Determinants of earnout as acquisition payment currency and bidder’s value gains

We examine the wealth effects of a comprehensive sample of UK bidders offering contingent payment, or earnout, as consideration for their acquisitions. We show that bidders using earnout generate significantly higher announcement and post-acquisition value gains than bidders using non-earnout currencies (such as cash, stock exchange, or mixed payments). We construct a logistic model to predict when it is optimal for a bidder to offer earnout. We show that bidders offering earnout optimally enjoy significantly higher announcement and post-acquisition gains than bidders offering non-earnout currencies, consistent with our model of the choice of the optimal method of payment. Overall, we provide robust evidence that earnout is an effective payment mechanism to mitigate valuation risk to acquirers, and also enhances acquirer value during the announcement and post-acquisition periods. Our paper contributes to the broader literature on how corporate acquirers use payment currency to manage information asymmetry and the attendant valuation risk.     

Bidders’ strategic timing of acquisition announcements and the effects of payment method on target returns and competing bids

Using a sample of acquisition announcements released during trading versus nontrading hours, this study examines how the strategic timing of acquisition announcements determines the impact of the method of payment on target stock returns and competition among bidders. For overnight acquisition announcements, we find that cash payment offers positively and significantly affect acquisition premiums and target returns, yet these results do not hold for daytime announcements. Cash payment offers made during nontrading hours are more likely to deter potential bidders and complete proposed transactions. However, we find no such relationship for daytime announcements. These findings suggest that the timing of acquisition announcements by bidders is important for assessing the effects of payment method as a signal of target valuation and a preemption of competing bids.     

Stock repurchases: How firms choose between a self tender offer and an open-market program

In practice, open-market stock repurchase programs outnumber self tender offers by approximately 10–1. This evidence is puzzling given that tender offers are more efficient in disbursing free cash and in signaling undervaluation – the two main motivations suggested in the literature for repurchasing shares. We provide a theoretical model to explore this puzzle. In the model, tender offers disburse free cash quickly but induce information asymmetry and hence require a price premium. Open-market programs disburse free cash slowly, and hence do not require a price premium, but because they are slow, result in partial free cash waste. The model predicts that the likelihood that a tender offer will be chosen over an open-market program increases with the agency costs of free cash and decreases with uncertainty (risk), information asymmetry, ownership concentration, and liquidity. These predictions are generally consistent with the empirical evidence.     

The Effects of the Method of Payment and the Type of Offer on Target Returns in Mergers and Tender Offers

This paper re-examines the effects of the method of payment and type of offer on target abnormal returns around the takeover announcement, controlling for the target firm's institutional ownership. Previous studies suggest the difference in announcement-period target returns between cash offers and stock exchange offers can be explained by the difference in capital gains tax liabilities of the target shareholders and/or the difference in the information effect of the method of payment. The empirical results indicate no relation between bid premiums (or target abnormal returns) and institutional ownership of the target firm in cash offers and a systematic difference in target returns between mergers and tender offers even after controlling for the method of payment. These results are inconsistent with both the tax hypothesis and the information effect hypothesis. The evidence suggests the likelihood of future competition might be higher in tender offers than in mergers.     

Taking stock or cashing in? Shareholder style preferences,premiums and the method of payment

We develop and test hypotheses on the impact of target shareholders' investment style preferences on the method of payment and premiums in acquisitions. Stock offers (unlike cash offers) allow target shareholders to defer capital gains taxes. This deferral value, however, depends on target shareholders' willingness to retain acquirer stock. The empirical findings support our hypotheses. Bid premiums in stock offers are negatively and jointly related to target shareholder tax liabilities and to variables proxying for target shareholder willingness to hold acquirer stock. Moreover, the difference between predicted cash and stock premiums due to these factors significantly explains the method of payment choice.     

