Shareholder Wealth Effects of European Domestic and Cross‐border Takeover Bids

This paper analyses the short‐term wealth effects of large intra‐European takeover bids. We find announcement effects of 9% for the target firms compared to a statistically significant announcement effect of only 0.7% for the bidders. The type of takeover bid has a large impact on the short‐term wealth effects with hostile takeovers triggering substantially larger price reactions than friendly operations. When a UK firm is involved, the abnormal returns are higher than those of bids involving both a Continental European target and bidder. There is strong evidence that the means of payment in an offer has an impact on the share price. A high market‐to‐book ratio of the target leads to a higher bid premium, but triggers a negative price reaction for the bidding firm. We also investigate whether the predominant reason for takeovers is synergies, agency problems or managerial hubris. Our results suggest that synergies are the prime motivation for bids and that targets and bidders share the wealth gains.     

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.     

Agency, Bid Resistance and the Market for Corporate Control

In this paper we investigate the effects of post-bid defence activity for a sample of takeover bids in the UK. We find that most of the defences investigated promote the interests of target managers by significantly lowering the probability of bid success. We also find that most of the defences promote the interests of shareholders by increasing wealth gains by an amount that varies between 9% and 14%. These results suggest that bid resistance is to the mutual benefit of the managers and shareholders of target firms. This conclusion is in line with recent developments in agency theory.     

Do Acquirers Manage Earnings Prior to a Share for Share Bid?

Abstract:  Earnings management by acquirers ahead of share for share bids may affect whether a bid succeeds, and hence which management team controls the target's assets, as well as the distribution of gains between target and acquirer shareholders. This paper tests for such earnings management for the UK, the world's second largest takeover market, in the period 1997–2001 when M&A reached record levels and share for share deals came to account for the majority of expenditure. Using a range of approaches originating in Jones' model, the paper finds evidence consistent with earnings management ahead of share-financed bids.     

Deal Size,Bid Premium,and Gains in Bank Mergers: The Impact of Managerial Motivations

Do mergers with greater target relative to acquirer size create more value than mergers with smaller relative sized targets? Do larger bid amounts represent wealth transfers from acquirers or do they signal greater expected merger gains? We hypothesize that the relations among aggregate merger gains, relative size, and bid premiums are asymmetric across mergers made by value‐enhancing versus value‐reducing managers. We use a large sample of bank mergers to test these predictions and find that the value response to different explanatory variables is asymmetric. Our findings provide new insights into how the market values merger bids.     

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.     

Dual-class premium,corporate governance,and the mandatory bid rule: Evidence from the Brazilian stock market

This paper conducts a systematic analysis of the determinants of the relative price difference between voting and non-voting shares, i.e., the “dual-class premium,” within the context of a mandatory bid rule. While the removal of the mandatory bid rule can increase potential gains from control, it can also weaken protection for minority shareholders. We provide evidence that the latter effect dominates by showing that the premium increases (decreases) in response to enhancement (lowering) of investor protection via regulatory alterations in the rule. The premium is lower in government-owned firms, which may be an indicator that control transfers, that allow benefits from the mandatory bid rule to accrue to minority shareholders, are less likely in government-owned firms. We also find that the premium is inversely related to an index designed to capture the firm's corporate governance practices. The results suggest that expropriations of minority shareholders are more likely at firms with poor corporate governance provisions and weak takeover rules relating to mandatory bids.     

Takeover bidding with toeholds: the case of the owner's curse

This article demonstrates that a potential acquirer with a toeholdbids aggressively and possibly overpays in equilibrium. Theaggressiveness of a bidder with a toehold increases furtherif he is able to renege on his winning bid. A bidder withouta toehold, however, responds by shading his bids. The targetfirm can increase competition and the expected sale price ifit only entertains nonretractable bids. This article providestestable implications on the probability of bidder success,stock price reactions on bid revisions and on resolution ofthe contest, and expected gains to bidders and the target firm.     

