there we have it. cah is the target, page-16

Successful M&A's have always had a strong focus on strategic rationale (talent, expertise, volume & cost of production, complementary interests, IP, market position, buying power, competitive advantage etc...) Which the current MD has clearly articulated is the driver behind the proposed merger.

Declaring some arbitrary synergy value is irrelevant as it is inappropriate at this stage.

If anyone knows a case of M&A where the declared synergy value before the merger was anywhere near realised value - please let me know.

Sure, M&A can be dilutive in the short term, but if an MD isn't thinking long-term, then what is he doing? The "do-nothing" option to remain a small producer will allow competitors to consolidate - THAT would be worse for SBM.