Skip to main content

What do pro forma results actually tell us about an acquisition or merger?

When two companies merge, management typically presents "pro forma" financial results as if the two companies had been combined for the full historical period. A company acquiring another company mid-year might report pro forma revenue for the full year that includes the target's revenue for the months before the acquisition closed. The intention is to show investors what the combined company would have earned if it existed as a single entity for the full period. But pro forma results are hypothetical, not historical, and the assumptions underlying pro forma can be aggressive, creating a gap between what investors expect the combined company to earn and what it actually earns.

Quick definition: Pro forma financial statements are hypothetical financial results that combine two companies' historical results under the assumption that a merger or acquisition occurred at the beginning of the period. They are designed to show the historical earnings power of the combined entity, not the actual historical results. Pro forma earnings may adjust for one-time costs, synergy benefits, or integration costs, and these adjustments are discretionary and often optimistic.

Key takeaways​

  • Pro forma results are backward-looking hypothetical statements, not forward guidance. They show what combined earnings would have been, not what they will be.
  • Pro forma statements are heavily used in merger announcements and proxy statements to justify deal value and show anticipated synergies.
  • Companies adjust pro forma results for acquisition-related costs, integration charges, and sometimes pre-acquisition synergies, creating a wide range of possible pro forma numbers.
  • The gap between pro forma assumptions and actual post-acquisition results is often significant, and forensic investors should compare pro forma claims to reality 18–24 months post-close.
  • Pro forma statements are not audited (unless required in specific SEC filings like an S-4 proxy) and are subject to weak SEC guidance.
  • Comparing pre-acquisition margins to pro forma combined margins is misleading if the pro forma assumes cost cuts or revenue synergies that require integration effort and carry execution risk.
  • The most aggressive pro forma presentations include benefits of synergies that have not been fully realised, inflating the attractiveness of the deal.

The legitimate use: showing combined scale​

The original intent behind pro forma results is sound. If Company A (revenue $1 billion) acquires Company B (revenue $500 million) on July 1, the historical financial statements for the year show Company A's full-year revenue of $1 billion plus Company B's 6 months of revenue (approximately $250 million), totalling $1.25 billion. But this number obscures the scale of the combined company, because it reflects only 6 months of Company B's contribution.

Pro forma results adjust for this timing mismatch by showing what the year's revenue would have been if Company B had been owned for the full 12 months. If Company B generates $500 million in annual revenue, pro forma revenue for the full year is $1 billion + $500 million = $1.5 billion. This gives investors a clearer picture of the ongoing run-rate revenue of the combined entity.

This is legitimate and informative. It allows investors to compare the combined company's revenue and profitability to peer companies without the timing distortion of a mid-year close.

The problem arises when pro forma results diverge from this legitimate purpose and become a tool for inflating the attractiveness of the deal through aggressive assumptions.

The core issue: pro forma is not audited and relies on management assumptions​

Pro forma financial statements prepared by management are not audited (unless required in a proxy statement under SEC rules, in which case they are reviewed by the company's auditor). Management has wide discretion in:

  • Which periods to include
  • What adjustments to make for acquisition-related costs
  • How much of anticipated synergies to include
  • What accounting policies to apply to the target's results (harmonising to the acquirer's policies, which can boost or depress reported earnings)

Each of these choices can be made in a conservative or aggressive way. A management team eager to justify a large acquisition has incentive to make aggressive pro forma assumptions.

Example: Company A acquires Company B for $5 billion. In the announcement, management presents pro forma earnings of $600 million for the year, implying a 10x multiple on the acquisition price. These pro forma earnings assume:

  • Full-year contribution of Company B: $200 million (which is correct)
  • Cost synergies of $150 million (combining head offices, eliminating duplicate functions)
  • Revenue synergies of $100 million (cross-selling opportunities)
  • Less: one-time integration costs of $50 million (non-recurring)
  • Less: loss of revenue from a customer who defects due to the merger: $0 (not assumed)

In this example, the pro forma includes significant synergies ($250 million) that are anticipated but not yet realised. If only half of the synergies materialise, pro forma earnings are overstated by $125 million. An investor using the pro forma to value the deal might pay more than the deal is worth.

Pro forma adjustments: where management flexibility is greatest​

Acquisition costs and integration charges​

Acquisition-related costs (advisory fees, severance, retention bonuses, IT systems integration) are often excluded from pro forma results. Management argues these are one-time and non-recurring. But large acquisitions incur $100 million–$500 million in total integration costs. Excluding these inflates pro forma profitability.

Better practice: Include integration costs in pro forma, at least for the first 12–24 months post-close. This gives investors a realistic view of the combined entity's earnings power after integration effort is factored in.

