Corporate governance and ownership structure of target companies and the outcome of takeovers

This paper examines the influence of the corporate governance and ownership attributes of target companies on the outcome of takeovers in Australia between 1991 and 2000. The findings suggest that board composition and chairperson identity of target companies and director, institutional investor and external share ownership in targets have minimal effects on the likelihood of takeover success. The nature of the recommendations of target directors is found to be the most significant determinant of takeover success or failure, and bid premium levels and offer price revisions are also shown to be important in discriminating between successful and failed takeovers. The results bring into question the likely effectiveness of the introduction of formal corporate governance requirements in Australia and advocate a modification to existing corporate legislation to encourage takeover activity.     

Leverage and the Complexity of Takeovers

There is scant empirical evidence on how the leverage of target firms affects gains to their shareholders, although there are several widely cited economic theories offered in the literature. The limited available evidence shows that shareholders of targets with greater leverage experience higher returns. However, even this observed effect of debt on takeovers cannot be distinguished from a mere mechanical pure leveraging effect, leaving the economic explanations untested. Consequently, we adopt an alternative approach here to examine if targets' debt truly matters in takeovers. We report that acquisition processes involving targets with higher leverage tend to be significantly more complex in several ways. We find that such acquisitions tend to take a longer time to consume, are more likely to be associated with multiple bidder auctions, and experience greater revisions in offer prices. Finally, we find that factors that make takeovers more complex also lead to greater target gains.     

What is the relationship between investor protection legislation and target takeover returns? Evidence from Europe

We show that investor protection legislation is an important determinant of the returns of target companies that are subject to takeovers within Europe. Announcement and post-announcement returns are higher in strong investor protection countries, which indicates that bidders are forced to offer larger premiums when the original offer is made, and are more likely to have to revise their offer higher before a takeover is successful. This is consistent with targets having relatively greater bargaining power in strong investor protection environments. Our findings are robust to the inclusion of common determinants of takeover returns.     

Corporate Takeover Bids,Methods of Payment,and Bidding Firms' Stock Returns

This study explores the role of the method of payment in explaining common stock returns of bidding firms at the announcement of takeover bids. The results reveal significant differences in the abnormal returns between common stock exchanges and cash offers. The results are independent of the type of takeover bid, i.e., merger or tender offer, and of bid outcomes. These findings, supported by analysis of nonconvertible bonds, are attributed mainly to signalling effects and imply that the inconclusive evidence of earlier studies on takeovers may be due to their failure to control for the method of payment.     

Reputational concerns in the market for corporate control

This paper explores whether corporate acquirers consider environmental reputations when planning and structuring takeovers. We find that firms with an environmentally toxic reputation, which have the greatest potential for negative spillovers to their merger partners, have a lower associated probability of being both acquirers and targets. Acquirers are more likely to pair with similar reputation firms and are less likely to acquire firms with lower reputations. Most notably, green firms in our sample never acquire toxic firms. Acquirers that buy firms with differing environmental reputations use a higher percentage of stock in their acquisition offers. We further show that the returns to acquirers are lower when they acquire firms outside of their area. Collectively, these findings suggest that managers account for potential negative spillover effects in acquisition decisions.     

Liability protection,director compensation,and incentives

We examine the effect of liability protection on the compensation of directors and on takeover outcomes. Consistent with the hypothesis that directors require additional compensation if they bear liability, we find that director compensation is higher for firms that provide less liability protection. Examining takeovers, we find evidence that takeovers of firms with protected directors are less likely to succeed. Moreover, firms with protected directors are more likely to accept a lower bid premium, and this finding is consistent with protected directors having reduced incentives to negotiate for the highest possible price during the acquisition. Overall, the results are consistent with the notion that director liability provisions have a significant impact both on director compensation and director duty.     

Trading Activity,Trade Costs and Informed Trading for Acquisition Targets and Acquirers

Abstract

Microstructure effects of tender offer acquisitions on targets and acquirers differentiated by listing venue and payment method are examined. Trading activity increases more for targets than for acquirers upon offer announcement. Investors are more likely to sell targets upon announcement using direct market orders against ask limit orders for cash payment offers. While target liquidity improves as spread costs fall and quoted depths increase, acquirer liquidity falls continuously to successful offer completion. Due to increased trading differences, temporary trade costs fall more for targets than for acquirers. Permanent trade costs decline over the tender offer cycle for both parties, and especially for targets for cash tender offers and for acquirers for shares tender offers. The probability of informed trading declines (remains constant) for targets (acquirers) because increased trading intensity is greater (the same) for uninformed versus informed traders. As expected, abnormal returns and changes in own-firm permanent return volatility are negatively (but weakly) and positively (and strongly) related, respectively, to changes in information asymmetry upon announcement.     

