Tell me about a deal you've been following.

I've been following Mars's $36 billion acquisition of Kellanova, which closed in 2026 after a meaningfully longer regulatory review than most expected at announcement.

The deal mechanics are interesting on their own — Mars paid $83.50 per share in cash, financed with a mix of cash on hand and committed debt financing led by JPMorgan and Citi. The implied multiple was roughly 16.4x EBITDA, which sat above recent comps in branded packaged food but reflected Kellanova's snack-skewed portfolio (Pringles, Cheez-It, RXBAR) being more attractive than the cereal-anchored business it was carved out of in 2023. Centerview and Goldman advised Kellanova, with Lazard advising Mars.

What made the deal worth following beyond the headline was the antitrust angle. The thesis from Mars's side was vertical — there's limited direct overlap between confectionery and savory snacks — but the FTC and the EU both took longer than the parties wanted, in part because of the broader political pressure on grocery prices in 2025. The deal closed but with divestitures around a couple of regional brands, which I think is the part most analysts undermodeled at announcement.

The question I find most interesting as an outside observer is whether Mars overpaid. Bull case: the snacking-occasion expansion logic is real, and Kellanova's distribution unlocks shelf space Mars couldn't reach standalone. Bear case: 16x for a portfolio with secularly slowing North American snack volumes is rich, and the synergy bridge required heroic distribution assumptions. If I were the analyst, I'd want to see a sensitivity on whether the deal works at 12% revenue synergy realization vs. the 18% Mars guided to publicly.