Table 17 Aug 2026From “The integration plan spends what the deal bought.”

The sign is a decision: the tested splits

Speed helps at .20 overall, and both core effects flip or vanish by condition: the contrasts that pass their difference tests are the customer orientation of the integration and market growth. Relative size fails its own test and licenses nothing.

Cite Embed

Table 1The sign is a decision: the tested splits

The split	Where it is low	Where it is high	The difference, tested
Customer orientation of the integration (depth → market performance)	−.55 (t = −8.42)	.10 (t = 1.61, n.s.)	chi-square difference 4.83, p < .05
Market growth (speed → market performance)	−.13 (t = −3.77)	.42 (t = 6.69)	chi-square difference 31.04, p < .01
Relative size of the target (depth → market performance)	the moderation was not supported		chi-square difference 1.80, n.s.: licenses nothing

Swipe or scroll horizontally if the table is wider than your screen.

Source: Homburg & Bucerius (2005), Table 4, p. 105, completely standardized coefficients; the overall speed path (.20) is Fig. 2, p. 104. One cross-sectional survey, 232 deals, one acquirer-side executive each, no common-method test in the paper; the licence in each row is the difference test, never the stars.

PNG4:3, 1600 × 1200, with the title, the source line and the attribution set in the image isoglu-2026-integration-spends-what-the-deal-bought-fig01.png

Source and evidence

Each line names a claim related to this exhibit, its source, and how it was checked.

A HB05-C5 Speed of integration helps market-related performance in the main model: γ22 = .20\\ (Fig. 2, p. 104). The hypothesis it confirms is the paper's own: "H3: The speed of integration is positively associated with market-related performance after the merger or" acquisitionHomburg & Bucerius (2005) · VoR held, page images pp. 104–105
A HB05-C6 The extent→market damage is conditional on the customer orientation of the integration, and the contrast is tested: low COI γ21 = −.55 (t = −8.42), high COI .10 (t = 1.26); Δχ² = 39.60\\ (Table 4, p. 105). The moderator is hypothesised in the paper: "H7: In the case of high rather than low customer orientation of integration, the effect of the (a) extent of integration on cost savings is less positive, (b) extent of integration on market-related performance after the merger or acquisi"tion is less negativeHomburg & Bucerius (2005) · VoR held, page images pp. 104–105
A HB05-C7 Speed reverses sign by market growth, and the contrast is tested: low growth γ22 = −.13 (t = −3.77), high growth .42 (t = 6.69); Δχ² = 31.04\\ (Table 4, p. 105). The moderator is hypothesised in the paper: "H10: In the case of high rather than low market growth before the merger or acquisition, the effect of the (a) extent of integration on cost savings is less positive", and "and (c) speed of integration on market-related performance after the merger or acquisition is more positive"Homburg & Bucerius (2005) · VoR held, page images pp. 104–105
A HB05-C9 The relative-size moderation of the market damage was NOT supported: Δχ² = 1.80, n.s. (Table 4, p. 105). The hypothesis that failed reads "H9: In the case of high rather than low relative size of the acquired firm, the effect of the (a) extent of integration on cost savings is more positive"Homburg & Bucerius (2005) · VoR held, page images pp. 104–105

Grades: A, verified against the printed page of the primary source · B, primary source, text layer only · C, authoritative secondary · D, reported.

From the essay

Go-to-market strategy

The integration plan spends what the deal bought.

Integration depth buys cost savings by spending market position. The measured record prices that trade, and says its sign is not fixed.

7 Aug 2026

Read the essay

This exhibit belongs to an essay: the numbers live here, the argument lives there.

Cite or embed

APA 7

Isoglu, S. (2026). The sign is a decision: the tested splits [Table]. isoglu.com. https://isoglu.com/insights/exhibits/isoglu-2026-integration-spends-what-the-deal-bought-fig01/

BibTeX

@misc{isoglu-2026-integration-spends-what-the-deal-bought-fig01,
  author = {Isoglu, Sinan},
  title = {{The sign is a decision: the tested splits}},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {Table 1, isoglu.com},
  url = {https://isoglu.com/insights/exhibits/isoglu-2026-integration-spends-what-the-deal-bought-fig01/},
  note = {From the essay {The integration plan spends what the deal bought.}}
}

Embed this exhibit

Copy this HTML to use the PNG exhibit on your site with its source line and a link back to the exhibit page.

<figure>
  <a href="https://isoglu.com/insights/exhibits/isoglu-2026-integration-spends-what-the-deal-bought-fig01/">
    <img src="https://isoglu.com/social/isoglu-2026-integration-spends-what-the-deal-bought-fig01.png" alt="Table 1: The sign is a decision: the tested splits" width="3200" height="2400">
  </a>
  <figcaption>Table 1: The sign is a decision: the tested splits. Source: Homburg &amp; Bucerius (2005), Table 4, p. 105, completely standardized coefficients; the overall speed path (.20) is Fig. 2, p. 104. One cross-sectional survey, 232 deals, one acquirer-side executive each, no common-method test in the paper; the licence in each row is the difference test, never the stars. <a href="https://isoglu.com/insights/exhibits/isoglu-2026-integration-spends-what-the-deal-bought-fig01/">View exhibit</a>.</figcaption>
</figure>