Separation of Ownership from Control and Acquiring Firm Performance: The Case of Family Ownership in Canada

Abstract:   This study investigates the relationship between ownership structure and acquiring firm performance. A large proportion of Canadian public companies have controlling shareholders (families) that often exercise control over voting rights while holding a small fraction of the cash flow rights. This is achieved through the concurrent use of dual class voting shares and stock pyramids. Many suggest that these ownership structures involve larger agency costs than those imposed by dispersed ownership structures and that they distort corporate decisions with respect to investment choices such as acquisitions. We find that average acquiring firm announcement period abnormal returns for our sample of 327 Canadian transactions are positive over the 1998–2002 period. Cash deals, acquisitions of unlisted targets and cross‐border deals have a positive impact on value creation. Governance mechanisms (outside block‐holders, unrelated directors and small board size) also have a positive influence on the acquiring firm performance. Further, the positive abnormal returns are greater for family firms. We do not find that separation of ownership and control has a negative impact on performance. These results suggest that, contrary to other jurisdictions offering poor minority shareholder protection or poor corporate governance, separation of control and ownership is not viewed as leading to value destroying mergers and acquisitions, i.e., market participants do not perceive families as using M&A to obtain private benefits at the expense of minority shareholders. We do find a non‐monotonic relationship between ownership level and acquiring firm abnormal returns. Ownership of a majority of the cash flow rights has a negative impact on announcement returns. This is consistent with the view that large shareholders may undertake less risky projects as their wealth invested in the firm increases.     

Shareholder Value Creation in European M&As

This paper looks at the value generated to shareholders by the announcement of mergers and acquisitions involving firms in the European Union over the period 1998–2000. Cumulative abnormal shareholder returns due to the announcement of a merger reflect a revision of the expected value resulting from future synergies or wealth redistribution among stakeholders. Target firm shareholders receive on average a statistically significant cumulative abnormal return of 9% in a one‐month window centred on the announcement date. Acquirers’ cumulative abnormal returns are null on average. When distinguishing in terms of the geographical and sectoral dimensions of the merger deals, our main finding is that mergers in industries that had previously been under government control or that are still heavily regulated generate lower value than M&A announcements in unregulated industries. This low value creation in regulated industries becomes significantly negative when the merger involves two firms from different countries and is primarily due to the lower positive return that shareholders of the target firm enjoy upon the announcement of the merger. This evidence is consistent with the existence of obstacles (such as cultural, legal, or transaction barriers) to the successful conclusion of this type of transaction, which lessen the probability of the merger actually being completed as announced and, therefore, reduce its expected value.     

THE WEALTH EFFECTS OF VOLUNTARY SELLOFFS: IMPLICATIONS FOR DIVESTING AND ACQUIRING FIRMS

Previous research examining the wealth effects of voluntary selloffs has shown positive stock price movements around the announcement date for divesting firms. Shareholders realize positive economic gains from selloffs. One recent study indicates that shareholders of acquiring firms also realize economic gains. This study examines the division of economic gains between divesting and acquiring firms and the impact of the firm's financial condition and relative selloff size on the level of economic gains. Significant positive price movements are observed for divesting firms immediately prior to and on the announcement date. Some evidence of positive, although not significant, price movements is found for acquiring firms. These results suggest shareholders of divesting firms realize economic gains from selloffs while shareholders of acquiring firms neither gain nor lose. Also, as divesting firms sell off larger portions of their total assets, their shareholders realize greater economic gains; the division of economic gains becomes more one-sided (in favor of divesting firms) as the relative size of the selloff increases.     

How Do Stock Markets in the US and Europe Price Efficiency Gains from Bank M&As?

This paper examines whether the stock markets price changes in operating efficiency as a result of bank mergers and if the premiums paid by the acquiring banks also reflect these changes. The sample covers mergers and acquisitions consummated in the US and Europe during the period of 1997 to 2003. Changes in cost and profit efficiency are calculated using the non-parametric Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) method 1 year prior and 3 years following the merger announcement. Evidence suggests a significant relation between the announcement-period abnormal returns and the post-merger profit efficiency changes. Results also indicate that bank managers are likely to pay a higher premium for those M&A transactions that can bring about greater efficiency gains, particularly on the profit side. Further, although acquirer shareholders in the US and Europe appear to react differently to the announcement of a bank merger, our results for target shareholders suggest that regional differences might be less important than the degree of capital market development in explaining wealth effects.     

