Do acquirers disclose good news or withhold bad news when they finance their acquisitions using equity?

Companies that use their own stock to finance acquisitions have incentives to increase their market values prior to the acquisition. This study examines whether such companies mislead investors by issuing overly optimistic forecasts of future earnings (“deception by commission”) or by withholding bad news about future earnings (“deception by omission”). We compare the management forecasts of acquiring firms in a pre-acquisition period (days −90 to −30 before the acquisition announcement) and a post-acquisition period (days +30 to +90 after the acquisition is completed). We show that, when acquisitions are financed using stock, companies are not more likely to issue overly optimistic earnings forecasts during the pre-acquisition period compared with the post-acquisition period. However, these same acquirers are more likely to withhold impending bad news about future earnings. Consistent with litigation having an asymmetric effect on disclosure incentives, our findings suggest that deception by omission occurs more often than deception by commission.     

Partial acquisitions in emerging markets: A test of the strategic market entry and corporate control hypotheses

In this paper, we examine the motivations of acquirers undertaking partial acquisitions in emerging markets by testing two competing hypotheses: the market for corporate control hypothesis and the market entry hypothesis. We find that targets of cross-border acquisitions outperform targets of domestic acquisitions in the pre-acquisition period. While cross-border acquisitions have no significant impact on target firms' operating performance, targets of domestic acquisitions experience significant improvements in operating performance and substantial changes in ownership structure after the acquisition. The evidence suggests that domestic partial acquisitions in emerging markets serve as a market for corporate control, while cross-border partial acquisitions are motivated by the strategic market entry rationale.     

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.     

Top-tier financial advisors,expropriation and Chinese mergers & acquisitions

The empirical literature contains mixed evidence regarding the relationship between advisor reputation and returns in mergers and acquisitions (M&As). However, very few studies consider the detrimental effect of expropriation by controlling shareholders and value creation role of top-tier financial advisors. We revisit the role of financial advisors in M&As by examining whether and why top-tier advisors affect acquisition quality in the Chinese market, finding that they generate substantial value for acquiring shareholders, though value creation is lower for high expropriation-possibility acquirers. We also show that top-tier financial advisors help improve operating performance and reduce bid premiums. The results contribute to the takeover literature by shedding new light on the role of financial advisor in acquisitions.     

Best Practices in Corporate Governance: What Two Decades of Research Reveals

This report addresses two key questions for today's top executives: Do acquisitions create value for acquirers? And under what circumstances have acquisitions created the most value for acquiring shareholders?
The authors' analysis of over 1,500 completed deals by non-financial companies in the United States over the past 12 years shows that, at announcement, acquirers' shareholders suffer small losses, on average, in the short term around the initial deal announcement. Over longer intervals, such as one or two years following the announcement of the transaction, acquirers tend to slightly outperform industry peers.
The average or median market response hides tremendous variability in how the market has reacted to individual deals, however. This article provides evidence that the "right" M&A transaction can create substantial value for acquirers. One-quarter of the transactions lead to market-adjusted gains in excess of 5% for the acquirer and oneeighth of the transactions lead to gains in excess of 10% in the short term. However, some deals have also destroyed substantial shareholder value.
Financing structure is a key driver of the stock market reaction. Stock-financed transactions, on average, have a negative stock market reaction, while cash-financed transactions have benefited acquirers in both the short term as well as the long term.
Acquisitions of private companies or assets and units of public companies have consistently generated higher returns for acquirers than purchases of public companies.
Moreover, EPS dilution is not a major driver of how the stock market reacts to a deal. Although "accretive" deals perform slightly better than "dilutive" ones in the short and long run, the difference is small and not statistically significant. Over the long run, acquiring shareholders have benefited the most from deals within the same industry and that avoid targets with relatively optimistic earnings growth projections.     

CREATING VALUE WITH MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS

This report addresses two key questions for today's top executives: Do acquisitions create value for acquirers? And under what circumstances have acquisitions created the most value for acquiring shareholders?
The authors' analysis of over 1,500 completed deals by non-financial companies in the United States over the past 12 years shows that, at announcement, acquirers' shareholders suffer small losses, on average, in the short term around the initial deal announcement. Over longer intervals, such as one or two years following the announcement of the transaction, acquirers tend to slightly outperform industry peers.
The average or median market response hides tremendous variability in how the market has reacted to individual deals, however. This article provides evidence that the "right" M&A transaction can create substantial value for acquirers. One-quarter of the transactions lead to market-adjusted gains in excess of 5% for the acquirer and oneeighth of the transactions lead to gains in excess of 10% in the short term. However, some deals have also destroyed substantial shareholder value.
Financing structure is a key driver of the stock market reaction. Stock-financed transactions, on average, have a negative stock market reaction, while cash-financed transactions have benefited acquirers in both the short term as well as the long term.
Acquisitions of private companies or assets and units of public companies have consistently generated higher returns for acquirers than purchases of public companies.
Moreover, EPS dilution is not a major driver of how the stock market reacts to a deal. Although "accretive" deals perform slightly better than "dilutive" ones in the short and long run, the difference is small and not statistically significant. Over the long run, acquiring shareholders have benefited the most from deals within the same industry and that avoid targets with relatively optimistic earnings growth projections.     

