Acquisitions of private vs. public firms: Private information,target selection,and acquirer returns

The acquisition of privately held firms is a prevalent phenomenon that has received little attention in mergers and acquisitions research. In this study, we examine three questions: (1) What drives the acquirer's choice between public and private targets? (2) Do acquisitions of private targets elicit a more positive stock market reaction than acquisitions of public targets, which, on average, destroy value for acquirers' shareholders? (3) Do acquirers gain when their selection of a public or private target fits the theory? In this paper, we argue that the lack of information on private targets limits the breadth of the acquirer's search and increases its risk of not evaluating properly the assets of private targets. At the same time, less information on private targets creates more value‐creating opportunities for exploiting private information, whereas the market of corporate control for public targets already serves as an information‐processing and asset valuation mechanism for all potential bidders. Using an event study and survey data, we find that: (1) acquirers favor private targets in familiar industries and turn to public targets to enter new business domains or industries with a high level of intangible assets; (2) acquirers of private targets perform better than acquirers of public targets on merger announcement, after controlling for endogeneity bias; (3) acquirers of private firms perform better than if they had acquired a public firm, and acquirers of public firms perform better than if they had acquired a private firm. These results support the expectation that acquirer returns from their target choice (private/public) are not universal but depend on the acquirer's type of search and on the merging firms' attributes. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Cross‐border mergers and acquisitions: The role of private equity firms

Research summary: We show that private equity ownership (“PE backing”) of the acquirer is a signal of deal quality in cross‐border takeovers. As such, PE‐backed acquirers experience higher announcement returns in cross‐border takeovers, but only if targets are in poor information environments. We show that PE backing is a positive market signal because of PE firms' experience and networks that result from prior deals in target countries. We document that the market correctly anticipates that operating performance of PE‐backed acquirers increases as a result of cross‐border mergers and acquisitions (M&A). Managerial summary: We study cross‐border acquisitions by acquirers that are partially owned by private equity firms (“PE backing”). Cross‐border acquisitions are challenging as acquirers often have little information about targets. We document that investors react positively to cross‐border deals of PE‐backed acquirers—their stock prices increase upon deal announcements. However, this is only the case if targets are in countries with poor information environments. This is because PE backing allows acquirers to access PE firms' deal experience and networks. This makes it easier to identify and evaluate good targets, making it more (less) likely that a deal eventually creates (destroys) value. Consistent with this, we find that earnings of PE‐backed acquirers increase after buying targets in poor information environments. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Do newly public acquirers benefit or suffer from their pre‐IPO affiliations with underwriters and VCs?

We examine whether pre‐IPO affiliations affect post‐IPO corporate events, namely acquisitions. On the one hand, newly public acquirers may benefit from their pre‐IPO affiliations through residual signaling value or/and resource‐related benefits. On the other hand, newly public acquirers may suffer from those affiliations when conflicts of interests arise during the post‐IPO period. Equity underwriters may have incentive to promote non–value‐creating acquisitions (Type II error), and venture capitalists (VCs) may have incentive to forgo strategically important acquisitions (Type I error). Drawing on a sample of 4,029 acquisitions made by 717 newly public firms, we find that on average the announcement of an acquisition by a newly public acquirer elicits a positive response from investors. The market views more favorably the acquisitions announced by newly public acquirers associated with prestigious equity underwriters, but this reaction becomes negative when the lead underwriter is retained as the acquisition advisor. The market reacts more favorably to acquisitions announced by VC‐backed newly public acquirers, but only when those VCs are committed to a longer lockup period. The effects of pre‐IPO affiliations on expected returns are stronger for newly public acquirers with a high intangible resource base and persist throughout the three‐year post‐IPO period (across each subsequent acquisition announcement). Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Repeating a familiar pattern in a new way: The effect of exploitation and exploration on knowledge leverage behaviors in technology acquisitions

Research Summary: We identify two types of knowledge leverage behaviors undertaken by acquiring firms: integrated and independent knowledge leverage. We address how the prior exploitation or exploration orientation of acquirers influence these two modes of knowledge leverage behaviors. The degree of exploitation of acquirers promotes integrating their existing knowledge with acquired knowledge in innovative actions. In contrast, the degree of exploration of acquirers increases the likelihood that new innovations will use acquired knowledge without integrating it with their prior knowledge. In addition, the firm's prior acquisition rate moderates the relationship between the acquiring firms’ previous exploitation or exploration orientation and their knowledge leverage mode. The findings of this article suggest that pre‐acquisition innovation capabilities are distinct from but influence the post‐acquisition innovation actions. Managerial Summary: Firms often undertake acquisitions to gain access to new knowledge, but they can differ dramatically in how they leverage acquired knowledge. We show that the firm's prior innovation patterns drive this choice. Firms that have previously focused on incremental innovations in their internal innovation efforts tend to integrate acquired knowledge with their own prior knowledge. In contrast, firms that have previously pursued bold innovations tend to leverage acquired knowledge alone in new innovations. Thus, we show that firms use acquisitions as a means to extend their internal innovation patterns—firms that have focused on incremental innovations extend that with acquisitions by linking new innovations to their prior knowledge while firms that have pursued bold initiatives use acquired knowledge to move in new technology directions.     