HOW STOCK-SWAP MERGERS AFFECT SHAREHOLDER (AND BONDHOLDER) WEALTH: MORE EVIDENCE OF THE VALUE OF CORPORATE "FOCUS"

Alfred Chandler once described the U.S. conglomerate movement of the 1960s and '70s as an "historical aberration and a 'disaster." And the recent trend in corporate mergers and acquisitions away from "diversifying" acquisitions would seem to confirm Chandler's argument.
In what constitutes yet another piece of evidence in support of Chandler's argument, the authors of this article conducted a study of changes in debt and equity values in 260 stock-forstock mergers completed between 1963 and 1996. With a sample almost evenly divided between conglomerate and "related" mergers, the authors report significant net wealth gains for all securityholders as a group in "related" mergers, but generally insignificant net gains for securityholders in conglomerate mergers. Not surprisingly, target firm shareholders experienced net wealth gains in both kinds of acquisitions; but for acquiring company shareholders, there was a striking difference: economically and statistically significant gains for acquirers in related transactions, and significant losses for acquirers in conglomerate deals.
Perhaps the biggest surprise of the study, however, was that even the bondholders of acquirers in related mergers benefited more than bondholders in conglomerate deals. The result is surprising because, to the extent bondholders benefit from corporate diversification, one would expect the opposite result. That bondholders in related mergers experience larger wealth increases than those of conglomerate acquirers is just one more sign of the dramatic differences in total value created by the two kinds of mergers.     

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.     

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.     

INTERSTATE BANK MERGERS: THE EARLY EVIDENCE

This study examines the wealth effects of interstate bank mergers to both the acquired and acquiring firms' shareholders. While the overall results are consistent with the findings of research on nonfinancial mergers — that acquired firms' shareholders gain and acquiring firms' shareholders break even — there is evidence that the acquiring banks cannot be considered a homogeneous group. Specifically, banks involved in relatively large acquisitions earn positive and statistically significant abnormal returns and significantly outperform those involved in relatively smaller mergers. The results suggest there are differential opportunities for gain from interstate mergers, dependent upon the relative size of the acquisition and the degree to which it expands the geographic market served by the bank.     

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.     

Stockholder returns and international acquisitions of financial firms: An emphasis on banking

The wealth effects for shareholders of American financial firms involved in foreign acquisitions and also the wealth effects for shareholders of U.S. target firms acquired by foreign concerns are the topics of this study. The findings indicate that stockholders of U.S. bidding financial firms (and its subset of banks) earn neither abnormal gains nor suffer abnormal losses upon the announcement of an acquisition or regulatory approval. On the other hand, stockholders of U.S. target financial firms (and its subset of banks) earn significant abnormal profits at both the announcement of the proposed acquisition and the announcement of regulatory approval of the acquisition. The wealth effects for these two samples are also compared to samples in which both parties to the acquisition are U.S. firms. The research suggests that there is no significant difference in the size of the announcement gains or losses for either stockholders of the target or bidding firms based on whether the acquisition is foreign or domestic. These findings conflict with prior research which indicates that, for firms in general, stockholders of U.S. targets earn significantly greater wealth benefits when they are acquired by foreign firms than by domestic firms. Overall, these results are consistent with a competitive market for acquisitions of financial firms in which buyers do not earn or lose at the announcement of an acquisition, and in which abnormal gains are received only by the sellers.     

Bondholder Wealth Effects in Mergers and Acquisitions: New Evidence from the 1980s and 1990s

We examine the wealth effects of mergers and acquisitions on target and acquiring firm bondholders in the 1980s and 1990s. Consistent with a coinsurance effect, below investment grade target bonds earn significantly positive announcement period returns. By contrast, acquiring firm bonds earn negative announcement period returns. Additionally, target bonds have significantly larger returns when the target's rating is below the acquirer's, when the combination is anticipated to decrease target risk or leverage, and when the target's maturity is shorter than the acquirer's. Finally, we find that target and acquirer announcement period bond returns are significantly larger in the 1990s.     

Corporate Mergers and Shareholder Wealth Effects: 1977-1986

The paper investigates the distribution of returns to shareholders of UK companies involved in acquisitions during the period 1977-1986. Three control models were used in the analysis: the market model with parameters identified through OLS regression, a model based on adjusted betas, and finally an index-relative model. Abnormal returns were identified around both bid announcement and outcome dates for bidders and targets in completed and abandoned bids. Examination was also made of the distribution of wealth changes for bidders and targets separately and for both in combination. The results demonstrate that, although there is no net wealth decrease to shareholders in total as a result of takeover activity, shareholders of bidder firms do suffer wealth decreases. By contrast, shareholders in target firms obtained significant, positive wealth increases in both completed and abandoned bids.     

Wealth Destruction on a Massive Scale? A Study of Acquiring‐Firm Returns in the Recent Merger Wave

Acquiring‐firm shareholders lost 12 cents around acquisition announcements per dollar spent on acquisitions for a total loss of $240 billion from 1998 through 2001, whereas they lost $7 billion in all of the 1980s, or 1.6 cents per dollar spent. The 1998 to 2001 aggregate dollar loss of acquiring‐firm shareholders is so large because of a small number of acquisitions with negative synergy gains by firms with extremely high valuations. Without these acquisitions, the wealth of acquiring‐firm shareholders would have increased. Firms that make these acquisitions with large dollar losses perform poorly afterward.     

