A law and finance theory of strategic blocking and preemptive bidding in takeovers

This paper uses a law and finance approach to develop a new takeover theory that formalizes the idea that large target shareholders, who can block a takeover attempt, exercise a strategic influence on tender offer prices, and thereby, on the distribution of the takeover gain. The theory captures the interaction between legal rules, target ownership structure, bidder toehold and potential effects of arbitrageurs in an endogenously determined bargaining parameter that predicts a skewed distribution of the gain in favor of target shareholders. In a regression model, the parameter has significant explanatory power, specifically when the total takeover gain is positive.     

Regulation, taxes and the market for corporate control in Belgium

This paper examines the effect of regulation and taxation on the characteristics of the merger and acquisition process in Belgium. Regulatory provisions are reflected in the fact that Belgian bidders own large toeholds in the target before they engage in takeover bids. Although these toeholds do not have to be disclosed, bidders do not earn any significant returns as a result of the takeover. It is also found that tax considerations are important when a firm chooses to pay with cash or with shares. Finally, it is found that in negotiated offers, the gain to target firms is negatively related to the toehold of the bidder and positively related to the number of shares controlled by large block holders.     

The Performance of the European Market for Corporate Control: Evidence from the Fifth Takeover Wave

This paper presents an in‐depth analysis of the performance of large, medium‐sized, and small corporate takeovers involving Continental European and UK firms during the fifth takeover wave. We find that takeovers are expected to create takeover synergies as their announcements trigger statistically significant abnormal returns of 9.13% for the target and of 0.53% for bidding firms. The characteristics of the target and bidding firms and of the bid itself are able to explain a significant part of these returns: (i) deal hostility increases the target's but decreases bidder's returns; (ii) the private status of the target is associated with higher bidder's returns; and (iii) an equity payment leads to a decrease in both bidder's and target's returns. The takeover wealth effect is however not limited to the bid announcement day but is also visible prior and subsequent to the bid. The analysis of pre‐announcement returns reveals that hostile takeovers are largely anticipated and associated with a significant increase in the bidder's and target's share prices. Bidders that accumulate a toehold stake in the target experience higher post‐announcement returns. A comparison of the UK and Continental European M&A markets reveals that: (i) the takeover returns of UK targets substantially exceed those of Continental European firms. (ii) The presence of a large shareholder in the bidding firm has a significantly positive effect on takeover returns in the UK and a negative one in Continental Europe. (iii) Weak investor protection and low disclosure in Continental Europe allow bidding firms to adopt takeover strategies enabling them to act opportunistically towards the target's incumbent shareholders.     

Toehold strategies,takeover laws and rival bidders

Prior to the announcement of a tender offer, the bidding firm is legally allowed to acquire shares in the open market, subject to some limitations. These pre-announcement purchases are known as toeholds. This paper presents a simple model that describes the bidder's optimal toehold acquisition strategy, within an environment that closely parallels the present legal institutions. The model shows that toeholds and bids interact in a complex manner even without the presence of asymmetric information. By examining a simple environment the paper provides a useful alternative hypothesis for tests of other, presumably more complex, models. One of the main implications of our model is that if no competing bidders are expected, no toeholds should be purchased. The paper also demonstrates that the correct specification of an empirical model can be critical. For example, under some parameter values toehold purchases may exhibit a negative cross-sectional correlation with the pre-announcement run up in the stock price. This occurs even though prices are strictly increasing the size of the toehold. Several implications concerning various aspects of merger legislation are considered. For example, we demonstrate that a rule similar to a “fair price” provision has the desirable property that a second bidder arrives and wins if and only if he places a higher value on the target than the initial bidder.     