CLUSTERED SYNERGIES IN THE TAKEOVER MARKET

In a competitive market for takeover bids, the takeover premium serves as an effective proxy for the expected synergy. We find that the expected synergy is primarily related to the premiums paid in other recent takeovers in the same industry. This relation is even stronger when considering previous takeovers (especially over the previous three‐month horizon) in the same industry that have the same payment method (cash versus stock) or form of takeover (tender offer versus merger). More of the variation in expected synergies among takeovers can be explained by the premiums derived from recent takeovers in the same industry than by all bidder‐ and target‐specific characteristics combined. We also find that the bidder valuation effects are inversely related to the premium paid for targets, implying that abnormally high premiums may reflect overpayment rather than abnormally high synergies.     

Target’s earnings quality and bidders’ takeover decisions

This study examines how takeover decisions are influenced by the quality of information in target firms’ earnings. We show that bidders prefer negotiated takeovers in deals involving targets with poor earnings quality. Moreover, earnings quality and takeover premiums are negatively related in negotiated takeovers, suggesting that bidders obtain valuable private information through negotiations. We also find that bidders share information risk with target shareholders by paying with more equity for targets with poor earnings quality. These findings are driven primarily by the asymmetric information component of earnings quality (as opposed to the symmetric component) and are observed mainly in inter-industry takeovers, where asymmetric information concerns are greater, rather than in intra-industry takeovers. We conclude that targets’ earnings quality affects bidders’ takeover decisions, particularly in cases of large asymmetric information between targets and bidders.     

Nature of interaction between market structures and forces and institutional systems

The paper suggests that continued capital strength and management skills will be the main criteria for a successful bank in the 1980s, expected to be a very testing period for international banking. After indicating the two ways in which banks can increase their strength it concentrates on international takeovers and mergers and the scope for these. While the US has already proved an immensely fruitful field for the expansion of international banks and is likely to remain the biggest single market, the paper maintains that in theory the EEC offers a unique opportunity for the emergence of genuine community-wide banks and greater freedom of competition.     

Voluntary use of independent valuation advice by target firm boards in takeovers

This study examines why target firm directors commission a voluntary expert to assess offer adequacy in Australian takeovers. The results indicate that expert use is higher where the board is rejecting the offer. In addition, experts are hired where the board faces greater complexity in valuing the consideration offered and the target firm. Expert use is found to be in target shareholders' interest as it increases the likelihood that the bidder will increase the offer price. These findings add to existing evidence on whether target board's act in shareholders' interest during corporate control contests.     

Transfers of corporate control in firms with noncontrolling blockholders

I model the choice between a negotiated block trade and a public tender offer as means of acquiring control in a firm with a large minority blockholder. Potential acquirers differ in their (privately known) value‐creation ability. In equilibrium, block trades are made by lower ability acquirers compared to tender offers. The equal opportunity rule (EOR) and the “freezeout” rule are complements in promoting efficiency of control transfers. Stronger investor protection may hamper value‐increasing takeovers when the EOR is present. The model also delivers predictions about announcement returns and the incidence of block trades and tender offers under different legal regimes.     

Governance and takeovers: are public-to-private transactions different from traditional acquisitions of listed corporations?

Using a unique hand-collected dataset comprising 96 public-to-private (PTP) transactions and 258 acquisitions of listed corporations by existing corporate groups completed during the period 1998 to 2000, this paper investigates the extent to which PTPs have different internal and external governance and other characteristics from traditional acquisitions of listed corporations by existing corporate groups. The paper analyses acquisition activity during a period in which three new features were present: the decline in hostile takeovers, the increase in the adoption of governance Codes of Best Practice and the growth in PTP activity. PTPs are usually a response to takeover threat (Lehn and Poulsen, 1989) and so the paper analyses the acquisition decision from two perspectives: first, takeovers as a disciplinary mechanism which substitute for weak internal governance and second, as part of a non-disciplinary perspective where takeovers are complementary to internal governance mechanisms. We find support for the argument that improved internal governance and non-disciplinary takeovers, that is takeovers where the motive is not as a response to under-performing management, are complementary. PTPs are more likely to have higher board ownership and are likely to have duality of CEO and chairman. They are also more likely to have lower growth prospects and lower valuations. However, they do not have sub-optimal internal corporate governance structures in terms of lower proportions of outside directors. With respect to external governance, they are not more likely to experience pressure from the market for corporate control in the form of greater takeover speculation and are also not more likely to suffer hostile threats. We find that PTPs involving management buy-outs (MBIs) have fewer non-executive directors and a greater incidence of duality. MBO also have higher board shareholdings. We find no evidence that management buy-ins (MBIs) have different characteristics. Our results suggest that going private by MBO may result from management's knowledge of private information that leads them to believe that the market has an incorrect perspective of the company's prospects.     

