Takeovers of Privately Held Targets, Methods of Payment, and Bidder Returns

We examine bidder returns at the announcement of a takeover proposal when the target firm is privately held. In stock offers, bidders experience a positive abnormal return, which contrasts with the negative abnormal return typically found for bidders acquiring a publicly traded target. On the other hand, bidders experience no abnormal return in cash offers. Our analysis suggests that the positive wealth effect is related to monitoring activities by target shareholders and, to an extent, reduced information asymmetries.     

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.     

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.     

Convertible securities in merger transactions

This paper provides a rationale for the use of convertible securities as the medium of exchange in corporate change-of-control transactions. We argue that convertible securities can resolve the information asymmetry about the bidder’s value while at the same time mitigating the information asymmetry about the target’s value. In contrast, deals with cash or stock can only address one information asymmetry or the other but not both. Empirically, we find that a bidder is more likely to offer convertible securities, rather than all cash or all stock, when both the bidder and its target face large asymmetric information problems. We also find that both bidders and targets in convertible deals enjoy positive abnormal stock returns around takeover announcements. These findings provide empirical support for the use of convertible securities to resolve the double-sided asymmetric information problem. Finally, we find that bidder returns in convertible deals are larger than in all-cash and all-stock deals, but that target returns in convertible deals are smaller than in all-cash and all-stock deals.     

Corporate Cash Reserves and Acquisitions

Cash-rich firms are more likely than other firms to attempt acquisitions. Stock return evidence shows that acquisitions by cash-rich firms are value decreasing. Cash-rich bidders destroy seven cents in value for every excess dollar of cash reserves held. Cash-rich firms are more likely to make diversifying acquisitions and their targets are less likely to attract other bidders. Consistent with the stock return evidence, mergers in which the bidder is cash-rich are followed by abnormal declines in operating performance. Overall, the evidence supports the agency costs of free cash flow explanation for acquisitions by cash-rich firms.     

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.     

Stock repurchases with legal restrictions. Evidence from Spain

This paper analyses the consequences of legal restrictions on the volume of shares firms can repurchase. Results suggest that the imposition of a limit on the volume of common stock favours the use of open market repurchases (OMRs) compared to other methods of repurchase such as tender offer repurchases (TORs) and Dutch auctions (DAs). The positive share abnormal returns around both announcements of open market buybacks and sellbacks in the full sample suggest that they are basically used to change the ownership structure of the firm in a consistent way with the convergence of interest hypothesis. The positive abnormal stock returns around open market repurchases, which are significantly different to the negative ones around sellbacks, when there are no changes in ownership structure also indicates the existence of a signalling and free cash flow effects.     

Liquidity and Returns to Target Shareholders in the Market for Corporate Control: Evidence from the US Markets

In this paper we analyze how stock market liquidity affects the abnormal return to target firms in mergers and tender offers. We predict that target firms with poorer stock market liquidity receive larger announcement day abnormal returns based on the following considerations. First, target firms with poorer stock market liquidity receive greater liquidity improvements after a merger or tender offer. Second, deals that involve less liquid targets are less anticipated and/or more likely to be completed. Third, less liquid stocks have more diverse reservation prices across shareholders and thus require a higher takeover return. Consistent with these expectations, we show that abnormal returns to target firms’ shareholders are significantly and positively related to the difference in liquidity (measured by the bid‐ask spread) between acquirers and targets as well as the magnitude of target firms’ liquidity improvement.     

Limited attention,share repurchases,and takeover risk

We hypothesize that announcing open market share repurchases (OMRs) to counter negative valuation shocks reveals repurchasing firms’ lost growth opportunities or underperforming assets to potential bidders, making them more likely to become takeover targets. This also leads their investors to face higher takeover risk, a systematic risk associated with economic fundamentals that drive takeover waves, as proposed by Cremers et al. (2009). Indeed, we find that repurchasing firms tend to face higher takeover probability in the first few years following their OMR announcements, and that the increase in takeover risk can largely explain their post-announcement long-run abnormal returns documented in the literature. The increase in takeover risk is larger for smaller firms, firms with poorer pre-announcement stock performance, and those attracting more attention of market participants. Our results suggest that OMRs, which are used by many firms to counter undervaluation, could make the firms more sensitive to takeover waves and raise their cost of equity capital.     

Do Stock Mergers Create Value for Acquirers?

This paper finds support for the hypothesis that overvalued firms create value for long-term shareholders by using their equity as currency. Any approach centered on abnormal returns is complicated by the fact that the most overvalued firms have the greatest incentive to engage in stock acquisitions. We solve this endogeneity problem by creating a sample of mergers that fail for exogenous reasons. We find that unsuccessful stock bidders significantly underperform successful ones. Failure to consummate is costlier for richly priced firms, and the unrealized acquirer-target combination would have earned higher returns. None of these results hold for cash bids.     

