Financial market integration and the value of global diversification: Evidence for US acquirers in cross-border mergers and acquisitions

In contrast to the previously documented cross-border discount, we find that there is positive cross-border effect for US acquirers during late 1990s and early 2000s. This is especially particular the case for those that acquire/merge with targets from segmented financial markets where acquirers experience significantly higher positive abnormal returns than those that acquire targets from integrated financial markets. Furthermore, firms acquiring segmented-market targets are also characterized by significantly higher post-merger operating performance improvement. The results indicate that the observed positive cross-border effect is mainly due to the increase in the number of transactions involving targets from segmented markets, in which the average firm experience significant financial constraints. We contend that value is created by a combination of firms with different financial market integration status, in which funds are provided to high cost firms. The finding that the value creation is even higher within the group of acquirers with a lower cost of capital provides additional support for our conjecture.     

Corporate social responsibility and stakeholder value maximization: Evidence from mergers

Using a large sample of mergers in the US, we examine whether corporate social responsibility (CSR) creates value for acquiring firms' shareholders. We find that compared with low CSR acquirers, high CSR acquirers realize higher merger announcement returns, higher announcement returns on the value-weighted portfolio of the acquirer and the target, and larger increases in post-merger long-term operating performance. They also realize positive long-term stock returns, suggesting that the market does not fully value the benefits of CSR immediately. In addition, we find that mergers by high CSR acquirers take less time to complete and are less likely to fail than mergers by low CSR acquirers. These results suggest that acquirers' social performance is an important determinant of merger performance and the probability of its completion, and they support the stakeholder value maximization view of stakeholder theory.     

Does venture capital syndication affect mergers and acquisitions?

We find that venture capital (VC) syndicate-backed targets receive higher acquisition premiums and spend more time negotiating transaction terms. The acquirers of syndicate-backed targets receive lower cumulative abnormal returns surrounding the acquisition announcement, but they outperform the individual-backed targets in the long-term. We show that VC syndication creates value for entrepreneurial firms by leading to larger and more independent boards of directors prior to acquisition. It also leads to better incentive alignment between the CEO and the shareholders of the acquiring firm. In addition, syndicate-backed targets prefer stock as the method of payment in mergers and acquisitions. Collectively, we show that VC syndication creates value for both entrepreneurial firms and their acquirers in the long-term.     

Trust and cross-border mergers and acquisitions

A number of studies suggest that social trust matters for investment. Using different measures of trust from World Values Survey, we show that countries where people display higher levels of trust engage in more cross-border M&A activities. When they do, these acquirers pay lower premiums. To the extent that these acquirers also tend to engage in larger acquisitions as well, our findings suggest that a larger selection pool of potential targets and higher value targets enable these acquirers to negotiate for lower premiums. We do not find evidence of the significant effect for target country trust levels. Hence, trust may benefit those acquiring firms in cross-border transactions.     

How Much Is Too Much: Are Merger Premiums Too High?

Is it too much to pay target firm shareholders a 50% premium on top of market price? Or is it too much to pay a 100% premium when pursuing mergers and acquisitions? How much is too much? In this paper, we examine how the extent of merger premiums paid impacts both the long‐run and announcement period stock returns of acquiring firms. We find no evidence that acquirers paying high premiums underperform those paying relatively low premiums in three years following mergers, and the result is robust after controlling for a variety of firm and deal characteristics. Short term cumulative abnormal returns are moreover positively correlated to the level of the premium paid by acquirers. Our evidence therefore suggests that high merger premiums paid are unlikely to be responsible for acquirers' long‐run post merger underperformance.     