Evidence of governance arbitrage by private equity sponsors

The motivation for private equity bids is not well understood, partly due to the private nature of their activity. This research contributes to understanding the merits of current-day private equity by examining whether ineffective governance of target public corporations contributes to the role that private equity fulfils. I examine the characteristics of large public target firms that receive a private equity bid to investigate the evidence that private equity is motivated to address ineffective governance. I find evidence the private equity is motivated by what is referred to as governance arbitrage and that this role is heightened when there are constraints such as the imposition of uniform governance practices within public corporations.     

Have changing takeover defense rules and strategies entrenched management and damaged shareholders? The case of defeated takeover bids

Using the Delaware Supreme Court's Time-Warner decision of July 1989 as a focal point, we study defeated takeover bids before and after July 1989 to assess the direct effects of stronger takeover impediments on takeover defense tactics used to defeat bids and the resulting shareholder wealth outcomes and managerial turnover. We find that firms that defeated takeover bids after July 1989 shifted away from the use of active takeover defenses (repurchases, special dividends, greenmail, and leverage increases). Nevertheless, shareholders of firms that defeat a takeover experienced slightly better wealth outcomes in the 1990s than in the 1980s. We also find increased managerial turnover rates after defeating a takeover bid post Time-Warner, suggesting that managers that defeat hostile takeover bids did not become more entrenched due to greater takeover impediments relative to prior years.     

Rational expectations,analysts' forecasts of earnings and sources of value gains for takeover targets

Value gains to target firm shareholders in takeover bids may be due to potential synergy between bidder and target and/or potential target restructuring based on new information released by the bid. Since these two models have different implications for the anticipated earnings of the target as a stand-alone entity, analysts' earnings forecast revisions (AFR) for the target during the bid may provide evidence for the new information hypothesis. For 326 UK targets of takeover bids during 1987–1993, we estimate analysts' earnings forecast revisions using the Institutional Brokers Estimate System (IBES) and relate them to bid premia paid to target shareholders. Analysts revise their forecasts significantly up on bid announcement. For failed, especially failed hostile, bids, the earnings forecast revision and bid premium are more positively correlated than for successful and friendly bids. This is consistent with the rational expectations behaviour of target shareholders modelled by Grossman and Hart [S.J. Grossman, O.D. Hart, Bell Journal of Economics 11(1) (1980) 42; S.J. Grossman, O.D. Hart, Journal of Finance 36 (1981) 253].     

Multiple Bids, Management Opposition, and the Market for Corporate Control

We use regression analysis to disentangle the wealth effect for acquired firm shareholders of management opposition and multiple bids (e.g., multiple bidders and bid revisions). Although multiple bidders and bid revisions occur more frequently for opposed acquisitions, opposition is not associated with incremental acquisition returns for acquisitions with multiple bidders. We also find that management opposition has no significant incremental effect on single bidder acquisitions unless the acquiring firm revises its initial bid. These findings indicate that rather than amplifying acqiuisition returns directly, management opposition instead serves as a negotiating tool to solicit additional bids.     

Shareholder wealth effects and bid negotiation in freeze-out deals: Are minority shareholders left out in the cold?

This paper examines the shareholder wealth effects of bids by controlling shareholders seeking to acquire the remaining minority equity stake in a firm, deals commonly referred to as minority freeze-outs. Minority claimants in freeze-out offers receive an allocation of deal surplus at the bid announcement that exceeds their pro rata claim on the firm. An analysis of bid outcomes and renegotiation indicates that minority claimants and their agents exercise significant bargaining power during freeze-out proposals. Overall, our results suggest that legal standards and economic incentives are sufficient to deter self-dealing by controllers during freeze-out bids.     

