Corporate Governance and Performance in the Market for Corporate Control: The Case of REITs

We examine 132 mergers and acquisitions by Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) during 1997–2006 and explore the relationship between acquirer external and internal corporate governance mechanisms and announcement abnormal returns. We argue that in regulated industries with absent active takeover market, the importance of outside governance mechanisms is diminished and substituted by internal governance controls. We focus on the REIT industry. We find that bidder returns are higher for REITs with smaller boards, with more experienced CEOs, but with shorter tenure. Acquirers’ announcement returns are also significantly and positively related to higher ownership by their CEOs and board directors. We find no significant relationship between presence of staggered board and abnormal bidder returns, which supports our hypothesis that anti-takeover defense measures have reduced importance for REITs.     

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 impact of gender diversity on shareholder wealth: Evidence from European bank M&A

We explore the association between board gender diversity and shareholder value creation. Specifically, we investigate the impact of gender diversity on the economic impact of bank mergers and acquisitions (M&A). We employ a multi-year sample of M&A announced by European listed banks and find that: (i) the presence of women on the board of directors has a positive and statistically significant effect on acquirer gains; and (ii) boards with three or more women, or where women represent more than 25% of the board, have a stronger impact on acquirer gains than in the opposite case, consistent with critical mass theory. Moreover, banks with a critical mass of female directors perform better in undertaking value-enhancing M&A after the global financial crisis. Policy makers and practitioners could benefit from the findings by exploiting the advantages of board heterogeneity in terms of gender.     

The role of directors with related supply chain industry experience in corporate acquisition decisions

We examine the extent to which directors with supply chain experience (DSCs) on corporate boards create informational advantages that improve strategies and outcomes related to mergers and acquisitions (M&A). Our results suggest that DSCs play a dual role by motivating value-enhancing acquisitions while simultaneously deterring value-destroying ones. The nature and extent of these effects depend on such factors as the size of the acquiring firm and the level of uncertainty in its operating environment. Furthermore, we find that DSCs are positively associated with abnormal announcement returns. Acquirers with at least one DSC outperform their counterparts without DSCs by 3.1% during a three-day window around the announcement. Our results hold after we address endogeneity concerns using multiple methods. Finally, we show that acquirer board representation by DSCs is positively related to post-merger operating performance and negatively related to the premium paid for the target.     

LABOR MARKET CONSEQUENCES FOR BUSY DIRECTORS: EVIDENCE FROM INTERNATIONAL MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS

Using 13,233 acquisitions from 57 countries, we examine merger and acquisition (M&A) decisions made by busy boards. We find that few busy acquirers originate from emerging markets and that they tend to undertake cross‐border mergers, favor public targets, finance with cash and equity, pursue nondiversifying mergers, avoid targets with multiple bidders, and long‐term underperform relative to nonbusy acquirers. Importantly, we discover a nonlinear relation between an acquirer's board busyness and merger announcement returns. We find that the labor market penalizes directors who approve bad acquisitions but does not reward them for good mergers. We find a similar nonlinear relation between an acquirer's board busyness and its long‐term performance along with a suggestion of an optimal board busyness.     

How do US investors perceive the risk of local political corruption? Evidence from acquisition announcement

This study examines the impact of local political corruption on investors’ evaluation of firms’ mergers and acquisitions (M&As) in the US. Using the number of corruption convictions of government officials reported by the US Department of Justice, we find that acquirers in more corrupt court districts experience lower acquirer announcement returns, lower combined acquirer and target announcement returns, and are less likely to complete acquisitions. We further find that the relation between local political corruption and acquirer announcement returns is worsened when acquirers operate primarily in the headquarters state. Overall, the results suggest that local political corruption has an adverse impact on investors’ evaluation of a firm’s M&A profitability.     