Revenue synergies​

Revenue synergies (cross-selling, expanding into new markets, bundling products) are often included in pro forma, sometimes in full, sometimes partially. The problem: revenue synergies are the most uncertain type of synergy and the most often overestimated.

A tech company acquiring a competitor might assume that they can cross-sell the target's products to their own customer base. But if existing customers don't want the target's products, or if the integration effort is distracted by post-close chaos, the revenue synergy doesn't materialise. Studies of large acquisitions show that revenue synergies are realised, on average, at 40–60% of the anticipated level.

Conservative pro forma presentations assume zero revenue synergies or disclose them separately so investors can make their own judgement. Aggressive presentations include 80–100% of anticipated revenue synergies in the pro forma, overstating the deal's attractiveness.

Cost synergies​

Cost synergies (eliminating duplicate head office functions, consolidating manufacturing facilities, reducing overhead) are more certain than revenue synergies, but still subject to execution risk. Anticipated cost synergies are often included in pro forma, but the timeline and certainty are often understated.

If pro forma assumes $200 million in annual cost synergies, but realisation requires 18 months and $100 million in restructuring charges, the timing of the benefit is important. Some aggressive pro forma presentations include the full benefit in Year 1, when in reality the benefit will phase in over 2–3 years.

Normalisation adjustments​

Management may adjust pro forma results to "normalise" the target's historical results for one-time items or unusual conditions. For example, if the target company had an abnormally weak year due to a customer loss that is now fixed, management might adjust for this to show the target's normalised earning power.

This can be legitimate, but it can also be aggressive. A company arguing that the target earned only $50 million in a given year due to one-time headwinds, but actually has earning power of $100 million, is making a claim that requires scrutiny. What is the basis for normalised earnings? Has the customer issue actually been resolved, or is this speculative?

Changes in accounting policies​

When combining two companies, accounting policies are sometimes harmonised. The acquirer might adopt the target's accounting policies (if more aggressive) or vice versa. Changing accounting policies to make pro forma earnings appear more attractive is a red flag.

For example, if Company A uses straight-line depreciation and Company B uses accelerated depreciation, harmonising to one method changes reported earnings. An aggressive move would be to harmonise to the method that shows higher earnings.

The mermaid diagram illustrates how pro forma earnings bridge historical to combined results:​

The divergence between pro forma (with synergies) and actual post-close results often reveals where management was aggressive in its assumptions.

Real-world examples of pro forma overstatement​

AT&T and Time Warner (2016): AT&T announced the $85 billion acquisition of Time Warner with pro forma earnings that assumed significant synergies and cost reductions. The pro forma was used to justify the deal in the proxy statement. In the years following the close, actual synergy realisation lagged pro forma assumptions, and the deal ultimately destroyed shareholder value. Investors who relied on pro forma earnings overpaid significantly.

Hewlett-Packard and Autonomy (2011): HP acquired Autonomy for $10.3 billion and presented pro forma earnings showing a strong return on the investment. Post-close, it became apparent that the pro forma had overstated Autonomy's earning power, partly due to aggressive accounting practices at Autonomy (which were not caught pre-close) and partly due to overly optimistic synergy assumptions. HP took an $8.8 billion impairment charge less than two years later.

Facebook and WhatsApp (2014): Facebook acquired WhatsApp for $19 billion, paying an extraordinarily high price per user. Pro forma presentations emphasised WhatsApp's potential monetisation (assuming revenue growth and margins similar to Facebook). Post-close, monetisation has progressed far more slowly than the pro forma assumed, and the deal's value has been questioned.

Microsoft and Linkedin (2016): Microsoft's $26 billion acquisition of LinkedIn was justified with pro forma earnings showing strong synergy potential. The deal has proven more successful than some mega-deals, but actual synergies realised have been less than some of the early pro forma projections, and revenue integration has been slower.

How to evaluate a pro forma presentation​

1. Obtain the full pro forma statement and reconciliation​

A company announcing an acquisition should disclose the pro forma in a press release or proxy statement (if required). Obtain the detailed reconciliation showing:

  • Acquirer's historical results
  • Target's historical results
  • Pro forma combined results
  • Each adjustment line item

2. Identify synergy assumptions​

Separate the pro forma into three pieces:

  • Base case: Historical combined results without synergies
  • Cost synergies: Assumed cost reductions
  • Revenue synergies: Assumed revenue growth

Evaluate each category for reasonableness. Cost synergies of 10–15% of the target's cost base are often feasible. Revenue synergies are much less certain.

3. Compare to comparable deals​

Look at similar acquisitions in the same industry and compare pro forma synergy assumptions to actual results 18–24 months post-close. If historical synergies in the industry run at 60% of projections, assume the current deal will too.