Liquidity and Returns to Target Shareholders in the Market for Corporate Control: Evidence from the US Markets

In this paper we analyze how stock market liquidity affects the abnormal return to target firms in mergers and tender offers. We predict that target firms with poorer stock market liquidity receive larger announcement day abnormal returns based on the following considerations. First, target firms with poorer stock market liquidity receive greater liquidity improvements after a merger or tender offer. Second, deals that involve less liquid targets are less anticipated and/or more likely to be completed. Third, less liquid stocks have more diverse reservation prices across shareholders and thus require a higher takeover return. Consistent with these expectations, we show that abnormal returns to target firms’ shareholders are significantly and positively related to the difference in liquidity (measured by the bid‐ask spread) between acquirers and targets as well as the magnitude of target firms’ liquidity improvement.     

The effect of managers on M&As

In this paper, we document diverse levels of managerial ability and firm performance in the cross section of acquiring firms. Acquirers with strong managerial ability realize higher announcement-period abnormal returns and experience better post-merger firm performance than their low-ability counterparts. Our results are robust to endogeneity concerns and show that the observed variation in acquirer abnormal returns is attributed to the heterogeneity of managerial ability fixed effects across acquirers. Managerial ability adds value to acquirers, especially in stock-financed acquisitions, implying that the method of payment is not driving the negative stock-financed valuation effect documented in previous literature. Moreover, we find that target firms with strongly ingrained growth potential and low levels of financial constraint and bankruptcy risk are highly favored by skilled acquiring managers.     

The impact of state ownership,formal institutions and resource seeking on acquirers’ returns of Chinese M&A

We examine the effects of state ownership, institutions and resource-seeking behavior on post-acquisition stock price returns of Chinese cross-border mergers and acquisitions over the period 1998–2008. Chinese acquiring firms experience negative returns ranging from 2.92 to 10.80 % in 12- and 60-month post-event periods, respectively. State ownership (SOE), interaction between R&D and SOE, formal institutional distance and acquirer size have a positive and significant impact on the long-term acquirer returns. However, the interaction between tangible resources and SOE and acquirer cash holdings appears to have a negative and significant impact on long-term returns. Overall, our results suggest that the state and institutions constitute important sources of long-term value creation for Chinese acquirers.     

The Long-Horizon Performance of REIT Mergers

We study long-horizon shareholder returns in a comprehensive sample of Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) mergers, to test whether or not the anomaly of post-merger underperformance observed in conventional firms applies to the case of REITs. Constructing synthetic benchmark portfolios controlling for firm size and for book-to-market value ratio, we find that 60-month buy-and-hold abnormal returns for REIT acquirers are significantly negative at approximately −10%, supporting the position that REIT merger acquirers underperform non-merging REITs in the long run. We find no evidence to challenge previous studies reporting positive announcement period returns for acquirers when the target is privately held, but we do find evidence that these positive returns do not persist. The long term performance of acquiring REITs is approximately the same whether the target is public or private.

Board composition after mergers,does it matter to target shareholders?

This paper examines whether post-merger board composition affects the premiums paid to target shareholders. Using a sample of 207 stock-for-stock mergers from 1996 to 2004, we show that target merger premiums vary inversely with target director representation on the post-merger board. We also provide some evidence that both inside and outside target directors may trade shareholder wealth for board seats in the combined firms. However, we do not find board ownership moderates the relation between target merger premiums and post-merger board composition. Consistent with previous studies of management incentives in mergers, our empirical evidence supports the non-perfect agency theory. That is, target directors may sacrifice target shareholder interests to obtain a seat on the post-merger board.     

Does corporate international diversification destroy value? Evidence from cross-border mergers and acquisitions

This paper investigates the valuation effects of corporate international diversification by examining cross-border mergers and acquisitions of US acquirers over the period 1990–2000. We find that, on average, acquisitions of “fairly valued” foreign business units do not lead to value discounts. In contrast, unrelated cross-border acquisitions result in a significant diversification discount of about 24% after accounting for the valuation of foreign targets. Furthermore, significant wealth gains accrue to foreign target shareholders regardless of the type of acquisition. Overall, our results suggest that international diversification does not destroy value while industrial diversification leads to discounts even after controlling for the pre-acquisition value of the target.     

