Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
Bigger is always better in Donald Trump’s world. So it is perhaps appropriate that a record number of “megadeals” were struck in the first quarter of 2026 — in part because of, rather than despite, actions taken by the US president’s administration. Some 22 deals worth more than $10bn apiece were agreed in the three months to March, according to London Stock Exchange Group data, beating the previous highest figure of 21 in the last quarter of 2015.
This week, Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase both reported strong first-quarter results, bolstered by increased fees from M&A. Already this month, Bill Ackman’s Pershing Square Capital has proposed an offer for Universal Music worth $55bn.
On the surface, corporate boards’ bullish stance looks perverse. Warnings of the potential for the AI-powered equity market to melt down have been widespread and the US and Israeli attacks on Iran occurred precisely two months into the quarter. But the deals keep coming.
There are reasons for bidders to press ahead. The Trump administration has dramatically altered the strict US antitrust stance of Joe Biden’s presidency, opening a window for companies to pursue ambitious takeovers they always dreamt of. Some companies are clubbing together against AI disruption, or see strategic value in consolidating in Europe or establishing a firmer foothold in the US, as tariffs and mutual suspicion gum up global trade. Finally, boards have seen how tech hyperscalers have attracted investment and deduced that greater bulk is worth buying.
Is it? Compare the previous record-breaking year of 2015 and some lessons emerge. One is that clear long-term strategic thinking can pay off. Shell’s takeover of BG Group was a big bet on the future of liquefied natural gas. The deal largely achieved many of its cost-saving, growth and strategic objectives, despite initial concerns about its timing.
Price discipline also matters. Charter Communications shareholders have taken the pain after the US cable company bid high for Time Warner Cable a decade ago. Debt taken on by AB InBev to take over fellow brewer SABMiller constrained its performance for a long time after.
“Scale by itself is not the answer,” as the then chief executive of Kraft Heinz told the Wall Street Journal after it announced plans last year to split up, reversing the 2015 merger of the food companies. Its new CEO now aims to turn the group around instead, but Kraft Heinz remains the signature deal failure of that record year. “It certainly didn’t turn out to be a brilliant idea to put them together,” Warren Buffett, whose Berkshire Hathaway helped finance the deal, admitted to CNBC in September.
For M&A advisers, the dealmaking horizon is almost always clear, despite research showing that over the past 40 years as many as 70-75 per cent of acquisitions have failed. But some clouds already loom. Goldman’s “backlog” of future investment banking fees is down from record levels. JPMorgan Chase’s chief financial officer told investors that while deal “pipelines remain healthy, . . . developments in the Middle East could have an impact on deal execution and timing”. Private equity firms are seeking an exit for an overhang of companies in their portfolios.
Yet it seems dealmakers will continue to dance as long as the music plays. Some were burnt a year ago when they paused for the market shockwave of Trump’s “liberation day” tariffs, only for the turmoil to be shortlived. Unlike tankers currently trapped outside the Strait of Hormuz, boards may be tempted to push through. The lessons of the last big megadeal boom suggest they should think carefully, or risk making their investors pay in the longer term.