Merger negotiations and the toehold puzzle

The substantial control premium typically observed in corporate takeovers makes a compelling case for acquiring target shares (a toehold) in the market prior to launching a bid. Moreover, auction theory suggests that toehold bidding may yield a competitive advantage over rival bidders. Nevertheless, with a sample exceeding 10,000 initial control bids for US public targets, we show that toehold bidding has declined steadily since the early 1980s and is now surprisingly rare. At the same time, the average toehold is large when it occurs (20%), and toeholds are the norm in hostile bids. To explain these puzzling observations, we develop and test a two-stage takeover model where attempted merger negotiations are followed by open auction. With optimal bidding, a toehold imposes a cost on target management, causing some targets to (rationally) reject merger negotiations. Optimal toeholds are therefore either zero (to avoid rejection costs) or greater than a threshold (so that toehold benefits offset rejection costs). The toehold threshold estimate averages 9% across initial bidders, reflecting in part the bidder's opportunity loss of a merger termination agreement. In the presence of market liquidity costs, a threshold of this size may well induce a broad range of bidders to select zero toehold. As predicted, the probability of toehold bidding decreases, and the toehold size increases, with the threshold estimate. The model also predicts a relatively high frequency of toehold bidding in hostile bids, as observed. Overall, our test results are consistent with rational bidder behavior with respect to the toehold decision.     

The Economics of Law Enforcement: Quasi-Experimental Evidence from Corporate Takeover Law

This paper examines the impact of takeover law enforcement on corporate acquisitions. We use the European Takeover Directive as a natural experiment, which harmonizes takeover law across countries, while leaving its enforcement to the discretion of individual countries. We exploit this heterogeneity in enforcement quality across countries in a difference-in-differences-in-differences model, while employing an overall inductive research approach, following Karpoff and Whittry's (2018) recommendation. We find that acquirer returns increase in countries with improvements in takeover law, driven by better target selection and lower cost of financing. The increase in acquirer returns is lower in weak enforcement jurisdictions, which we identify by developing a novel Takeover Law Enforcement Index (TLEI). The findings show that takeover law can mitigate agency conflicts, but its true value depends on its enforcement. Our results are strongly robust to alternative model specifications.     

KEIRETSU AFFILIATION AND STOCK‐MARKET‐DRIVEN ACQUISITIONS

We examine misvaluation as a driver of takeover activity in Japan. Mirroring empirical results from the United States, we find that overvaluation is an important factor affecting the dichotomy between acquirers and nonacquirers in Japan. Being affiliated to a keiretsu group appears to reduce the probability that an overvalued firm will decide to acquire another firm. Misvaluation is also an important determinant of the likelihood of a firm becoming a target; however, there is no significant difference between keiretsu and nonkeiretsu firms in this regard. Shareholders of keiretsu‐affiliated acquirers do not gain from acquisitions, whereas acquisitions by nonaffiliated firms do seem to be value enhancing.     

Auctions vs. negotiations in takeovers with initial stakes

Takeover attempts from raiders with prior stakes in the target company (toeholds) are frequent in the market for corporate control. In this context, we propose a simple and realistic selling mechanism with an agenda of exclusive negotiations that discriminates against larger-toehold raiders. When a reserve price is absent, it is shown that this negotiation procedure outperforms, in terms of expected target price, conventional auctions frequently used to model takeover battles. However, when standard auctions can be improved with an optimal reserve price, our results indicate that this target price superiority is sensitive to the degree of toehold asymmetry.     

Does takeover competition affect acquisition choices and bidding firm performance? Australian evidence

We examine the influence of takeover competition on three acquisition choices: (i) public versus private target acquisitions; (ii) stock versus cash financed acquisitions; and (iii) related versus unrelated acquisitions. We find strong evidence of acquirers’ preference for public targets, stock swaps and business focus, in the face of takeover competition. Further, we find that the takeover competition has a positive influence on the bid premium paid to acquirer public targets and those financed with stock issues; competitive bids offered to acquire related targets are associated with significantly low bid premiums. In the short-term announcement window, competition-induced bids to acquire public targets and those financed with stock are penalised by the capital market. However, only stock-financed takeovers undertaken in a competitive takeover market show a long-run decline in performance of acquirers.     

