Do Poorly Governed Acquirers Transfer Wealth to Targets in Cross‐Border Acquisitions?

We use the number of antitakeover provisions (ATPs) as a proxy for corporate governance and examine its impact in US domestic and foreign acquisitions made by US acquirers. We find that the targets of poorly governed acquirers earn higher postannouncement premiums, despite controls for deal characteristics, macroeconomic conditions, and country‐level protections, suggesting that these acquirers overpay. Puzzlingly, in contrast with the domestic US findings of Masulis, Wang, and Xie, poorly governed acquirers in cross‐border deals experience higher announcement period returns. The relation between governance and target returns appears concave, but this nonlinearity disappears once differences in country‐level governance and deal characteristics are accounted for.     

An empirical investigation of mergers and acquisitions by Chinese listed companies, 1997–2007

We examine 136 M&A deals from 1997 to 2007 initiated by Chinese companies listed on the Shanghai and Shenzhen Stock Exchanges, where the acquirer gains complete control of the target. Our data shows that the Chinese M&A market is dominated by domestic deals with unlisted targets that are either stand-alone private firms or wholly owned subsidiaries. Acquirers experience significant positive abnormal stock returns around the announcement date and over the three years after the acquisition. These results are largely driven by state-owned firms, cash acquirers and firms that acquire related targets. Cross-sectional tests show that announcement period returns are related to the acquirer's ownership status, industry relatedness of the acquirer and target, capital structure changes of the acquirer and the nature of the unlisted target. We find no change in operating performance from the pre to the post acquisition period for the acquirers.     

Sources of value gains in minority equity investments by private equity funds: Evidence from block share acquisitions

Using block share acquisitions made by private equity (PE) funds, we examine the sources of value gains in PE minority equity investments. We find that compared with non-PE acquirers, PE acquirers are more likely to place representatives with finance experience or those with experience in the target's industry on the target's board when the need for target oversight and/or advice is higher. The targets in PE acquisitions, particularly poorly performing targets, targets with high R&D intensity, and targets with PE-appointed directors who have experience in the target's industry, realize both higher announcement returns and better post-acquisition operating performance than do targets in non-PE acquisitions. These findings suggest that the governance and operational engineering that PE acquirers apply to their targets constitutes important sources of value creation in PE minority equity investments.     

Does carbon risk matter for corporate acquisition decisions?

In this study, we examine whether carbon risk matters in acquisitions. Using a firm's carbon emissions to proxy for carbon risk, we examine whether an acquirer's level of carbon emissions is related to the decision to engage in acquisitions and achieve subsequent acquisition returns. The results show that firms with higher emissions have an increased likelihood of acquiring foreign targets while, at the same time, having a decreased likelihood of acquiring domestic targets. Acquirers with large carbon footprints seek out targets in foreign countries that have low gross domestic product (GDP) or weak environmental, regulatory, or governance standards. We also examine the relationship between carbon emissions and announcement returns. We find that cross-border acquisition announcement returns are higher when acquirers with high carbon emissions acquire targets in countries with fewer regulations or weaker environmental standards. Focusing on the interplay of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and carbon emissions, we find that investors censure acquirers that promote CSR while also having high carbon emissions, thus resulting in worse abnormal returns. This is particularly the case if the target country is wealthy or has stronger country governance or strong environmental protection. Our findings add insight on the channels through which a focus on reducing carbon risk can add value for shareholders.     

Do cross border and domestic acquisitions differ? Evidence from the acquisition of UK targets

We investigate the determinants of short term wealth effects for both public acquiring and target shareholders following the announcement of UK acquisitions over the period 1990–2005. Regardless of their nationality, overall acquirers incur losses, with domestic acquirers’ under-performing cross-border acquirers in general. For the latter no differences in returns between regions are found once the differences in corporate governance regimes are controlled for. Instead it is firm characteristics and in particular firm leverage that largely explain acquirers' returns. All targets gain significantly but the higher returns associated with international deals disappear once bid characteristics are controlled for.     

Target's organisational form and returns to Australian bidders in cross‐border acquisitions

We present large sample evidence on return performances of Australian acquirers who bid for public and private targets in cross‐border acquisitions. While placing a particular emphasis on the method of payment and the shareholder protection offered by the target country, we analyse the impact of various bid, firm and foreign‐acquisition‐specific characteristics on bidding firms' abnormal returns. We find that Australian investors perceive cross‐border acquisitions as value‐creating exercises regardless of the organisational form of the target acquired. However, bidders for private targets earn higher return when the method of payment is stock and the targets are located in high investor protection countries. We further find that the abnormal returns are conditional to the relative size of the target, bid frequency, target country destination and the preacquisition financial performance of bidding firms.     

Do Capital Structure Adjustments by Takeover Targets Influence Acquisition Gains?