Do option markets substitute for stock markets? Evidence from trading on anticipated tender offer announcements

Using a sample of cash tender offers occurring between 1993 and 2002, we find evidence that the options market has become the preferred venue for traders attempting to profit on anticipated announcements. Options offer advantages relative to stocks. Traders gain leverage by trading in options and multiple options contracts on an individual stock. The results of our study indicate that a substitution effect does exist. Abnormal volume in the option market replaces abnormal volume in the stock market prior to cash tender offer announcements, and this abnormal option volume precedes abnormal stock volume for targets with or without traded options.     

Method of payment and risk mitigation in cross-border mergers and acquisitions

We argue that the method of payment in cross-border mergers and acquisitions (M&As) can mitigate country-level governance risk for the acquirer. We find a greater use of stock as the method of payment in cross-border deals involving targets from countries with high governance risk relative to that in the acquirer's country. This increased use of stock in riskier cross-border deals is consistent with the optimal reaction of the acquirer to avoid overpayment, even though we also show that the use of stock (instead of cash) as the method of payment in cross-border deals is associated with a lower likelihood of deal completion. Furthermore, for more recent periods (i.e., after 2000) we show that the use of stock (cash) has increased (decreased) significantly in cross-border deals, resulting in convergence with the method of payment used in domestic deals.     

Corporate Takeover Bids,Methods of Payment,and Bidding Firms' Stock Returns

This study explores the role of the method of payment in explaining common stock returns of bidding firms at the announcement of takeover bids. The results reveal significant differences in the abnormal returns between common stock exchanges and cash offers. The results are independent of the type of takeover bid, i.e., merger or tender offer, and of bid outcomes. These findings, supported by analysis of nonconvertible bonds, are attributed mainly to signalling effects and imply that the inconclusive evidence of earlier studies on takeovers may be due to their failure to control for the method of payment.     

Target Firm Returns: Does the Form of Payment Affect Abnormal Returns?

Research indicates that at the time of a takeover announcement, target firm shareholders receiving cash earn larger abnormal returns than those receiving stock. Our work confirms that cash targets receive larger direct payments from bidders and that the size of target firm abnormal returns is related to the relative size of this direct payment. Once we control for the size of the payment, however, we find the target firm abnormal returns to be unrelated to the payment method. Thus the relationship between payment method and target firm abnormal returns is indirect. This finding is important because it casts doubt on the signaling (asymmetric information) hypothesis. That is, cash offers do not seem to be valued by the market as a means of reducing this uncertainty. Something else, such as the tax implication differences between cash and stock offers, drives cash target firms to demand larger payments from bidding firms.     

Taxes,tenders and the design of Australian off‐market share repurchases

In designing off‐market (self‐tender offer) share repurchases, Australian companies must consider the resulting potential tax benefits for different investor groups with consequent effects upon the supply of stock tendered by holders and the ultimate tender outcome. We develop and estimate a model of the stock supply curve that demonstrates less than perfect elasticity and incomplete tax arbitrage arising from ‘participation risk’ for potential arbitrageurs. We are able to estimate the extent of disequilibrium in prices involved in fixed‐price repurchases and show that it is substantial. We show that Australian Tax Office restrictions on the tender price range for Dutch auctions have meant that non‐participating shareholders have foregone some potential benefits through the transfer of tax benefits to (primarily institutional, low tax rate) successful tender participants. The results provide support for legislative changes proposed in 2009 (but not implemented as of mid 2011), which removed constraints on the allowable range of repurchase prices.     

CLUSTERED SYNERGIES IN THE TAKEOVER MARKET

In a competitive market for takeover bids, the takeover premium serves as an effective proxy for the expected synergy. We find that the expected synergy is primarily related to the premiums paid in other recent takeovers in the same industry. This relation is even stronger when considering previous takeovers (especially over the previous three‐month horizon) in the same industry that have the same payment method (cash versus stock) or form of takeover (tender offer versus merger). More of the variation in expected synergies among takeovers can be explained by the premiums derived from recent takeovers in the same industry than by all bidder‐ and target‐specific characteristics combined. We also find that the bidder valuation effects are inversely related to the premium paid for targets, implying that abnormally high premiums may reflect overpayment rather than abnormally high synergies.     