Director gender and mergers and acquisitions

Does director gender influence CEO empire building? Does it affect the bid premium paid for target firms? Less overconfident female directors less overestimate merger gains. As a result, firms with female directors are less likely to make acquisitions and if they do, pay lower bid premia. Using acquisition bids by S&P 1500 companies during 1997–2009 we find that each additional female director is associated with 7.6% fewer bids, and each additional female director on a bidder board reduces the bid premium paid by 15.4%. Our findings support the notion that female directors help create shareholder value through their influence on acquisition decisions. We also discuss other possible interpretations of our findings.     

An empirical examination of forecast disclosure by bidding companies

This paper examines voluntary disclosure of profit forecasts by bidding companies during takeovers. Disclosure is examined from two perspectives: (i) factors influencing disclosure and (ii) the influence of good news and bad news on disclosure. Takeover documents published during 701 takeover bids for public companies listed on the London Stock Exchange in the period 1988 to 1992 were examined. Two variables accounted for almost all the influences on disclosure of forecasts: bid horizon and type of bid. Probability of forecast disclosure was greater the shorter the bid horizon and during contested bids. In addition, there was some evidence that the nature of the purchase consideration offered by the bidder (cash or paper) and the industry of the bidder influenced disclosure. Disclosure was significantly more likely in paper bids and in the durable goods industry. Forecasts were more likely to be disclosed when firms had good news to report.     

THE SHAREHOLDER WEALTH EFFECTS OF MONOPOLIES AND MERGERS COMMISSION DECISIONS

This paper presents an analysis of the policy of the UK's Monopolies and Mergers Commission using stock market data. Stock price reactions to regula-tory intervention by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission might be expected to reflect two sorts of factors. Firstly, the impact of the intervention on the possibility of bidders extracting monopoly profits from consumers. Secondly, the possibility that the subsequent investigation of the bid by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission will raise the cost of a bid, which may not necessarily be in the shareholder's interests, and so cause such bids to be abandoned. Studying a sample of some 53 bids, investigated by the Commission in the period 1976–90, little evidence was found that the Commission halts bids that are likely to result in monopoly profits to the bidder but there was some weak evidence that non-shareholder wealth maximising bids are abandoned as a result of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission intervention.     

The Intra-Industry Effects of Going-Private Transactions

We demonstrate that bids to take firms private generate significantly positive valuation effects for industry rivals of target firms. These valuation effects cannot reflect either synergy or monopoly since no consolidation of operating firms is involved in such transactions. Participation by buyout specialists in the bid does not significantly affect these gains. Bids by outsiders and bids by incumbent managers generate similar valuation effects for industry rivals. The effect on share prices of industry rivals is inversely related to the capitalized values of rival firms relative to the target firm. We also report valuation effects for target firms.     

The Winner's Curse and Bidder Competition in Acquisitions: Evidence from Failed Bank Auctions

This study examines the effect of bidder competition in acquisitions. We use predictions from auction theory to test whether acquirers of failed banks overpay (the “winner's curse”) when bidding in FDIC sealed-bid purchase and assumption (P&A) transactions (auctions). The empirical results indicate that winning bids tend to increase as the number of competitors increases, as predicted by theory. We also find that bid levels of all bidders increase with increased competition, which is consistent with bidders' failing to adjust for the winner's curse in a common value auction setting. However, additional tests using winning bids only are consistent with both a common value and a private values model, so this result should be interpreted with caution.     

Board composition,ownership structure and hostile takeovers: some UK evidence

This paper examines the relationship between internal and external control mechanisms in a sample of hostile takeover targets and a control group of non-target firms in the UK for the period 1989–93. The paper investigates whether there are significant differences in board composition, executive ownership and external shareholder control between the two groups. We find that hostile targets are more likely to have different individuals in the roles of chairman and CEO but employ non-executives with fewer additional directorships than non-targets. Executive share ownership is significantly lower in targets, suggesting that hostile bids are more likely to be pursued when target managers possess insufficient equity either to defeat the bid or make the bid too expensive for bidders. We find some evidence that institutional and unaffiliated blockholders in smaller targets help managers defeat unwanted bids.     

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.