INVESTOR EVALUATION OF OVERFUNDED PENSION PLAN TERMINATIONS

Hundreds of large firms have terminated overfunded pension plans and obtained substantial cash reversions in the past few years. This study reveals a positive and significant market reaction at the time of the termination announcement. The strongest stock price reaction is for firms with large terminations relative to prereversion income. This study demonstrates that real economic gains result from the termination. Specifically, firms terminating overfunded pension plans tend to have tax loss carryforwards that effectively increase the after-tax returns from termination.     

Pre-deal differences in corporate social responsibility and acquisition performance

Drawing on the portability theory, we examine how the pre-deal gap in corporate social responsibility (CSR) between the bidder and target affects announcement returns in the international takeover market. We find that the higher the bidder's CSR scores relative to the target's, the higher is the synergy captured by combined cumulative abnormal returns of bidders and targets. It supports our hypothesis that synergistic gains are higher when the ex-ante bidder-target CSR gap is positive. The results also show that the synergy effect of CSR is not shared between bidder and target firms; thereby, bidders earn abnormal returns while targets lose. We further document that the acquirers with higher CSR practices before the acquisition are more likely to engage in related and non-cash-financed deals, and capital markets reward these acquisition choices. Finally, the results show that a positive CSR gap reduces the takeover premium and the time taken to complete the deal. Overall, the results suggest a positive valuation for the shareholders of the combined firm resulting from the portability of higher CSR practices from bidders to targets. Our results are subject to a battery of robustness tests, including alternative measures of combined returns and CSR, and tests for endogeneity.     

Hostile bank takeover offers : Analysis and implications

A comparison of the financial characteristics of banks involved in hostile takeover bids with a control group of nonhostile bank mergers indicates: (1) hostile targets experience abnormal returns that are significantly greater than for the targets of nonhostile bank mergers; (2) hostile bidders experience negative abnormal returns that are insignificantly different than for bidders involved in nonhostile bank mergers; (3) hostile bank acquisition announcements produce positive net wealth effects which are larger than the wealth effects of nonhostile acquisitions; (4) a Logit regression model using financial ratios, stock price data, and ownership data is able to distinguish between hostile and nonhostile targets.     

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.     

The Impact of Investment Opportunities and Free Cash Flow on Financial Liberalization:A Cross-Firm Analysis of Emerging Economies

This study undertakes firm-level analysis of investment opportunities and free cash flow in an attempt to explain the source of the wealth effect of financial liberalization for 14 emerging countries. We find that the market's responses to stock market liberalization announcements are more favorable for high-growth firms than for low-growth firms, a result that is consistent with the investment opportunities hypothesis. We also demonstrate that firms with high cash flow experience lower announcement-period returns associated with stock market liberalization than do firms with low cash flow. Our findings suggest that the free cash flow hypothesis dominates the corporate governance hypothesis in terms of the net effect of stock market liberalization on a firm's stock returns. We further document similar evidence with regard to banking liberalization. Finally, we demonstrate that stock market liberalization leads to the more efficient allocation of capital.     

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.     

Index

This paper provides empirical estimates of the stock market reaction to tender offers, both successful and unsuccessful. The impact of the tender offer on the returns to stockholders of both bidding and target firms is examined. The evidence indicates that for the twelve months prior to the tender offer stockholders of bidding firms earn significant positive abnormal returns. In the month of the offer, only successful bidders earn significant positive abnormal returns. Stockholders of both successful and unsuccessful targe firms earn large positive abnormal returns from tender offers, and most of these returns occur in the month of the offer. For all classes of firms, there is no significant post-offer market reaction. The market reaction to ‘clean-up’ tender offers is also estimated and target stockholders again earn significant positive abnormal returns.     

Overinvestment,corporate governance,and dividend initiations

Firms with low Tobin's Q and high cash flow have significantly more positive dividend initiation announcement returns than do other firms. I interpret this result as consistent with the hypothesis that reductions in the agency costs of overinvestment at firms with poor investment opportunities and ample cash flow are reflected in higher dividend initiation announcement returns. Further tests, such as examining the impact of governance metrics on initiation announcement returns following the dividend tax cut of 2003 and examining the long-run cash-retention policies of dividend-initiating firms, are consistent with this interpretation. There is also some evidence that is consistent with the cash flow signaling hypothesis, as dividend-initiating firms with low Tobin's Q and low pre-initiation cash flow experience substantial revisions in analysts' earnings forecasts and significantly positive initiation announcement returns.     

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 Market Reaction to Discontinuing Regular Stock Dividends

This paper investigates the behavior of returns to share-holders of NYSE and AMEX firms that publicly announce the discontinuance of regular stock dividends. Using event-type methodology, the results show that the average abnormal return for NYSE and AMEX firms is negative but not statistically significant on the event date. Partitioning the sample by stock-related characteristics shows that for small firms with low stock prices and low institutional ownership, management's decision to drop regular stock dividends conveys a significantly negative signal, which, in turn, causes stock prices to decline. Firms that drop a stock payment and simultaneously initiate or increase cash dividends experience a significant increase in shareholder wealth. However, firms that drop the stock dividend policy and do not begin a cash dividend policy experience a sharp decline in shareholder wealth.