Shareholder Wealth Effects of European Domestic and Cross‐border Takeover Bids

This paper analyses the short‐term wealth effects of large intra‐European takeover bids. We find announcement effects of 9% for the target firms compared to a statistically significant announcement effect of only 0.7% for the bidders. The type of takeover bid has a large impact on the short‐term wealth effects with hostile takeovers triggering substantially larger price reactions than friendly operations. When a UK firm is involved, the abnormal returns are higher than those of bids involving both a Continental European target and bidder. There is strong evidence that the means of payment in an offer has an impact on the share price. A high market‐to‐book ratio of the target leads to a higher bid premium, but triggers a negative price reaction for the bidding firm. We also investigate whether the predominant reason for takeovers is synergies, agency problems or managerial hubris. Our results suggest that synergies are the prime motivation for bids and that targets and bidders share the wealth gains.     

Modelling Takeover Likelihood

This paper employs a multinomial logit model in an attempt to better understand the motives behind takeovers. The results from the multinomial logit models show that the characteristics of hostile and friendly targets differ significantly and that these differences also vary depending on the time period under investigation. The results give some support to the disciplining role of the hostile takeover. Furthermore, conclusions based on a simple binomial logit model are likely to be misleading and result in incorrect inferences regarding the characteristics of firms subject to takeover.     

Asymmetric information and the medium of exchange in takeovers: theory and tests

In a model of takeovers under asymmetric information, we identifya separating equilibrium in which the value of the bidder firmis revealed by the mix of cash and securities used as paymentfor the target. The model predicts that the revealed biddervalue is monotonically increasing and convex in the fractionof the total offer that consists of cash. We examine the modelrestrictions using data from Canada, where mixed offers areboth relatively frequent and free of the confounding tax-relatedoptions characterizing mixed offers in the United States. Wefind that the average announcement-month bidder abnormal returnin mixed offers is large and significant. However, maximum likelihoodestimates of parameters in both linear and nonlinear cross-sectionalregressions fail to support the model predictions.     

The Effect of Illegal Insider Trading on Takeover Premia

This paper empirically investigates whether illegal insider trading increases the premium a bidder pays for a target. Illegal insider trading is trading by traditional corporate insiders, as well as others in a position of trust and confidence (e.g. investment bankers, lawyers), based on material, non-public information (inside information). The paper examines the premia of takeovers with known illegal insider trading and compares them to a control sample of takeovers matched by industry, time period, and size that do not have detected illegal insider trading. After controlling for differences in merger characteristics, such as number of bidders, type of offer, form of payment, etc., we find that takeovers with detected illegal insider trading have takeover premia which are approximately 10 percentage points, or almost one-third, higher than the control sample. We conduct additional tests in an attempt to determine the direction of causality between illegal insider trading and takeover premia size and explore the effect of potential detection bias. The results suggest both that illegal inside traders base their trades on factors other than premia size, and that illegal insider trading in takeovers with large premia is not necessarily more likely to be detected. Our findings are consistent with the hypothesis that the illegal insider trading itself tends to create larger takeover premia.     

Employment growth following takeovers

We construct a comprehensive sample of takeovers in Belgium that shows they are remarkably common. Takeovers involve both small and large firms and, over a five‐year period, 17% of private sector employment. We estimate their impact on employment growth using a framework that explicitly takes into account that takeovers involve pairs of firms and that post‐merger outcomes are heterogeneous. The average merger temporarily reduces employment of the combined entity by ?1.4%. Mergers likely to be motivated by market power show a stronger and permanent employment reduction of ?14%, whereas those motivated by efficiency gains lead to employment expansions of +10%.     

Offer pricing of Australian industrial initial public offers

In the present paper we examine the setting of offer prices for Australian industrial initial public offers (IPOs) by fixed price offers. Our investigation focuses on the associations between offer prices and both market prices and accounting based measures of intrinsic value. Fixed‐price offers are less likely to be influenced by the canvassing of market demand when compared to the US setting, where book‐builds are typically used. We conclude that while Australian industrial IPOs are underpriced, they are not systematically undervalued. Contrary to research undertaken by Purnanandam and Swaminathan in the US book‐build setting, we do not conclude that Australian IPOs are systematically overvalued. As part of our analysis, we develop an empirical model of offer prices based on interviews with several leading Australian stockbrokers involved in setting them. Finally, using the ratio of offer price to intrinsic value measure, we find some evidence that undervaluation is positively related to underpricing.     

Tender Offers and Free Cash Flow: An Empirical Analysis

High free cash flow firms are characterized by a mismatch between growth opportunities and resources. High free cash flow target firms receive higher-than-average abnormal returns. Target returns are lower when the bidder is a high free cash flow firm. During the 1970s, results suggested that cash-flow-rich bidding firms pursued low-benefit takeovers. During the 1980s, high free cash flow firms became the targets of tender offers. Results are consistent with the notion that reducing agency problems in target firms generates benefits and that bidding firms with large free cash flow undertake low-benefit acquisitions.