Board Share‐Ownership and Takeover Performance

Abstract:   We investigate the relation between takeover performance and board share‐ownership in the acquiring company for a sample of 363 UK takeovers completed in the period 1985–96. In investigating this relationship we pay particular attention to the composition of board shareholdings as well as their size. Thus, in addition to the analysis of total board holdings, we analyse the separate impact of CEO shareholdings and of the pattern of non‐executive and executive holdings within the board. In addition to our detailed examination of board holdings we assess the impact of non‐board holdings. Our analysis controls for a number of non‐shareholding constraints on discretionary director behaviour and for a variety of other influences on takeover outcomes including: the means of payment; acquirer size and market to book value; the relative size of the acquirer and the target; the nature of the bid in terms of hostility and industrial direction; and the pre‐takeover performance of the acquiring company. We assess performance in terms of announcement returns, long run share returns and a portfolio of accounting measures. We find evidence that overall board ownership has a strong positive impact on long run share returns and a weak positive impact on operating performance. However, much stronger effects are found when the overall board measure is split into CEO, executive, and non‐executive directors. We find strong evidence of a positive relation between takeover performance and CEO ownership, which holds for both long run returns and operating performance measures. This finding is robust to controlling for other factors that determine takeover performance and holds in a two stage least squares framework that controls for endogeneity effects. Shareholdings of other executive directors, non‐executive directors, and non‐board holdings are found to have no significant effect on takeover performance.     

Director compensation incentives and acquisition performance

This paper investigates the relation between director compensation structure and shareholder interests in the context of acquisitions. Our evidence suggests that acquirer firms that compensate their directors with a higher proportion of incentive-based compensation have significantly higher stock returns around the announcement. Compared to acquirers in the low equity-based compensation group, acquirers in the high equity-based compensation group outperform by 9.54% in a five-day period surrounding the announcement date. These results hold even after controlling for endogeneity issues. We further find that acquirers with higher equity-based pay exhibit greater improvements in stock price and operating performance in the three years following acquisitions. An increase in director equity-based pay also results in a lower acquisition premium for targets. These results indicate that equity-based compensation provides incentives for directors to make decisions that meet the interests of shareholders.     

50+ Years of Diversification Announcements

This paper studies announcement returns from 4,764 mergers over 57 years to shed light on several controversies concerning corporate diversification. One prominent view is that diversification destroys value because of agency problems or internal investment distortions, but we find that combined (acquirer plus target) announcement returns are significantly positive for diversifying mergers throughout the period, and no lower than the returns for related mergers. The returns from diversifying acquisitions fell after 1980, and investors rewarded mergers involving financially constrained firms before but not after 1980, consistent with the idea that the value of internal capital markets declined over time.     

Do Long-Term Shareholders Benefit From Corporate Acquisitions?

Using 947 acquisitions during 1970–1989, this article finds a relationship between the postacquisition returns and the mode of acquisition and form of payment. During a five-year period following the acquisition, on average, firms that complete stock mergers earn significantly negative excess returns of ?25.0 percent whereas firms that complete cash tender offers earn significantly positive excess returns of 61.7 percent. Over the combined preacquisition and postacquisition period, target shareholders who hold on to the acquirer stock received as payment in stock mergers do not earn significantly positive excess returns. In the top quartile of target to acquirer size ratio, they earn negative excess returns.     

Private Versus State Ownership and Spillover of Investor Protection Standards in Interprovince Mergers: Evidence from China's Emerging Market

This paper examines the spillover effects of investor protection standards for interprovince mergers in China's emerging markets. Using a sample of 372 mergers, we find that if the provincial investor protection of the acquirer is better than that of the target, a privately owned acquirer will get significantly higher abnormal returns, whereas a local state-owned acquirer will not. Additional evidence indicates that in contrast to the crossborder acquirers or the private acquirers, the local state-owned acquirers in interprovince mergers come from provinces with worse fiscal conditions and prefer to acquire targets in provinces with better investor protection or fiscal conditions.     

The impact of state ownership,formal institutions and resource seeking on acquirers’ returns of Chinese M&A

We examine the effects of state ownership, institutions and resource-seeking behavior on post-acquisition stock price returns of Chinese cross-border mergers and acquisitions over the period 1998–2008. Chinese acquiring firms experience negative returns ranging from 2.92 to 10.80 % in 12- and 60-month post-event periods, respectively. State ownership (SOE), interaction between R&D and SOE, formal institutional distance and acquirer size have a positive and significant impact on the long-term acquirer returns. However, the interaction between tangible resources and SOE and acquirer cash holdings appears to have a negative and significant impact on long-term returns. Overall, our results suggest that the state and institutions constitute important sources of long-term value creation for Chinese acquirers.     