The effects of anticipated future investments on firm value: evidence from mergers and acquisitions

I examine the long-term valuation consequence of investment in mergers and acquisitions on acquiring firms through the “anticipation effect,” in which forward-looking prices embed investors’ expectations about the profitability of firms’ future acquisitions. Using a sample of firms with past acquisitions, I find that their market valuations depend on both the profitability of their past acquisitions and their current free cash flow. Among firms with positive free cash flow (when future acquisitions are likely), those with a worse history of value-destroying acquisitions experience lower market valuations. Among firms with negative free cash flow (when future acquisitions are less likely), firm value is not systematically related to acquisition history. These findings are consistent with investors forming expectations about the profitability of future acquisitions based on realized acquisition outcomes and valuing these firms based on their likelihood of making future acquisitions. They also provide support for using observed market prices as a proxy for investors’ expectations about future investment opportunities.     

The effects of corporate acquisitions on CEO compensation and CEO turnover of family firms

This paper investigates the impact of corporate acquisitions on CEO compensation and CEO turnover of family firms in Continental Europe. We find that CEOs in family firms do not experience an increase in their compensation during the post-acquisition period, while there is a positive and statistically significant association between the compensation of CEOs in non-family firms and their acquisition activity. This finding is consistent with the view that controlling family shareholders provide monitoring for CEOs mitigating managerial agency problems that arise from the separation of ownership and control. Further, we find that the likelihood of CEO turnover declines following an acquisition in non-family firms, suggesting that these acquiring CEOs do not face a higher likelihood of dismissal while they receive a higher level of compensation. In contrast, there is no significant impact of acquisitions on CEO turnover in family firms.     

企业并购溢价对企业绩效的影响研究——基于我国沪深A股的实证检验

近年来,我国并购市场如火如荼,越来越多的企业选择通过并购来实现自己的战略目标,迅速占据市场地位,进入新兴行业。在并购交易热潮下,高溢价似乎也成为并购重组的"标配",高溢价并购屡见不鲜。可是企业支付高溢价换来的是否为优质资产,其是否能给企业带来价值的提升,这些都是值得研究的议题。因此,文章基于我国并购交易市场,研究了国内上市公司并购溢价的绩效反应。运用相关性分析、多元回归分析等研究方法探讨了并购支付溢价对并购绩效的影响。最后,根据实证研究结果阐述本文的结论,给出相应的建议。研究结果表明:并购溢价在一定程度上代表了并购后协同效应的大小,支付的溢价越高表明预期达成的协同效应越大,企业后期的绩效表现会越好。     

The Method of Payment in Corporate Acquisitions,Investment Opportunities,and Management Ownership

This article examines the motives underlying the payment method in corporate acquisitions. The findings support the notion that the higher the acquirer's growth opportunities, the more likely the acquirer is to use stock to finance an acquisition. Acquirer managerial ownership is not related to the probability of stock financing over small and large ranges of ownership, but is negatively related over a middle range. In addition, the likelihood of stock financing increases with higher pre-acquisition market and acquiring firm stock returns. It decreases with an acquirer's higher cash availability, higher institutional shareholdings and blockholdings, and in tender offers.     

The long-run performance of acquiring firms in mergers and acquisitions: Does managerial ability matter?

This paper examines the association between the managerial ability of acquiring firms and their long-term performance after mergers and acquisitions (M&As). Based on M&A data for U.S. firms from 2000 to 2012, we find that acquiring firms with higher managerial ability achieve better long-term operating performance and stock returns. We also find that the positive effect of managerial ability on long-term performance is more pronounced when acquirers and target firms belong to the same industry. The result suggests that managers who have higher ability to manage their firms, i.e., to generate higher revenues for given resources, are more capable of achieving higher synergy benefits and better post-acquisition performance in same-industry acquisitions than in cross-industry acquisitions.     

The impact of firm ownership,board monitoring on operating performance of Chinese mergers and acquisitions

In this paper, we employ board monitoring mechanisms and within-firm governance variables to investigate the operating performance of 340 mergers and acquisitions in China over the 2004–2011 period. Our results document a significant deterioration in post-acquisition operating performance of acquiring firms over 12–36 months. We find independent directors, managerial shareholding, ownership concentration have a positive and significant impact on operating performance of acquiring firms. However, the related party transactions exert a negative and significant effect on matched control adjusted ROA. Further analysis of our sub-sample indicates that privately owned enterprises are better monitors compared to the state owned enterprises.     

Shareholder investment horizons and the market for corporate control

This paper investigates how the investment horizon of a firm's institutional shareholders impacts the market for corporate control. We find that target firms with short-term shareholders are more likely to receive an acquisition bid but get lower premiums. This effect is robust and economically significant: Targets whose shareholders hold their stocks for less four months, one standard deviation away from the average holding period of 15 months, exhibit a lower premium by 3%. In addition, we find that bidder firms with short-term shareholders experience significantly worse abnormal returns around the merger announcement, as well as higher long-run underperformance. These findings suggest that firms held by short-term investors have a weaker bargaining position in acquisitions. Weaker monitoring from short-term shareholders could allow managers to proceed with value-reducing acquisitions or to bargain for personal benefits (e.g., job security, empire building) at the expense of shareholder returns.     