What they know vs. what they do: how acquirers leverage technology acquisitions

Existing research suggests that in acquisitions of small technology‐based firms by large established firms post‐merger integration both enables and hinders acquirers' efforts to leverage the technology of acquired firms. This apparent paradox can be resolved once we account for the qualitatively distinct ways in which acquirers leverage technology acquisitions. Integration helps acquirers use the acquired firm's existing knowledge as an input to their own innovation processes (leveraging what they know), but hinders their reliance on the acquired firm as an independent source of ongoing innovation (leveraging what they do). We also show that experienced acquirers are better able to mitigate the disruptive consequences of the loss of autonomy entailed by integration, though we find no evidence that they achieve greater coordination benefits from integration. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Market value effects of acquisitions involving internet firms: a resource‐based analysis

While most prior research suggests that the average change in market value of acquiring firms varies closely around zero, recent research grounded in the resource‐based view and organizational learning theory identify positive returns to acquirers. We contribute to this literature by focusing on acquisitions of Internet firms and the potential for the transfer of scarce resources. We hypothesize that acquisitions made by offline firms of Internet firms and by Internet firms of other Internet firms lead to positive market valuation for the acquirer. Results of an event study of 798 acquisitions of Internet firms provided support for these predictions. We also find that prior alliances with online firms do not reduce the gains from such acquisitions to offline firms. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The role of geographic distance in completing related acquisitions: Evidence from U.S. chemical manufacturers

Acquisitions often do not reach completion when buyers' initial evaluations change during post‐announcement due diligence investigations, but research offers only limited explanations for when such deal‐cancelling new information will be most common. Drawing from the spatial geography and acquisition strategy literatures, we argue that successful completion of acquisitions can be partially explained by their spatial characteristics. We start by predicting that geographic distance has a particularly strong impact in reducing the likelihood of completing related acquisitions; we then identify contingencies based on multiple forms of direct, contextual, and vicarious experience that can help acquirers overcome the constraints of distance. We test the arguments with a sample of 1,603 domestic acquisitions announced by 724 U.S. chemical manufacturing firms between 1980 and 2004. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Acquisition Motives and the Distribution of Acquisition Performance

Research summary: I examine how acquisition motives relate to the distribution of post‐acquisition performance. I argue that acquisitions motivated by operating synergies have the potential to experience greater gains than acquisitions driven by financial synergies but are harder to value and implement, making them more uncertain. Using SEC filings, conference calls and press releases to capture acquisition motives, I find that acquirers pursuing operating synergies are more likely to experience highly positive and highly negative long‐term returns than acquirers pursuing financial synergies. I also find that acquisition experience and geographic proximity to targets soften acquirers' extreme downside outcomes in operating synergy acquisitions. My theory and results suggest that approaches that emphasize average outcomes for acquirers and use industry classifications to capture acquisition motives may be incomplete. Managerial summary: Managers engage in acquisitions for various reasons. In this study, I find that reasons related to operating synergies (e.g., revenue growth through new product offerings or cost savings through economies of scale) are more likely to result in extreme high and low performance outcomes for the acquiring firm compared to reasons related to financial synergies (e.g., diversification of cash flow streams). In addition, I find that the acquirer's prior acquisition experience and the geographic proximity between the target and acquirer help soften the extreme low performance outcomes related to operating synergies. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Do early birds get the returns? An empirical investigation of early‐mover advantages in acquisitions

We explore whether pioneering advantages exist for early‐mover acquirers in industry acquisition waves by examining both combined (target and acquirer) and acquirer stock returns. Combined abnormal returns are higher for acquisitions that occur at the beginning of acquisition waves. However, for acquirers' returns, only strategic pioneers—those acting in manners consistent with having superior information—capture significant advantages. Specifically, early‐mover acquirers who realize superior stock returns are those that conduct acquisitions in related industries, during industry expansionary phases, and finance their acquisitions as financial theory suggests they should when they possess an informational advantage—with cash. Our findings extend the first‐mover literature to corporate practices and link these practices to acquisition returns. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Performance of acquirers of divested assets: Evidence from the U.S. software industry