Why Some Firms Use Collar Offers in Mergers

Collar offers are merger offers using all stock as the method–of–payment that specify a range within which the bidder's price can fluctuate. In this paper the wealth effects associated with collar offers are determined, and cross–sectional regressions are employed to determine if this offer type is a significant determinant of abnormal returns. Results indicate that collar offers are associated with significantly positive abnormal returns for the target firm, even greater than those of firms receiving cash offers, but significantly negative returns for the bidder. These results raise an interesting question: why do some bidders make collar offers? Since the immediate wealth gains are strictly for the target and bidders making collar offers have returns insignificantly different than those making fixed stock offers, bidders must be utilizing collar offers for non–wealth related reasons. Using existing theories regarding the method–of–payment choice, various hypotheses for why firms may make collar offers are presented and tested using a multinomial logit analysis. The choice of collar offers seems to be significantly tied to the relative size of the merger, uncertainty regarding the bidder's value, and the target's and bidder's pre–merger insider ownership percentages.     

Stock or cash? The trade-offs for buyers and sellers in mergers and acquisitions

In 1988, less than 2% of large deals were paid for entirely in stock; by 1998, that number had risen to 50%. The shift has profound ramifications for shareholders of both the acquiring and acquired companies. In this article, the authors provide a framework and two simple tools to guide boards of both companies through the issues they need to consider when making decisions about how to pay for--and whether to accept--a deal. First an acquirer has to decide whether to finance the deal using stock or pay cash. Second, if the acquirer decides to issue stock, it then must decide whether to offer a fixed value of shares or a fixed number of them. Offering cash places all the potential risks and rewards with the acquirer--and sends a strong signal to the markets that it has confidence in the value not only of the deal but in its own stock. By issuing shares, however, an acquirer in essence offers to share the newly merged company with the stockholders of the acquired company--a signal the market often interprets as a lack of confidence in the value of the acquirer's stock. Offering a fixed number of shares reinforces that impression because it requires the selling stockholders to share the risk that the value of the acquirer's stock will decline before the deal goes through. Offering a fixed value of shares sends a more confident signal to the markets, as the acquirer assumes all of that risk. The choice between cash and stock should never be made without full and careful consideration of the potential consequences. The all-too-frequent disappointing returns from stock transactions underscore how important the method of payment truly is.     

The adverse selection effect of corporate cash reserve: Evidence from acquisitions solely financed by stock

Corporate cash reserve has an adverse selection effect. Specifically, if investors know a company does not have to issue to invest, an attempt to do so sends a strong signal of overvaluation. This notion has not been explicitly studied in the extant empirical literature, despite its intuitiveness. Using a sample of acquisitions solely financed by stock to exclude the potential complications of free cash flow, I find that announcement returns are lower for a bidder with a higher excess cash reserve. This effect is stronger in hot equity market years or when a bidder's standalone value is more difficult to evaluate. I also find evidence supporting the idea that targets request cash payment to remove “lemon” bidders in normal (non-hot equity market) years, but accept too many stock offers in hot equity market years. After acquisitions, high-excess-cash-reserve bidders operationally outperform low-excess-cash-reserve bidders. Further, they spend more funds on reducing debt but not more on investments, compared with low-excess-cash-reserve bidders. Combined, these results show that cash reserve has information costs. Further, they highlight the importance of the two-sided information asymmetry framework of Rhodes-Kropf and Viswanathan (2004) in describing merger outcomes without resorting to behavioral or agency explanations.     

Are small firms less vulnerable to overpriced stock offers?

We show an inverted-U relation between targetiveness (probability of being targeted) and firm size. However, this pattern describes stock offers and is more pronounced during hot markets characterized by higher stock valuations. For cash offers we find a negative and monotonic relation. These contrasting patterns suggest that small firms (in the bottom NYSE size quartile) are less vulnerable to overpriced stock offers. In addition, we find that the stock acquirers of small targets are less overvalued than those of large targets, and that the announcement returns are less negative for stock acquirers of small targets than for those of large targets.     