The Post-Merger Performance of Acquiring Firms: A Re-examination of an Anomaly

The existing literature on the post-merger performance of acquiring firms is divided. We re-examine this issue, using a nearly exhaustive sample of mergers between NYSE acquirers and NYSE/AMEX targets. We find that stockholders of acquiring firms suffer a statistically significant loss of about 10% over the five-year post-merger period, a result robust to various specifications. Our evidence suggests that neither the firm size effect nor beta estimation problems are the cause of the negative post-merger returns. We examine whether this result is caused by a slow adjustment of the market to the merger event. Our results do not seem consistent with this hypothesis.     

LEGAL ENVIRONMENT,INTERNALIZATION, AND U.S. ACQUIRER GAINS IN FOREIGN TAKEOVERS

In examining takeovers of foreign targets by U.S. firms, we investigate the effect of the target country's legal environment on acquiring firm value. Our results indicate that acquirers of target firms located in civil law countries experience significant positive abnormal returns, especially when the acquirer possesses a high level of intangibles. Furthermore, we find that acquirers with high levels of intangibles are more likely to acquire target firms in civil law countries. These findings suggest that the transfer of intangibles overseas provides relatively larger efficiency benefits for multinational corporations in cases where the alternative, contracting in external markets, is more difficult.     

Revisiting the merger and acquisition performance of European banks

The study examines the value creation of Merger and Acquisition (M&A) deals in European banking from 1990 to 2004. This is performed, first, by examining the stock price reaction of banks to the announcement of M&A deals and, second, by analysing the determinants of this reaction. The findings provide evidence of value creation in European banks as the shareholders of the targets have benefited from positive and (statistically) significant abnormal returns while those of the acquirers earn small negative but non-significant abnormal returns. In the case of the shareholders of the acquirers, domestic M&As and especially those between banks with shares listed on the stock market, seem to be more beneficial compared to cross-border ones or those when the target is unlisted. Shareholders of the targets earn in all cases positive abnormal returns. Finally, although the link between abnormal returns and fundamental characteristics of the banks is rather weak, it appears that the acquisition of smaller, less efficient banks generating more diversified income is more value creating, while acquisition of less efficient, liquid and characterised by higher credit risk banks is not a value creating option.     

Does carbon risk matter for corporate acquisition decisions?

In this study, we examine whether carbon risk matters in acquisitions. Using a firm's carbon emissions to proxy for carbon risk, we examine whether an acquirer's level of carbon emissions is related to the decision to engage in acquisitions and achieve subsequent acquisition returns. The results show that firms with higher emissions have an increased likelihood of acquiring foreign targets while, at the same time, having a decreased likelihood of acquiring domestic targets. Acquirers with large carbon footprints seek out targets in foreign countries that have low gross domestic product (GDP) or weak environmental, regulatory, or governance standards. We also examine the relationship between carbon emissions and announcement returns. We find that cross-border acquisition announcement returns are higher when acquirers with high carbon emissions acquire targets in countries with fewer regulations or weaker environmental standards. Focusing on the interplay of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and carbon emissions, we find that investors censure acquirers that promote CSR while also having high carbon emissions, thus resulting in worse abnormal returns. This is particularly the case if the target country is wealthy or has stronger country governance or strong environmental protection. Our findings add insight on the channels through which a focus on reducing carbon risk can add value for shareholders.     

How do US investors perceive the risk of local political corruption? Evidence from acquisition announcement

This study examines the impact of local political corruption on investors’ evaluation of firms’ mergers and acquisitions (M&As) in the US. Using the number of corruption convictions of government officials reported by the US Department of Justice, we find that acquirers in more corrupt court districts experience lower acquirer announcement returns, lower combined acquirer and target announcement returns, and are less likely to complete acquisitions. We further find that the relation between local political corruption and acquirer announcement returns is worsened when acquirers operate primarily in the headquarters state. Overall, the results suggest that local political corruption has an adverse impact on investors’ evaluation of a firm’s M&A profitability.     