We provide a comparative analysis of acquirer returns in acquisitions of public firms, private firms, and divested assets. On the basis of a sample of 5,079 acquisitions by U.S. software industry companies during 1988–2008, we find that acquisitions of divested assets outperform acquisitions of privately held firms, which in turn outperform acquisitions of publicly held firms. While the higher returns for acquisitions of divested assets relative to stand‐alone acquisition targets can be explained by market efficiency arguments, seller distress and improved asset fit further enhance the positive returns of acquirers of divested assets consistent with the relative bargaining power explanation. Finally, we find that the effects of these buyer bargaining advantages are mutually strengthening and that they also hold for longer‐term acquirer performance Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The relevance of political affinity for the initial acquisition premium in cross‐border acquisitions

Research summary : In the context of economic nationalism, we investigate the relevance of political affinity between countries to the initial acquisition premium offered in cross‐border acquisitions. Political affinity is defined as the similarity of national interests in global affairs. We argue that political affinity affects how foreign acquirers anticipate their bargaining position in their negotiations with domestic target firms. With decreasing political affinity, the host government becomes increasingly likely to intervene against foreign firms in an acquisition deal. Consequently, foreign acquirers need to provide a more lucrative initial offer to dissuade target firms from leveraging government intervention to oppose the acquisition. Our prediction is supported by strong evidence that political affinity, as revealed by UN general assembly voting patterns, leads to lower initial acquisition premiums. Managerial summary : Media reports suggest that politics plays an important role in international business transactions. However, we still know very little about how bilateral political relations affect corporate decision‐making. In this article, we analyze the influence of the quality of bilateral political relations on the bidding behavior of foreign acquirers in cross‐border acquisitions. We argue that the host government is more likely to intervene against the foreign acquirer during deal negotiations if the quality of bilateral political relations is poor. A lower political affinity between countries therefore decreases the bargaining power of the acquirer and pushes up the initial bid premium the acquirer has to offer to the local target. Our empirical results confirm our argument. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

What Role Do Acquisitions Play in Asian Firms' Global Strategies? Evidence from the Medical Sector, 1978–1995

This study compares the use of acquisitions by Asian, European, and North American firms operating in the U.S. medical sector between 1978 and 1995. We examine the incidence of acquisitions, the relative emphasis that acquirers place on resource deepening and resource extension, and the post-acquisition retention of acquired resources. We find substantial similarity in the asset-seeking role of acquisitions for medical sector firms from different continents, coupled with intriguing differences concerning what we refer to as asset keeping. The results suggest that there are many common causal factors that underlie the strategies of firms from different regions, but that some regional differences remain.     

Postacquisition turnover among U.S. top management teams: an analysis of the effects of foreign vs. domestic acquisitions of U.S. targets

An analysis of postacquisition top management turnover among 168 cross-border and 102 purely domestic acquisitions, and a control group of 120 nonacquired U.S. firms, revealed that turnover rates in firms acquired by non-U.S. acquirers were significantly higher than in firms acquired by other U.S. firms or the control group. Further, the timing of postacquisition turnover differed in the foreign vs. domestic acquisitions. Finally, the nationality of the foreign acquirer was found to be an important predictor of turnover in certain acquisition categories. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed. © 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Geographic overlap and acquisition pairing

Research Summary: This study examines the role of geographic factors in explaining acquisition pairing using a novel conditional logic methodology. Drawing from information asymmetry arguments regarding acquisition decisions, we theorize that geographic overlap between the acquirer and potential targets’ businesses and operations enables the acquirer to collect more information about the potential target through its multiple business operations that are geographically proximate. We also demonstrate moderating boundary conditions. In particular, we examine acquiring firm characteristics, acquiring firm size and geographic dispersion, which both weaken the relationship between geographic overlap and acquisition pairing. Likewise, we examine two dyadic distance moderators, geographic distance and product dissimilarity, both of which increase information asymmetry between the acquirer and potential targets, which increases the effect of geographic overlap in facilitating acquisition pairing. Managerial Summary: Firms pursuing acquisition activities face severe information asymmetry when evaluating potential targets. This study investigates how acquiring firms leverage geographic conditions to overcome information asymmetry and choose targets that they can better evaluate. We find that acquirers are more likely to choose targets that have subsidiaries or business operations overlapping in the same states as the acquirers themselves. This is particularly true for small acquirers, which lack resources and capabilities to seek external assistance, and acquirers that have business operations in more concentrated locations. We also find that acquiring targets with geographically overlapped business operations is especially salient when the target's headquarters is distantly located from the acquirer or when the target offers dissimilar products from the acquirer.     

Does it pay to acquire technological firms?