Trading Activity,Trade Costs and Informed Trading for Acquisition Targets and Acquirers

Abstract

Microstructure effects of tender offer acquisitions on targets and acquirers differentiated by listing venue and payment method are examined. Trading activity increases more for targets than for acquirers upon offer announcement. Investors are more likely to sell targets upon announcement using direct market orders against ask limit orders for cash payment offers. While target liquidity improves as spread costs fall and quoted depths increase, acquirer liquidity falls continuously to successful offer completion. Due to increased trading differences, temporary trade costs fall more for targets than for acquirers. Permanent trade costs decline over the tender offer cycle for both parties, and especially for targets for cash tender offers and for acquirers for shares tender offers. The probability of informed trading declines (remains constant) for targets (acquirers) because increased trading intensity is greater (the same) for uninformed versus informed traders. As expected, abnormal returns and changes in own-firm permanent return volatility are negatively (but weakly) and positively (and strongly) related, respectively, to changes in information asymmetry upon announcement.     

Determinants of the Method of Payment in Asset Sell‐Off Transactions

Using a sample of asset sell‐off transactions from January 1990 to April 2010, we find that the method of payment used in asset sell‐off transactions is associated with several characteristics cited in the acquisitions research that reflect cash constraints of the bidder. Specifically, bidders facing more stringent cash constraints are more likely to use equity when purchasing assets, while sellers subjected to cash constraints prefer cash when selling assets. Second, we find that the variation in method of payment among asset sell‐off transactions also is partially explained by variables representing asymmetric information. Third, we apply our model to an expanded sample that includes non‐U.S. sellers of assets and find that an equity payment is more likely when sellers are based in countries that have relatively high country risk (more government restrictions), weak shareholder rights, and a weak legal system. Thus, it appears that bidders prefer that sellers share in the risk of the transaction under these conditions.     

Market risk exposure of merger arbitrage in Australia

We investigate the risk‐return characteristics of merger arbitrage in the Australian market for corporate control, whereby hedge fund managers acquire companies subject to a takeover offer. On average, a strategy of buying target companies and short‐selling bidders making scrip offers would have generated an annual return of 30 per cent from 1985 to 2008, excluding transaction costs, compared to the return on the broader market of 12 per cent. However, performance is not market neutral, being positively associated with market returns during downturns and inversely related to market movements during rising markets. The payoffs to this strategy are analogous to a short straddle, whereby the investor is short a call and put option at the same exercise price. These results are consistent with large‐sample evidence from the United States and the United Kingdom and have not previously been documented in Australia, in which prior evidence is based only on cash deals during the 1990s.     

Collars and Renegotiation in Mergers and Acquisitions

I examine the motivation for, and effect of, including a collar in a merger agreement. The most important cross‐sectional determinants of the bid structure (cash vs. stock, and whether to include a collar) are the market‐related stock return standard deviations for the bidder and target. This evidence supports the hypothesis that the method of payment is dependent on the sensitivities of the bidder and target to market‐related risk because either has the incentive to demand renegotiation of the merger terms if the value of the bidder's offer changes materially relative to the value of the target during the bid period.     

Whither Loose Change? The Diminishing Demand for Small-Denomination Currency

While payment card usage has increased dramatically, the stock of outstanding currency has not declined as rapidly. We analyze changes in cash demand for 13 advanced economies from 1988 to 2003 by separating cash into three denomination categories to disentangle its store of wealth and payment functions. Defining denominations commonly dispensed by automated teller machines (ATMs) as the "medium" category, we show that demand for small-denomination currency decreases with greater debit card usage and with greater retail market consolidation. In contrast, the demand for high-denomination notes decreases when interest rates rise but is generally unaffected by changes in debit card usage.