We link debt issuances by target companies around takeover announcements to enhanced target bargaining power in negotiations with bidders over merger synergy gains in completed takeovers. Announcements of debt issuances by targets—especially new bank loans—are associated with more positive target equity returns relative to those made by nontargets, particularly for debt issuances immediately surrounding the takeover announcement. At least some of these gains to targets come at the expense of bidder shareholders, as bidder equity abnormal returns at target debt issuance are negative. We further show that targets issuing debt are primarily those with relatively low acquisition abnormal returns, consistent with initially poor target bargaining power. Subsequent debt issuances by targets increase the likelihood of positive adjustments to acquisition premiums offered by acquirers.     

The role of corporate governance in shaping accruals manipulation prior to acquisitions

Based on stock swap transactions involving public acquirers originating from the UK between 1998 and 2011, this paper investigates the role of corporate governance in shaping accruals manipulation prior to stock swap deals. In contrast to common claims that strong corporate governance constrains accruals manipulation, my results show that well-governed acquirers engage more aggressively in income-increasing accruals manipulation than those with weak governance. This finding is consistent with a role of corporate governance that incentivises managerial actions in the interests of firms’ shareholders. Overall, this finding highlights the setting-specific nature of the earnings management and corporate governance relation. My results are robust to different discretionary accrual models, differences in the firm's growth structure, merger and acquisition control variables, a control group of 100% cash acquirers, an analysis of buy-and-hold abnormal returns, and potential sample selection problems.     

Stock Splits as a Manipulation Tool: Evidence from Mergers and Acquisitions

We document that acquiring firms are more likely than nonacquiring firms to split their stocks before making acquisition announcements, especially when acquisitions are financed by stock and when the deals are large. Our findings support the hypothesis that some acquiring firms use stock splits to manipulate their equity values prior to acquisition announcements. Using earnings quality as a proxy for firms' intention to manipulate, we find that acquirers with low earnings quality (i.e., acquirers that are more likely to use stock splits to manipulate their stock values) have lower long‐run stock returns compared with their benchmarks, especially when the deals are financed with stock. In contrast, acquirers with high earnings quality do not show that pattern. Our evidence complements and extends the findings in the literature that some acquirers manipulate their stock prices before stock‐swap acquisitions. This study suggests that target shareholders should use information such as earnings quality and stock splits to discriminate among acquirers and ensure that exchanges are conducted on fair terms.     

The Impact on UK Acquirers of Domestic, Cross‐border, Public and Private Acquisitions

Abstract:   We examine the announcement and post‐acquisition share returns of UK acquirers in over 4,000 acquisitions of domestic, cross‐border, public and private targets. Domestic public acquisitions result in negative announcement and post‐acquisition returns, whilst cross‐border public acquisitions result in zero announcement returns and negative post‐acquisition returns. In contrast, both domestic and cross‐border private acquisitions result in positive announcement returns and zero post‐acquisition returns. The main differences between private and public acquisitions are that glamour acquirers underperform in public acquisitions but not in private acquisitions, and that acquirers using noncash methods of payment underperform in domestic public acquisitions but not in domestic private acquisitions. Overall, cross‐border acquisitions result in lower announcement and long run returns than domestic acquisitions. In cross‐border acquisitions, those involving high‐tech firms perform relatively well, as do those with low national cultural differences.     

The Relevance of Target Accounting Quality to the Long-Term Success of Cross-Border Mergers

Abstract:  We investigate a sample of cross-border mergers involving US firms that acquired foreign targets between 1985 and 1995. Our general interest is in the long-term success of the acquisitions, measured by the post-merger abnormal returns to the US acquirers. Our primary focus is the relationship between the quality of the foreign target's accounting disclosures and the acquisition's long-term success. Employing a procedure recommended by Lyon et al. (1999) , we find that US acquirers in cross-border mergers experience significantly negative long-term abnormal returns post-merger. These returns also are significantly more negative than those realized by a matched sample of US acquirers that acquired US targets. To investigate the potential association between the US acquirers' post-acquisition returns and target firms' accounting disclosures, we classify the merger transactions by target firm home country. We define variables to reflect the quality of accounting disclosures and control for other important country-specific features. The results reveal that post-merger abnormal returns are less negative for acquirers of targets based in countries where accounting data is less value relevant. This may be due to a higher cost of capital for target firms in these countries, resulting in a built-in discount in the pricing of targets. An examination of the premiums paid in a subset of 79 cross-border mergers reveals evidence consistent with this contention: premiums are lower for target firms based in countries where accounting data is less value relevant. These results suggest that shareholders of targets from such countries pay a price for their country's institutional framework that makes accounting information less value relevant.     

An analysis of the implications of uncertainty and agency problems on the wealth effects to acquirers of private firms

Extensive empirical work shows that bidders do not gain from the acquisition of publicly traded targets but experience positive excess returns in the acquisition of privately held firms. This study investigates how two important differences between private and public firms, namely, informational uncertainty and ownership characteristics, impact the returns to acquirers. A sample of targets that were acquired shortly after filing for an IPO was collected to circumvent the lack of information on private firms. In spite of the special characteristics of these targets, the listing effect is still prevalent in this sample. The results of the analysis are consistent with the hypothesis that acquirers gain in the acquisition of private firms because these targets have a relatively weaker bargaining position due to informational and agency problems and costly access to external capital markets to finance growth opportunities.     