Where M&A Pays and Where It Strays: A Survey of the Research

This article uses a large and growing body of academic studies to refute the popular notion that corporate mergers and acquisitions generally fail to increase productivity and end up reducing shareholder value. A careful review of the evidence starts by con. rming the obvious–namely, that the shareholders of selling firms earn large returns from M&A–and goes on to demonstrate an economic reality that is not widely understood: shareholders of acquirers generally earn about the required rate of return on investment, and hence M&A is at least a value-maintaining proposition.
Of greatest interest to corporate practitioners, however, is the very large dispersion of outcomes that underlies the average returns. Closer inspection of this variability shows that certain circumstances and company characteristics are reliably associated with value-increasing M&A. In particular, acquisitions of related companies tend to be better received by the market and to produce higher post-merger operating returns than diversifying transactions (though there are a number of successful instances of the latter). Other fairly reliable indicators of value-increasing M&A are transactions involving mergers of equals or smaller, private targets (where the bidding competition is less intense) and deals structured as earnouts and financed primarily with cash rather than stock.     

Intra-industry effects of completed and cancelled cross border acquisitions in Australia: A test of the acquisition probability hypothesis

Globalization has led to an increase in cross-border mergers and acquisitions in recent years. Australian firms have featured prominently as acquisition targets in the latest merger wave. Cross-border acquisitions significantly affect industry dynamics and competitive balance. We investigate the intra-industry effects of cross-border acquisition of Australian firms and find, among others, that the target firms' rivals realized significantly positive abnormal returns following both the acquisition proposal and termination announcements. We relate our results to competing hypotheses and find evidence consistent with the acquisition probability hypothesis. Interestingly, we find that the abnormal returns earned by the rival firms at the time of the termination of the acquisition involving their industry counterparts were greater than the returns earned at the time of the acquisition proposal announcement. These results are consistent with the assertion that the likelihood of acquisition of the rival firms increases following the termination of the initial acquisition proposal involving their industry counterparts.     

Frequent cross-border acquirers from emerging countries and cultural distance: Does the cultural difference of the initial deal matter?

This paper analyzes the relationship between national cultural differences and the performances of repeated cross-border acquirers from emerging countries, using a sample of 1079 deals conducted by 337 acquirers for the sample period of 1985–June 2008. Empirical results indicate that cross-border acquisitions on average are associated with positive wealth effects; however, for firms starting with deals with high cultural differences, abnormal returns become near zero for subsequent deals. The evidence points to the relevance of the culture factor. Moreover, the results can be consistent with either the hubris behavior (Roll, 1986) or a learning effect (Aktas et al., 2011). Conditional on successful first deals, declining abnormal return pattern is more pronounced, compared to unconditional results. Regression analyses that control for other factors point to the same conclusion that the declining abnormal return pattern is significant only for firms with high initial cultural differences. The results remain qualitatively the same after using an alternative cultural measure and accounting for country median and information asymmetry. In addition, evidence suggests that information asymmetry is greater for initial deals with higher cultural differences. The practical implication of our results is that it is generally better for firms to start international acquisitions in countries with low or medium cultural differences.     

Family firms' cross-border mergers and acquisitions

We evaluate the link between family ownership and cross-border investment behavior. By analyzing a sample of 2000 large U.S. acquirers between 2001 and 2016, we empirically show that family firms are less active in the international market for corporate control. Unlike non-family firms, family firms generate positive cross-border acquisition returns. Our results also suggest that target country conditions and acquirer financing constraints influence the link between family ownership and cross-border acquisitiveness as well as its valuation consequences. Overall, we find evidence to indicate that reduced shareholder-manager agency conflicts in family firms result in value enhancing cross-border investment behavior.