Gaining a competitive edge through acquisitions: Evidence from the telecommunications industry

I study the announcement effects of all acquisitions in the recent telecom wave on both the acquirers and their industry competitors. I find evidence of negative rival returns (? 0.55%, t-stat = 2.47) by focusing on non-horizontal acquisitions where rivals are less susceptible to experience positive returns due to increased market power or expectation that some will become future targets themselves. I find that this effect is worse for closer rivals defined as having similar size and being in the same primary service area as the acquirer. Competitor returns are positively correlated with those of the acquirers suggesting that the negative impact experienced by competitors is driven by acquisitions in which the acquirer itself is earning negative abnormal returns. Results are broadly consistent with the Competitive Advantage Hypothesis that posits acquisitions are a means of corporate restructuring in a changing environment, awarding the acquirer a competitive edge and thereby making these acquisitions costly for their non-merging competitors.     

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.     

Disclosure Regulation and Corporate Acquisitions

This paper examines the effect of disclosure regulation on the takeover market. We study the implementation of a recent European regulation that imposes tighter disclosure requirements regarding the financial and ownership information on public firms. We find a substantial drop in the number of control acquisitions after the implementation of the regulation, a decrease that is concentrated in countries with more dynamic takeover markets. Consistent with the idea that the disclosure requirements increased acquisition costs, we also observe that, under the new disclosure regime, target (acquirer) stock returns around the acquisition announcement are higher (lower), and toeholds are substantially smaller. Overall, our evidence suggests that tighter disclosure requirements can impose significant acquisition costs on bidders and thus slow down takeover activity.     

Do minority acquisitions transfer better corporate governance practices? An analysis of UK's cross-border minority investments

This study examines the influence of minority shareholders on the transfer of corporate governance practices into companies in other countries where they invest. By analysing UK firms that acquired a minority ownership in foreign firms between 1993 and 2014, we find evidence of better corporate governance in the board structure of target foreign firms following UK firms taking a minority shareholding, the extent and nature of the changes varying depending on the quality of investor protection in the country the foreign target firm is located. Our findings contribute to the on-going debates on the spillover effect of better corporate governance practices via cross-border mergers and acquisitions as well as relationship between internal (board of directors) and external (country's quality of investor protection) corporate governance mechanisms.     

Board connections and M&A transactions

We examine M&A transactions between firms with current board connections and find that acquirers obtain higher announcement returns in transactions with a first-degree connection where the acquirer and the target share a common director. Acquirer returns are also higher in transactions with a second-degree connection where one acquirer director and one target director serve on the same third board. Our results suggest that first-degree connections benefit acquirers with lower takeover premiums while second-degree connections benefit acquirers with greater value creation. Overall, we provide new evidence that board connectedness plays important roles in corporate investments and leads to greater value creation.     

Impact on Target Firm Risk-Return Characteristics of Domestic and Cross-Border Mergers and Acquisitions in Emerging Markets

Using a large sample of partial cross-border mergers and acquisitions from emerging countries, we show that these acquisitions significantly reduce the risk of the target firms and that the risk reduction is directly related to the changes in the international shareholder base and the strength of the investor right protection of the acquirer. We also find that these acquisitions are value creating because we see improvements in both the short-term and long-term risk-adjusted stock performance in target firms during the postacquisition period.     

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.     

Competition For Board Seats Following Stock‐For‐Stock Mergers

We examine the board structure of firms following stock‐for‐stock mergers. We find that former target inside (outside) directors are more likely to join the combined firm board when target insiders (outsiders) have a relatively strong position on the pre‐merger target board. The relative size of the target firm, target firm profitability, and target blockholder ownership also influence whether target directors join the combined board. We conclude that competition for board seats on the combined board is won by target directors with greater bargaining positions.