally if the table is wider than your screen.

Cite Embed

Reference & Evidence

Source: Author's assembly of Rehm, Uhlaner & West (2012) and refreshes through Daume, Lian & McCurdy (2023), against Laamanen & Keil (2008) and Cottin, Rehm & Uhlaner (2011). Each cell's source and conditions are in the text. A reading aid, not a finding of any single source.