Do auctions induce a winner's curse? New evidence from the corporate takeover market

We contrast the winner's curse hypothesis and the competitive market hypothesis as potential explanations for the observed returns to bidders in corporate takeovers. The winner's curse hypothesis posits suboptimal behavior in which winning bidders fail to adapt their strategies to the level of competition and the amount of uncertainty in the takeover environment and predicts that bidder returns are inversely related to the level of competition in a given deal and to the uncertainty in the value of the target. Our measure of takeover competition comes from a unique data set on the auction process that occurs prior to the announcement of a takeover. In our empirical estimation, we control for the endogeneity between bidder returns and the level of competition in takeover deals. Controlling for endogeneity, we find that the returns to bidders are not significantly related to takeover competition. We also find that uncertainty in the value of the target does not reduce bidder returns. Related analysis indicates that prestigious investment banks do not promote overbidding. Analysis of post-takeover operating performance also fails to find any negative effects of takeover competition. As a whole, the results indicate that the breakeven returns to bidders in corporate takeovers stem not from the winner's curse but from the competitive market for targets that occurs predominantly prior to the public announcement of bids.     

Corporate Takeovers: Mode of Payment, Returns and Trading Activity

This paper examines the impact of takeover bids and, in particular, the method of payment to the shareholders of the target firms on the returns, trading activity and bid-ask spreads of target and bidding firms traded on the London Stock Exchange. It suggests that the shareholders of target firms benefit substantially from takeover activity while the shareholders of bidding firms do not suffer. The combined value of the firms engaged in takeover activity increases by a small percentage during the event period. However, the benefit from a takeover announcement to the shareholders of the target firm varies from year to year and has declined in the recent past. The magnitude of excess returns available to the shareholders is also dependent on the mode of payment. Prices of target (bidding) firms increase (decrease) most if the shareholders of the target firms are given an option to receive payment in shares or in cash. The findings also reveal that during the event period trading activity in target and bidding companies increases depending on the form in which payments to shareholders are made. In response to this increased liquidity, the bid-ask spreads of target and bidding firms decline during the event period.     

How Are Firms Sold?

As measured by the number of bidders that publicly attempt to acquire a target, the takeover arena in the 1990s appears noncompetitive. However, we provide novel data on the pre‐public, private takeover process that indicates that public takeover activity is only the tip of the iceberg of actual takeover competition during the 1990s. We show a highly competitive market where half of the targets are auctioned among multiple bidders, while the remainder negotiate with a single bidder. In event study analysis, we find that the wealth effects for target shareholders are comparable in auctions and negotiations.     

Corporate governance roles of information quality and corporate takeovers

We examine the corporate governance roles of information quality and the takeover market with asymmetric information regarding the value of the target firm. Increasing information quality improves the takeover efficiency however, a highly efficient takeover market also discourages the manager from exerting effort. We find that perfect information quality is not optimal for either current shareholders’ expected payoff maximization or expected firm value maximization. Furthermore, current shareholders prefer a lower level of information quality than the level that maximizes expected firm value, because of a misalignment between current shareholders’ value and total firm value. We also analyze the impact of antitakeover laws, and find that the passage of antitakeover laws may induce current shareholders to choose a higher level of information quality and thus increase expected firm value.     

Is the M&A announcement effect different across Europe? More evidences from continental Europe and the UK

The United Kingdom (UK) and Continental Europe are two of the most dynamic markets for mergers and acquisitions in the world. Using a sample of 2823 European acquisitions announced between 2002 and 2010, we investigate the effect of M&A announcements on stock returns of acquiring companies located in Continental Europe and the UK. The analysis is based on characteristics of takeover transactions such as method of payment, listing status of the target company, geographic scope (cross-border vs. domestic), industry relatedness of the bidding and the target company, amongst other factors. We find that European bidders earn positive abnormal returns both in cross-border and domestic acquisitions, and there is a significant difference between the abnormal returns of stock and cash deals, and between acquisitions of listed and unlisted target companies. However, the cross-border wealth effects are not significantly different between the UK and Continental Europe. We find that bidding firm’s shareholders gain more in equity than in cash offers if they are located in the UK and if they acquire unlisted targets. Cash bids for listed targets are associated with higher abnormal returns for bidders located in Continental Europe. We do not find supportive evidence that industry diversification destroys value for shareholders of both Continental European and the UK bidders.     