Wealth Destruction on a Massive Scale? A Study of Acquiring‐Firm Returns in the Recent Merger Wave

Acquiring‐firm shareholders lost 12 cents around acquisition announcements per dollar spent on acquisitions for a total loss of $240 billion from 1998 through 2001, whereas they lost $7 billion in all of the 1980s, or 1.6 cents per dollar spent. The 1998 to 2001 aggregate dollar loss of acquiring‐firm shareholders is so large because of a small number of acquisitions with negative synergy gains by firms with extremely high valuations. Without these acquisitions, the wealth of acquiring‐firm shareholders would have increased. Firms that make these acquisitions with large dollar losses perform poorly afterward.     

GOODWILL ACCOUNTING: EVERYTHING HAS CHANGED AND NOTHING HAS CHANGED

In issuing Statements No. 141 and No. 142, the FASB has attempted to make accounting statements better reflect the economics of the exchange of value that takes place in business combinations. At the very least, requiring a single method of accounting reduces the costs of accounting, puts all acquirers on an equal accounting footing, and removes the incentive to incur significant costs to be able to report on a pooling-of-interests basis.
But if the FASB rules have changed significantly, investors' expectations for acquiring companies have not. Therefore, accounting rules should have no impact on acquisition pricing or structuring unless they affect cash flows. Recorded goodwill and return on capital are the artificial result of accounting rules, and largely without economic content. However, understanding the growth value implicit in the price paid is key to helping ensure that acquisitions create value. Boards of directors and executives must understand the minimum annual performance targets they have set for themselves by paying a premium to acquire a company.
The ideal measure of goodwill, which has not been contemplated by the FASB, would capture the premium of the current acquisition price over the value of the target firm's current operating value—that is, the discounted NPV of its current operating cash flows. Using such an economist's definition of goodwill, financial analysts could then come up with the variable that is of greatest interest to investors-namely, the expected improvements in operating performance that are necessary to justify the acquirer's investment in the target company. The economic framework and future growth value analysis based on EVA can be used to answer this question, regardless of the accounting rules du jour.     

INTERSTATE BANK MERGERS: THE EARLY EVIDENCE

This study examines the wealth effects of interstate bank mergers to both the acquired and acquiring firms' shareholders. While the overall results are consistent with the findings of research on nonfinancial mergers — that acquired firms' shareholders gain and acquiring firms' shareholders break even — there is evidence that the acquiring banks cannot be considered a homogeneous group. Specifically, banks involved in relatively large acquisitions earn positive and statistically significant abnormal returns and significantly outperform those involved in relatively smaller mergers. The results suggest there are differential opportunities for gain from interstate mergers, dependent upon the relative size of the acquisition and the degree to which it expands the geographic market served by the bank.     

Market Misvaluation,Managerial Horizon,and Acquisitions

This paper analyzes the impact of managerial horizon on mergers and acquisitions activity. The main predication is that acquiring firms managed by short-horizon executives have higher abnormal returns at acquisition announcements, less likelihood of using equity to pay for the transactions, and inferior postmerger stock performance in the long run. I construct two proxies for managerial horizon based on the CEO's career concern and compensation scheme, and provide empirical evidence supporting the above prediction. Moreover, I also demonstrate that long-horizon managers are more likely to initiate acquisitions in response to high stock market valuation.     

Does cross-listing in the US foster mergers and acquisitions and increase target shareholder wealth?

We examine the role of cross-listing in alleviating domestic market constraints and facilitating mergers and acquisitions. Our results show that cross-listing allows shareholders of target firms to extract higher takeover premiums relative to their non-cross-listed peers. Moreover, shareholders of Sarbanes–Oxley-compliant targets seem to benefit from a higher premium. We also find that cross-listed firms are more likely to be acquisition targets, consistent with the belief that cross-listing increases firms’ attractiveness and visibility on the market for corporate control. Our results are robust to various specifications and to the self-selection bias arising from the decision to cross-list.     

Diversification, Ownership and Control of Swedish Corporations

We study the short‐ and long‐term valuation effects of Swedish takeovers. Using a sample of 93 bidding firms that acquired 101 targets between 1980 and 1995, we find that diversifying acquisitions lead to a negative market reaction and deterioration of the operating performance of the bidder. Announcement and performance gains in each of the three years following the acquisition occur only when bidders expand their core rather than their peripheral lines of business. Our findings suggest that focused acquisitions lead to greater synergies and operating efficiencies than diversifying acquisitions. Intra‐group acquisitions, however, show that bidders do not realise significant gains whether they adopt diversifying or focusing investment strategies by purchasing firms controlled by the Wallenberg and SHB conglomerate groups. Intra‐group targets realize significant gains regardless bidder's investment strategy. Finally, the evidence does not support the view that intra‐conglomerate acquisitions are associated with expropriation of minority shareholders. However, they appear to enhance the control rights of large shareholders of the bidding firm.     

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.