SYNERGY,DIVERSIFICATION, AND INCENTIVE EFFECTS OF CORPORATE MERGER ON BONDHOLDER WEALTH: SOME EVIDENCE

The theory relating to the effects of a merger on the wealth of bondholders implies countervailing results. On the one hand, bondholders might share the benefits of operating synergies and diversification with shareholders. On the other hand, they might suffer from an incentive effect—the expropriation by the shareholders. Studies by Kim and McConnell (1977) and Asquith and Kim (1982) find that the wealth of bondholders is not significantly affected by conglomerate mergers. Using a more inclusive sample and a different methodology, this study finds that the wealth of bondholders is affected positively by merger, which implies synergies to bondholders and/or a diversification effect. Furthermore, an incentive effect would be inferred if leverage were increased substantially after merger and if the size of the increase were inversely related to bondholder gains. Since neither of these events is observed, this study finds no evidence for an incentive effect.     

Cross-border acquisitions and shareholder wealth: Tests of the synergy and internalization hypotheses

In this paper, we test the synergy and internalization hypotheses for international acquisitions using a sample of foreign acquisitions of U.S. firms during the period 1979–1990. The major findings include: First, shareholders of our paired sample of U.S. targets and foreign acquirers experienced significantly positive combined wealth gains, $68 million on average, indicating that cross-border takeovers are generally synergy-creating activities. Second, shareholders of the U.S. targets realized significant wealth gains, regardless of the nationality of acquirers. Third, the Japanese acquisitions in our sample generated the largest net wealth gains, $398 million on average, which was shared by both target shareholders (43%) and acquirer shareholders (57%). Fourth, foreign acquirers benefitted from the targets' R&D capabilities, supporting the ‘reverse-internalization’ hypothesis.     

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.     

Banks and Corporate Decisions: Evidence from Business Groups

Banks who can influence clients' governance may steer those clients into mergers to reduce the banks' own risk. Empirical evidence based on Japan's mergers and acquisitions (M&As) during the country's 1990s banking crisis indicates that acquirers with stronger bank ties made acquisitions that they would not have normally made. These acquirers lost more shareholder value via mergers than acquirers with weaker bank ties. The banks' risk was reduced, while the banks' shareholders gained significant excess returns from their borrowers' mergers. This paper offers implications for corporate governance of firms with strong bank ties and advances the existing knowledge on business groups.     

AN EXAMINATION OF MERGER SYNERGISM

The empirical research discussed in this paper measures the synergistic effects of mergers on the stockholders of the acquiring and acquired firms. Synergism is defined as the incremental wealth to the shareholders of both merging firms due to the merger—net of any potential gains achievable through investors' personal diversification over the common stocks of the merging firms. Three types of mergers are identified and studied—nonconglomerate, conglomerate with increasing financial leverage, and conglomerate with decreasing financial leverage. The results indicate that these types of mergers are affected differently by the combination. Moreover, the evidence suggests operational and/or financial synergism.     

The Impact of Merger Bids on the Participating Firms' Security Holders

This paper investigates whether merger bids have an impact on the wealth of the participating firms' bondholders and stockholders. Monthly and daily bond and stock returns are calculated relative to the announcement date of a merger bid for a sample of conglomerate mergers. The results show that while the stockholders of target firms gain from a merger bid, no other securityholders either gain or lose. To provide direct evidence on the existence of “diversification effects” and “incentive effects,” we test whether the bondholders' returns are dependent upon the correlation between the returns of the merging firms and whether the size of the bondholders' and stockholders' returns in individual mergers are correlated. The results are consistent with a capital market that efficiently resolves conflicts of interest between stockholders and bondholders.     

Do cross border and domestic acquisitions differ? Evidence from the acquisition of UK targets

We investigate the determinants of short term wealth effects for both public acquiring and target shareholders following the announcement of UK acquisitions over the period 1990–2005. Regardless of their nationality, overall acquirers incur losses, with domestic acquirers’ under-performing cross-border acquirers in general. For the latter no differences in returns between regions are found once the differences in corporate governance regimes are controlled for. Instead it is firm characteristics and in particular firm leverage that largely explain acquirers' returns. All targets gain significantly but the higher returns associated with international deals disappear once bid characteristics are controlled for.     