4. Assess the integration timeline​

Pro forma often assumes full synergies in Year 1. Reality is typically a ramp: 30–40% in Year 1, 60–70% in Year 2, 90%+ in Year 3. If the deal is already in your valuation period, pro forma optimism may overstate near-term earnings.

5. Look for normalisation adjustments​

If management adjusts the target's historical results to "normalise" them, challenge this. Ask: what is the basis? Has the issue actually been resolved, or is this speculative? Conservative practice is to use actual historical results, not normalised ones.

6. Check whether the acquisition accounting affects the pro forma​

When harmonising accounting policies, did the change make pro forma earnings appear more or less attractive? If more attractive, this is a red flag.

7. Compare the pro forma to the acquirer's guidance​

When the deal closes, the company issues new guidance. Compare this guidance to the pro forma to see whether management is walking back earlier synergy assumptions. A material reduction in guidance 6–12 months post-close suggests the pro forma was optimistic.

Pro forma vs actual results: forensic comparison​

The true test of pro forma accuracy is comparing the pro forma earnings (with synergies) to actual reported earnings 18–24 months post-close. If actual earnings are significantly lower, the pro forma was overoptimistic.

For example: A company announces acquisition with pro forma EBITDA of $500 million (including $100 million in cost synergies). Two years later, the company reports actual EBITDA of $420 million. The gap ($80 million) suggests that either:

  • Cost synergies were only 20% realised instead of 100% assumed, or
  • Integration costs were higher than assumed, or
  • Revenue synergies didn't materialize, or
  • Market conditions deteriorated

Forensic investors maintain a spreadsheet tracking pro forma assumptions vs actual results for major acquisitions made by the companies they follow. This track record is invaluable for evaluating the credibility of new acquisition pro formas.

FAQ​

Q: Are pro forma results required to be audited? A: Not always. Pro forma statements in press releases are not audited. Pro forma statements in proxy statements (for merger votes) must be reviewed by the company's auditor but are not fully audited. This means less scrutiny than applied to GAAP financial statements.

Q: How much of the pro forma synergy should I assume will be realised? A: For cost synergies, assume 80–90% realisation in the first two years. For revenue synergies, assume 40–60% realisation. This is based on historical studies of M&A outcomes. Cost synergies are more predictable; revenue synergies are less certain and often overstated.

Q: Should I use pro forma earnings for valuation? A: Use both pro forma (base case without synergies) and a conservative scenario (with 60% synergy realisation). Then value the deal under both scenarios. If the deal only makes sense if synergies are 100% realised, it is risky.

Q: What if pro forma assumes cost reductions that require headcount cuts? A: This is common and often realistic, but verify that management has the courage to execute. If the deal is in a declining industry or difficult market, planned cost cuts may face headwinds. Conservative investors apply a haircut to projected cost synergies in declining industries.

Q: Can I find pro forma results for past acquisitions? A: Yes, from proxy statements (on SEC EDGAR) and acquisition announcement press releases. Compare the pro forma to actual results 18–24 months later. This track record is invaluable.

Q: Why is pro forma earning power of a company lower than expected sometimes? A: Because of integration challenges (combining IT systems, staff retention issues, customer relationships), slower-than-expected synergy realisation, and changed market conditions. Large acquisitions are complex and often underestimate the effort required to realise synergies.

  • Acquisition accounting and goodwill – how the purchase price is allocated post-close and how this affects balance sheet but not pro forma earnings
  • Synergy identification and realisation – the process of identifying synergies and the typical roadblocks to realisation
  • Impairment charges – the accounting charge taken when acquisition value is written down post-close
  • Contingent consideration – earnouts or additional payments tied to post-close performance
  • Pooling of interests (historical) – an older accounting method that allowed different pro forma treatment than purchase accounting

Summary​

Pro forma financial statements show what combined earnings would have been if the acquirer and target had been combined at the beginning of the period. The legitimate purpose is to provide investors with a clearer picture of the combined company's scale. But pro forma results are heavily subject to management discretion regarding synergy assumptions, one-time costs, and normalisation adjustments. The most aggressive pro forma presentations include substantial revenue synergies (which are uncertain and often overestimated) and exclude integration costs or assume full synergy realisation in Year 1. Forensic investors compare pro forma assumptions to actual results 18–24 months post-close to assess the accuracy of management's projections. A consistent track record of pro forma overstatement should lower the credibility of future acquisitions announced by that management team.

Next​

Learn how the headline number in an earnings announcement relates to the reconciliation table that links non-GAAP to GAAP in the next article.

Approximately 65% of large acquisitions (valued over $500 million) fail to realise projected synergies, with actual results typically 30–40% below pro forma assumptions.