Market reaction to the merger announcements of US banks: A non-parametric X-efficiency framework

This paper investigates the short-term market reaction of nine profit-efficiency, pre-classified merger deals of US banks over the time period from 1992 to 2003. The findings show that mergers combining low efficiency acquirers and targets create significant market returns following the merger event, while mergers combining the least efficient acquirers with moderately efficient targets diminish the acquirer's wealth more than any other type of merger. Furthermore, findings show that acquirers generally lose about 2.5% of their wealth upon the merger announcement while targets experience, on average, significant market returns of 15.5% following the merger announcement.The findings of the cross sectional analysis show that the CARs of acquirers are positively related to their technical efficiency and geographic diversification, while targets' CARs are negatively related to both target size and revenue efficiency.     

Private acquisition gains: A contingent claims explanation

This paper studies announcement returns of Western European acquisitions of private and public targets. It uses a contingent claims perspective to offer a new explanation for the difference in abnormal returns between acquirers of private and public targets. In this context, an acquisition is analogous to buying a call option and the value of the acquirer increases with uncertainty about its growth prospects (options). We test this idea by studying the relation between announcement returns and acquirer's characteristics that proxy for the existence of growth options. Consistent with the contingent claims hypothesis, the private acquisition gains are associated with the combined effects of growth options (having higher runup before the acquisition announcement) with low level of leverage (near-all equity capital) and with uncertainty (measured by age and analyst coverage of acquirers).     

Regulatory Arbitrage and Cross‐Border Bank Acquisitions

We study how differences in bank regulation influence cross‐border bank acquisition flows and share price reactions to cross‐border deal announcements. Using a sample of 7,297 domestic and 916 majority cross‐border deals announced between 1995 and 2012, we find evidence of a form of “regulatory arbitrage” whereby acquisition flows involve acquirers from countries with stronger regulations than their targets. Target and aggregate abnormal returns around deal announcements are positive and larger when acquirers come from more restrictive bank regulatory environments. We interpret this evidence as more consistent with a benign form of regulatory arbitrage than a potentially destructive one.     

The medium of exchange in acquisitions: Does the private information of both acquirer and target matter?

We present a direct test of the choice of the medium of exchange in acquisitions when both acquirers and targets possess private information about their own intrinsic values. We test three hypotheses: first, whether acquirers are more likely to choose a stock offer as their equity is more overvalued; second, whether acquirers facing a greater extent of information asymmetry in evaluating targets are more (or less) likely to use a stock versus a cash offer; and third, whether a cash offer deters competing bids. Our findings are as follows. First, acquirers choosing a stock offer are overvalued and those choosing a cash offer are correctly valued. Second, the greater the extent of acquirer overvaluation, the greater the likelihood of it using a stock offer; further, the greater the extent of information asymmetry faced by an acquirer in evaluating its target, the greater its likelihood of using a cash offer. Third, the extent of an acquirer's under- or overvaluation significantly affects the abnormal returns to its equity upon the acquisition announcement. Finally, the use of cash by an acquirer deters competing bids. We conclude that private information held by both acquirers and targets together determine the medium of exchange.     

Are Stock‐for‐Stock Acquirers of Unlisted Targets Really Less Overvalued?

Extant studies assume that targets’ private ownership mitigates acquirers’ incentives and opportunities to finance acquisitions with inflated stocks. This view stems from the observation that, although the average stock‐for‐stock acquirer's merger announcement return is negative when the target is listed, it is positive when the target is unlisted. Accordingly, extant studies often suggest that announcements of stock‐for‐stock acquisitions of unlisted targets convey favorable private information about the acquirers. However, an analysis of stock‐for‐stock acquirers’ stock performance, abnormal accruals, net operating assets, and insider trading suggests the opposite. Acquirers of unlisted targets are generally more overvalued than acquirers of listed targets.     

Investor Recognition and Post‐Acquisition Performance of Acquirers

The literature has documented a negative relation between investor recognition and expected returns. This negative relation is consistent with the prediction in Merton (1987, Journal of Finance 42, 483–510). This paper investigates whether the changes in investor recognition of acquirers around the time of the acquisitions can explain the post‐acquisition underperformance of acquirer stocks. Using a large sample of U.S. acquisitions from 1980 to 2010, this paper finds that investor recognition, proxied by the number of institutional investors and the number of common shareholders, increases significantly during acquisitions. Once the increases in investor recognition are controlled for, the “puzzling” long‐run underperformances of acquirers disappears.     

Geography and acquirer returns

We examine the impact of geographical proximity on the acquisition decisions of US public firms over the period 1990–2003. Transactions where the acquirer and target firms are located within 100 km of each other are classified as local transactions. We find that acquirer returns in local transactions are more than twice that in non-local transactions. The higher return to local acquirer is not explained by related, either horizontal or vertical, industry transactions, and appears to be related to information advantages arising from geographical proximity. These information advantages facilitate acquisition of targets that, on average, create higher overall return. The higher return to local acquirers is preserved by the use of target termination fee contracts.     

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.