Stealth Acquisitions and Product Market Competition

We examine whether and how firms structure their merger and acquisition deals to avoid antitrust scrutiny. There are approximately 40% more mergers and acquisitions (M&As) than expected just below deal value thresholds that trigger antitrust review. These “stealth acquisitions” tend to involve financial and governance contract terms that afford greater scope for negotiating and assigning lower deal values. We also show that the equity values, gross margins, and product prices of acquiring firms and their competitors increase following such acquisitions. Our results suggest that acquirers manipulate M&As to avoid antitrust scrutiny, thereby benefiting their own shareholders but potentially harming other corporate stakeholders.     

Should Shareholders Have a Say on Acquisitions?

Shareholders of U.S. corporations have lost billions of dollars in acquisitions they never approved. In the United Kingdom, the listing rules give shareholders a binding say when targets are large relative to their acquirers. A transatlantic comparison of M&A activity suggests that if U.S. shareholders had a say on acquisitions, U.S. acquirers would do fewer value‐destroying acquisitions and their own shareholders would experience smaller losses. The authors also report finding a significant difference in the performance of the large U.K. deals that are subject to a mandatory vote and those that are not. The United States has given shareholders a mandatory say on pay. Is it time for U.S. shareholders to have a binding say on corporate acquisitions?     

CREATING VALUE WITH MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS

This report addresses two key questions for today's top executives: Do acquisitions create value for acquirers? And under what circumstances have acquisitions created the most value for acquiring shareholders?
The authors' analysis of over 1,500 completed deals by non-financial companies in the United States over the past 12 years shows that, at announcement, acquirers' shareholders suffer small losses, on average, in the short term around the initial deal announcement. Over longer intervals, such as one or two years following the announcement of the transaction, acquirers tend to slightly outperform industry peers.
The average or median market response hides tremendous variability in how the market has reacted to individual deals, however. This article provides evidence that the "right" M&A transaction can create substantial value for acquirers. One-quarter of the transactions lead to market-adjusted gains in excess of 5% for the acquirer and oneeighth of the transactions lead to gains in excess of 10% in the short term. However, some deals have also destroyed substantial shareholder value.
Financing structure is a key driver of the stock market reaction. Stock-financed transactions, on average, have a negative stock market reaction, while cash-financed transactions have benefited acquirers in both the short term as well as the long term.
Acquisitions of private companies or assets and units of public companies have consistently generated higher returns for acquirers than purchases of public companies.
Moreover, EPS dilution is not a major driver of how the stock market reacts to a deal. Although "accretive" deals perform slightly better than "dilutive" ones in the short and long run, the difference is small and not statistically significant. Over the long run, acquiring shareholders have benefited the most from deals within the same industry and that avoid targets with relatively optimistic earnings growth projections.     

Best Practices in Corporate Governance: What Two Decades of Research Reveals

This report addresses two key questions for today's top executives: Do acquisitions create value for acquirers? And under what circumstances have acquisitions created the most value for acquiring shareholders?
The authors' analysis of over 1,500 completed deals by non-financial companies in the United States over the past 12 years shows that, at announcement, acquirers' shareholders suffer small losses, on average, in the short term around the initial deal announcement. Over longer intervals, such as one or two years following the announcement of the transaction, acquirers tend to slightly outperform industry peers.
The average or median market response hides tremendous variability in how the market has reacted to individual deals, however. This article provides evidence that the "right" M&A transaction can create substantial value for acquirers. One-quarter of the transactions lead to market-adjusted gains in excess of 5% for the acquirer and oneeighth of the transactions lead to gains in excess of 10% in the short term. However, some deals have also destroyed substantial shareholder value.
Financing structure is a key driver of the stock market reaction. Stock-financed transactions, on average, have a negative stock market reaction, while cash-financed transactions have benefited acquirers in both the short term as well as the long term.
Acquisitions of private companies or assets and units of public companies have consistently generated higher returns for acquirers than purchases of public companies.
Moreover, EPS dilution is not a major driver of how the stock market reacts to a deal. Although "accretive" deals perform slightly better than "dilutive" ones in the short and long run, the difference is small and not statistically significant. Over the long run, acquiring shareholders have benefited the most from deals within the same industry and that avoid targets with relatively optimistic earnings growth projections.     

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.     

IMPACTS OF RELATIVE SIZE AND INDUSTRIAL RELATEDNESS ON RETURNS TO SHAREHOLDERS OF ACQUIRING FIRMS

The premise of this paper is that in mergers the manageability of acquisitions significantly affects the wealth of shareholders of acquiring firms. Specifically, the relative size of partners as well as the industrial relatedness of the two firms are examined. The test period allows for the determination of announcement, interim, and consummation effects of the mergers on shareholder wealth. It is found that acquisitions of relatively large firms from unrelated industries lead to significant declines in the wealth of shareholders of acquiring firms, and that this result is most pronounced when the period is extended beyond the announcement through the effective dates.     