Abstract The paper focuses on several research questions: How do the firms differ in terms of their strategic objectives for foreign acquisitions? What are the determinants of ‘success’ of acquisition? What are the differences between the American and German firms in terms of their acquisition strategies and successes? Our special interest was to get a closer look into the technological motive of the foreign acquisitions. This made a two-step procedure necessary. A first survey of 86 firms had to identify those acquisitions which were motivated by technological interests through a questionnaire. Findings: There are four classes of companies with different motives for acquisitions: Market oriented entrepreneurs, Short-term profit seekers, Technological acquirers, Preemptive market protectors. The second survey investigated the process and the results of acquisitions with a special view on the role of research and development through 60 interviews in 30 acquisition cases in both acquiring and acquired units. Findings: A network of variables explains the success. The most important are context variables (uncertainty, cultural differences), size of both firms, low degree of formalization, expertise, and lack of conflicts about technological philosophy.     

Cross‐border acquisitions and the asymmetric effect of power distance value difference on long‐term post‐acquisition performance

Research summary : Inconclusive findings about the effect of national cultural differences on post‐acquisition performance may be created by the failure to distinguish among the different cultural dimensions and the asymmetry of cultural differences. To demonstrate a different approach, this study focuses on one dimension of national cultural values—power distance value (PDV) and develops a framework for the asymmetric effect of PDV differences in creating two types of conflicts. The analysis of 2,115 cross‐border acquisitions in the global information technology industry shows that PDV differences undermine the long‐term post‐acquisition performance of acquirers. This effect is stronger when acquirers are higher than targets in PDV than when the opposite is the case. This asymmetric effect of PDV difference depends on national status difference, business relatedness, and acquisition experience. Managerial summary: National cultural differences can create “cultural clashes” to undermine the value creation by cross‐border acquisitions. During integration, individuals react to the acquirer–target hierarchy according to their respective power distance value (PDV): the extent to which they value equality (low PDV) or hierarchy (high PDV). PDV divergence results in two types of conflicts, depending on whether acquirers are higher or lower than targets in PDV. The two types of conflicts vary in the magnitude of their harmful effect on post‐acquisition performance. Both types of conflicts are more detrimental when acquirers are higher than targets in country status and when individuals need to interact more intensely. Acquisition experience can both help and harm post‐acquisition performance. These findings offer important implications for managing cross‐border acquisitions. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Mergers,acquisitions and control of telecommunications firms in Europe

New evidence is presented about 12 large acquisitions by telecommunications firms in Europe. The average effect on acquirers’ shareholder value is not significantly different from zero, which confirms a paradox found by previous studies: bidding firms’ shareholders do not benefit from takeovers. There is high dispersion in the results. This suggests that detailed studies may uncover important aspects of the constraints that exist in the corporate control market of telecommunications firms. A case study of the Spanish firm Telefonica suggests that corporate governance problems and political intervention are significant components of these “agency” constraints.     

Make,buy, organize: The interplay between research,external knowledge,and firm structure

We bridge current streams of innovation research to explore the interplay between R&D, external knowledge, and organizational structure—three elements of a firm's innovation strategy, which we argue should logically be studied together. Using within‐firm patent assignment patterns, we develop a novel measure of structure for a large sample of American firms. We find that centralized firms invest more in research, and patent more per R&D dollar, than decentralized firms. Both types access technology via mergers and acquisitions, but their acquisitions differ in terms of frequency, size, and integration. Consistent with our framework, their sources of value creation differ: while centralized firms derive more value from internal R&D, decentralized firms rely more on external knowledge. We discuss how these findings should stimulate more integrative work on theories of innovation. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Firm-specific time preferences and postmerger firm performance

This study investigates the role of firm-level discount factors in evaluating the impact of mergers on market outcomes. Discount factors reflect time preferences for future cash flows and are used to determine the present value of investment projects such as mergers. Firm-specific discount factors imply that firms may attach different present values to mergers. We elicit firm-specific time preferences and identify firms’ discount factors using firm-specific production data while building on the existence of learning-by-doing in the semiconductor industry. Our estimation results show that firm-specific discount factors explain firms’ production decisions. We also find that firms’ discount factors and merger acquisition strategies explain heterogeneous merger outcomes. Our results show that acquiring firms characterized by low discount factors (impatient firms) are highly efficient and merge with highly efficient and innovative firms. Impatient acquirers achieve relatively higher efficiency gains in the short run than patient acquirers and adopt acquisition strategies that put more weight on achieving instant efficiency gains. In contrast, patient acquirers are least efficient and merge with firms that are larger than themselves. Patient acquirers place more value on achieving efficiency gains in the more distant future.