The effect of quarterly earnings guidance on share values in corporate acquisitions

We investigate whether quarterly earnings guidance by corporate takeover targets is associated with acquisition premiums. Regulators have expressed recurring concerns that quarterly guidance is associated with a misallocation of resources because it encourages management to focus on excessively short-term horizons. If so, firms providing quarterly guidance represent an acquisition opportunity for non-guiding firms because acquired resources can be redeployed towards more productive long-term uses. Based on prior research that finds value created by acquisitions accrues primarily to target shareholders, we predict that an expected increase in value from the termination of guidance will be observed in acquisition premiums. We find that, after controlling for the other determinants of acquisition gains, the premium paid for an acquired corporation is associated with the target's practice of issuing quarterly earnings guidance. Consistent with our prediction, we find that no incremental premium is paid to acquire guiding targets when the bidding firm also provides guidance.     

Global diversification and bidder gains: A comparison between cross-border and domestic acquisitions

We provide empirical evidence on how cross-border acquisitions from the perspective of an US acquirer differ from domestic transactions based on stock and operating performance measures. For a sample of 4430 acquisitions between 1985 and 1995 and controlling for various factors we find that US firms who acquire cross-border targets relative to those that acquire domestic targets experience significantly lower announcement stock returns of approximately 1% and significantly lower changes in operating performance. Stock returns are negatively associated with an increase in both global and industrial diversification. Cross-border takeover activity has increased during the past decade and the observed difference in bidder gains is more pronounced for the latter half of the sample period. We find that bidder returns are positively related to takeover activity in the target country and to a legal system offering better shareholder rights. With the exception of the UK, the target country's degree of economic restrictiveness is negatively related to bidder returns.     

Bidding strategies and takeover premiums: A review

I review recent empirical research documenting offer premiums and bidding strategies in corporate takeovers. The discussion ranges from optimal auction bidding to the choice of deal payment form and premium effects of poison pills. The evidence describes the takeover process at a detailed level, from initial premiums to bid jumps, entry of rival bidders, and toehold strategies. Cross-sectional tests illuminate whether bidders properly adjust for winner's curse, whether target stock price runups force offer price markups, and whether auctions of bankrupt firms result in fire-sale discounts. The evidence is suggestive of rational strategic bidding behavior in specific contexts.     

Optimal and efficient takeover contests with toeholds

Target firms often face a takeover threat from raiders with prior stakes in its ownership (toeholds). Previous literature has shown that, when takeovers are modeled as standard auctions, toeholds induce more aggressive bids from raiders, which has two important consequences for the selling process: (i) the board of directors is no longer indifferent about the sale procedure used to get the highest price, and (ii) the target may not be assigned to the highest-value raider. This paper characterizes how the price-maximizing procedure should be in the presence of asymmetric toeholds. Our central result is that the optimal rule needs to be implemented by a discriminatory mechanism quite different from conventional auction formats. By imposing an extra-charge against high-toehold bidders, the optimal mechanism is able to extract more surplus from raiders who bid more aggressively. As a result, nonbidding shareholders benefit unambiguously from the toehold asymmetry. Furthermore, as this bias restores the symmetry in bidders’ expected payoffs, the proposed mechanism also allows to allocate efficiently the target among them.     

Stock repurchase as a takeover defense

We develop a model in which stock repurchases serve as a defenseagainst takeovers by signaling the manager's private informationabout the value of the firm. The manager repurchases sharesto block a takeover only if the cost of doing so is not toohigh. Since the cost is inversely related to the value of thefirm under his management, a repurchase signals that the valueof the stock is high, blocking a takeover. While a repurchaseincreases the expected value of the stock, it also makes tostock riskier. The model also implies that there are too fewtakeovers for efficiency.     

Eat or Be Eaten: A Theory of Mergers and Firm Size

We propose a theory of mergers that combines managerial merger motives with an industry-level regime shift that may lead to value-increasing merger opportunities. Anticipation of these merger opportunities can lead to defensive acquisitions, where managers acquire other firms to avoid losing private benefits if their firms are acquired, or "positioning" acquisitions, where firms position themselves as more attractive takeover targets to earn takeover premia. The identity of acquirers and targets and the profitability of acquisitions depend on the distribution of firm sizes within an industry, among other factors. We find empirical support for some unique predictions of our theory.