1. What performance measures might be used to judge the effecttiveness
of mergers and takeovers?  what are the limitations of these measures?

2.Why might mergers and takeovers not produce inprovements in performance?

3. What actions could managers take to improve the likely sucess of
mergers and take overs?

When you say "effectiveness", do you mean for the company being taken
or the company doing the taking?  Because I can tell you that it's not
always good for both parties.  Usually it's expected that the company
doing the taking would derive more benefits from it considering, they
choose to do the taking.  However short term (maybe long term)
performance of the taker could be affected by say by an anti-trust
case that ties up corporate assets, or simply consuming an ailing
company into the healthy corporate body.

I am looking at "effectivenss on both parties.but the question is
steered towards  what benefit and problems that
the aquiring company gets. aqisition takes place for so many reasons
ie,market cosolidation.
But in all cases there there are perfomance measures that can be used
to judge wether the mergers or take overs were effective.

Please help me to come out with some of the performance measures, but
let us look at it from both the aquirer and the aquiring point of
view.