[jamesTee49]

If there are overlaps, headcount reductions of those overlap make sense. Furthermore the takeover company must have extremely efficient existing staff with maybe 20-40% spare capacity to take over. I have seen multiple takeovers with overworked of inefficient existing staff before takeover. The takeovers destroyed that acquired business within 3-5 years simply because they dont have the people to run it after firing the previous efficient and well-trained staff. In fact their own existing staff quit because felt underpaid with the extra tasks due to let go staff. Double whammy. Overlapped staff like managers and sub-c suites still retained....which could easily cost about 20-30% of the salaries of those retrenched workers. They are also the absolutely most incompetent one that drove the business to failure. After 25years seeing how mergers ended up I come to the conclusions: #1 MBA schools are absolutely wrong about the benefits of mergers (always dont trust MBAs, if they are that good, they run their own business), #2 there is no such thing as companies synergism from mergers (but MBA called it "if realized" which simply doesnt exist in reality but might hinted on paper), and #3 the person approving mergers never have any management education and a lot not even having MBAs but fully trust some MBAs wearing nice suit especially giving off London English or behave like Steve Jobs demeanor.