Effects of recontracting on shareholder wealth: The case of voluntary spin-offs

This paper investigates the effect of voluntary corporate spin-off announcements on shareholder wealth. A significant positive share price reaction is documented for 93 voluntary spin-off announcements between 1963 and 1981. These shareholder gains do not appear to come wholly at the expense of bondholders. Evidence suggests the gains to shareholders may arise from tax and regulatory advantages and/or improved managerial efficiency resulting from the spin-off.     

The probability of informed trading and mergers and acquisitions

This paper investigates the role of the probability of informed trading (PIN) in mergers and acquisitions (M&A). We show that acquirers with higher PINs use more cash to finance their deals due to their higher cost of equity, and acquirers use more equity financing when acquiring targets with higher PINs to share the information risk with the target shareholders. We also find that acquirers and targets with higher PINs both experience higher announcement returns when cash financing is used, indicating that PINs are priced in the M&A market.     

Who benefits from bond tender offers in Europe?

This paper investigates the wealth effects of European cash tender offers for bonds during the period from 1996 to 2005. European bond offers are made to refinance (35% of cases), to reduce debt (40%) or triggered by an ownership change (25%). We investigate the wealth effects to both bondholders and shareholders. Cash tender offers for bonds turn out to be value creating for firms; with bondholders taking most of the gains on a relative basis. We find no evidence of wealth transfers from shareholders to bondholders: bondholders are paid an average tender premium of 3.9% but shareholders do not experience a significant wealth loss. Shareholders even benefit from making refinancing bond tender offers after a drop in interest rates. The wealth effects to both bondholders and shareholders increase in the remaining time to maturity. This suggests that tendering the bonds, rather than waiting for them to mature, is a win-win situation for both types of security holders.     

Does the Management's Forecast of Merger Synergies Explain the Premium Paid,the Method of Payment,and Merger Motives?

I study a sample of 336 mergers and acquisitions (M&A) deals to investigate the effect of managements’ estimate of synergy on the reservation price and the payment method. I find that synergy does not explain the premium paid implying that it may have been announced to induce shareholders to endorse the deal. Acquiring firms are more likely to overpay if they have low growth potential, while the target firm is large, has higher premerger operating performance, and high growth potential. Acquirers may be serving their own self‐interests as they are more likely to exceed their reservation price if they receive low compensation and if entrenchment provisions are in place. I also find that these acquisitions lead to postmerger shareholders’ wealth destruction, which is more pronounced when acquirers overpay. I document that the greater the synergy and the acquirer firm‐specific overvaluation, the higher the likelihood of settling the deal with more shares.     

Do boutique investment banks have the Midas touch? Evidence from M&As

We study whether the meteoric rise of boutique advisors in mergers and acquisitions (M&As) is justified by their buy-side performance. We find that acquiring firms represented by boutique advisors generate superior short- and long-run abnormal returns over those employing full-service advisors. This effect is mainly prominent in private deals, interindustry mergers, and deals involving inexperienced acquirers, where valuation uncertainty tends to be higher. Overall, our results reflect that acquirer shareholders benefit from boutique investment banks' high level of industry expertise and independent advice, supporting the rising demand for their financial advisory services.     

The wealth effects of takeover bids regulation in the European Union

We investigate the wealth effects of the Takeover Bids Directive, enacted by the European Union (EU), on mergers and acquisitions. The directive aims at protecting target minority shareholders by restricting antitakeovers provisions and preventing managerial entrenchment. We test the regulation impact using a treatment sample of EU public acquisitions and a control sample from outside the EU. Our results suggest diverse effects of the regulation across treatment countries: acquirers from countries with better shareholder protection engage in more value-enhancing acquisitions postregulation that could otherwise be too costly. The regulation also increases the likelihood of firms becoming targets and raises market value.     

DIRECT EVIDENCE ON THE MARKET‐DRIVEN ACQUISITION THEORY

We provide direct empirical evidence that share overvaluation is an important motive for firms to make stock acquisitions. We find that more overvalued firms are more likely to acquire with stock, and acquirers are more overvalued in successful stock mergers than in withdrawn mergers. Acquirers' overvaluation, on average, exceeds the targets' premium‐adjusted overvaluation. Shareholders of stock acquirers, whose overvaluation is greater than their targets' premium‐adjusted overvaluation, realize sustained wealth gains from one day before the merger announcement up to three years after the merger completion, as compared with a matching sample of similarly overvalued but nonacquiring firms.