Shareholder voting in mergers and acquisitions: evidence from the UK

This paper examines the determinants and consequences of shareholder voting on mergers and acquisitions using a sample of resolutions approved by shareholders of UK publicly listed firms from 1997 to 2015. We find that dissent on M&A resolutions is negatively related to bidder announcement returns and positively related to shareholders’ general dissatisfaction towards the management. Shareholder dissent is an important predictor of the announcement returns of subsequent M&A deals. We also report an increase in shareholder dissent after the 2007–2008 financial crisis.     

Measuring Takeover Premiums in Cross-Border Mergers and Acquisitions: Insights from Turkey

We investigate whether the merger announcement dates provided in a popular mergers and acquisitions (M&A) database, SDC, serve as accurate event dates for estimating the wealth effects of mergers on target firms located in Turkey. We find that 74 percent of SDC’s merger announcement dates are preceded by merger-related events such as merger rumors, target firms’ search for potential acquirers, and early-stage merger negotiation announcements. Target cumulative abnormal return (CAR) estimates around these early dates are almost twice as large as the CAR estimates around SDC’s merger announcement dates. We argue that our findings have implications for the recently flourishing cross-border M&A literature.     

Acquirer-target social ties and merger outcomes

This article investigates the effect of social ties between acquirers and targets on merger performance. We find that the extent of cross-firm social connection between directors and senior executives at the acquiring and the target firms has a significantly negative effect on the abnormal returns to the acquirer and to the combined entity upon merger announcement. Moreover, acquirer-target social ties significantly increase the likelihood that the target firm?s chief executive officer (CEO) and a larger fraction of the target firm?s pre-acquisition board of directors remain on the board of the combined firm after the merger. In addition, we find that acquirer CEOs are more likely to receive bonuses and are more richly compensated for completing mergers with targets that are highly connected to the acquiring firms, that acquisitions are more likely to take place between two firms that are well connected to each other through social ties, and that such acquisitions are more likely to subsequently be divested for performance-related reasons. Taken together, our results suggest that social ties between the acquirer and the target lead to poorer decision making and lower value creation for shareholders overall.     

The wealth effect of forced bank mergers and cronyism

This study examines the impact of forced bank mergers on the shareholders’ wealth of Malaysian banks. Forced bank mergers, which are the result of direct government intervention in the consolidation of the banking industry, are generally rare. Unlike the findings on voluntary mergers and acquisitions, our study shows that the forced merger scheme destroys economic value in aggregate and the acquiring banks tend to gain at the expense of the target banks. Further analysis shows that the contrasting forced merger finding is linked to cronyism.     

THE MEASUREMENT OF POST-ACQUISITION PERFORMANCE: TOWARD A VALUE-BASED BENCHMARKING METHODOLOGY

Mergers and acquisitions are clearly the favorite corporate growth strategy of this generation's executive teams. But there is little evidence that such strategies have paid off for the acquiring companies' shareholders–and many transactions have proved disastrous for the careers of the executives as well as the pocketbooks of the shareholders of the acquiring firms.
This article presents a methodology for evaluating post-acquisition operating performance from the perspective of the acquiring company's shareholders. The cornerstone of the method is a performance benchmark that incorporates the operating performance expectations built into the pre-acquisition market values of the two companies plus the additional promise of performance created by the payment of an acquisition premium.
After illustrating the use of this methodology in the case of an actual acquisition, the article goes on to present the results of a study (using 41 major strategic acquisitions from the period 1979–1990) of the extent to which stock market reactions to acquirers are useful predictors of actual performance over a five-year period following the acquisition. The results of the study provide strong support for building current market expectations into the benchmarking methodology.
The 1990s are often said to have initiated an era of so-called "strategic" mergers. The clear message from this analysis is that, even if a deal is deemed "strategic," it will not add value unless the realized synergies justify the acquisition premium. The burden of proof is on the acquirer to demonstrate to the market that they will. This article provides a tool that senior executives can use both for pre-acquisition analysis and pricing and for post-acquisition performance evaluation and incentive compensation.     

How do partial acquisitions affect the wealth of acquiring firms? The case of Japanese firms

This study examines how and why partial acquisitions affect the wealth of acquiring firms in Japan. Few studies have focused on acquiring firms in partial acquisitions, whereas many studies have investigated target firms. The empirical results show that the shareholder wealth of acquiring firms, which can increase through partial acquisitions, is much lower than that of target firms. In addition, acquiring firms and their targets differ in how they enhance their wealth from partial acquisitions—acquiring firms can enhance their wealth by exploiting the wealth of target firms, while target firms can enhance their wealth by obtaining support from acquiring firms.     

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.