Bidding strategies and takeover premiums: A review

I review recent empirical research documenting offer premiums and bidding strategies in corporate takeovers. The discussion ranges from optimal auction bidding to the choice of deal payment form and premium effects of poison pills. The evidence describes the takeover process at a detailed level, from initial premiums to bid jumps, entry of rival bidders, and toehold strategies. Cross-sectional tests illuminate whether bidders properly adjust for winner's curse, whether target stock price runups force offer price markups, and whether auctions of bankrupt firms result in fire-sale discounts. The evidence is suggestive of rational strategic bidding behavior in specific contexts.     

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.     

Competition and dynamics of takeover contests

This paper investigates the effect of potential competition on takeovers which we model as a bargaining game with alternating offers where calling an auction represents an outside option for each bidder at each stage of the game. The model describes a takeover process that is initiated by an unsolicited bidder, and it aims to answer three main questions: who wins the takeover and how? when? and how much is the takeover premium?Our results explain why the takeover premium resulting from a negotiated deal is not significantly different from that resulting from an auction, and why tender offers are rarely observed in reality. We also show that when the threat of the initial bidder to call a tender offer is not credible, the takeover process might end with a private auction organized by the target. Conversely, when the tender offer threat is credible, the takeover process ends with a deal negotiated bilaterally between the bidder and the target. The takeover premium always depends on the degree of potential competition, while it is affected by the target resistance only for weak initial bidders.Finally, the model allows us to draw conclusions on how other dimensions of the takeover process, such as termination fees, control benefits and tender offer costs, affect its dynamics and outcome.     

Failed takeovers, methods of payment, and bidder returns

This study documents bidding-firm stock returns upon the announcement of takeover terminations. On average, bidding firms that offer common stock experience a positive abnormal return, and firms that offer cash experience a negative abnormal return. The positive performance is primarily driven by bidders initiating the takeover termination. Commonstock-financed bidders earn a return not significantly different from that earned by cashfinanced bidders when terminations are initiated by the target firm. The results are consistent with the asymmetric information hypothesis, that the decision not to issue common stock conveys favorable information to the market. In addition, bidder returns at takeover termination are positively related to the amount of undistributed cash flow, supporting the free cash flow hypothesis.     

How Has Takeover Competition Changed Over Time?

Since the boom in takeovers in the 1980s, research in both law and financial economics has debated the role of takeover impediments such as poison pills, staggered boards, and state antitakeover laws. Have these impediments entrenched target management to the detriment of shareholders? Or have they increased the bargaining power of target boards of directors and left shareholders, if not better off, then at least unharmed? In their study published recently in the Journal of Corporate Finance, the authors provide new answers to these questions with a detailed analysis of takeover competition during the period 1981 through 2014. Using a random sample of 388 completed and withdrawn deals from this 34‐year period, the authors begin by confirming the already well‐documented increase in the use of takeover impediments over time. They then report evidence that takeover competition has not declined during this period. First of all, takeover premiums—the average percentage over market paid by acquirers to consummate transactions—have remained steady over time. Second, and the most striking of the authors' findings, is that the corporate auction process has “gone underground” since the 1980s. Although we now see fewer hostile attempts and publicly reported takeover bidding contests, the amount of competition for targets has remained largely unchanged when one takes account of “private” as well as public auctions—that is, contests that, as the authors discovered, included unidentified bidders. The authors view such a fundamental change in the takeover auction process as a response to the widespread growth of takeover impediments. In this sense, as Bill Schwert commented years ago, “hostile takeovers are less about shirking target management than about the bargaining tactics of targets and bidders.” Or as the authors put it, “the greater bargaining power provided by state laws and other takeover impediments has changed the manner in which takeover auctions are conducted,” but without greatly affecting the goal of economic efficiency that such transactions are designed to help bring about.     

How Are Firms Sold?

As measured by the number of bidders that publicly attempt to acquire a target, the takeover arena in the 1990s appears noncompetitive. However, we provide novel data on the pre‐public, private takeover process that indicates that public takeover activity is only the tip of the iceberg of actual takeover competition during the 1990s. We show a highly competitive market where half of the targets are auctioned among multiple bidders, while the remainder negotiate with a single bidder. In event study analysis, we find that the wealth effects for target shareholders are comparable in auctions and negotiations.     

CLUSTERED SYNERGIES IN THE TAKEOVER MARKET

In a competitive market for takeover bids, the takeover premium serves as an effective proxy for the expected synergy. We find that the expected synergy is primarily related to the premiums paid in other recent takeovers in the same industry. This relation is even stronger when considering previous takeovers (especially over the previous three‐month horizon) in the same industry that have the same payment method (cash versus stock) or form of takeover (tender offer versus merger). More of the variation in expected synergies among takeovers can be explained by the premiums derived from recent takeovers in the same industry than by all bidder‐ and target‐specific characteristics combined. We also find that the bidder valuation effects are inversely related to the premium paid for targets, implying that abnormally high premiums may reflect overpayment rather than abnormally high synergies.     

Do auctions induce a winner's curse? New evidence from the corporate takeover market

We contrast the winner's curse hypothesis and the competitive market hypothesis as potential explanations for the observed returns to bidders in corporate takeovers. The winner's curse hypothesis posits suboptimal behavior in which winning bidders fail to adapt their strategies to the level of competition and the amount of uncertainty in the takeover environment and predicts that bidder returns are inversely related to the level of competition in a given deal and to the uncertainty in the value of the target. Our measure of takeover competition comes from a unique data set on the auction process that occurs prior to the announcement of a takeover. In our empirical estimation, we control for the endogeneity between bidder returns and the level of competition in takeover deals. Controlling for endogeneity, we find that the returns to bidders are not significantly related to takeover competition. We also find that uncertainty in the value of the target does not reduce bidder returns. Related analysis indicates that prestigious investment banks do not promote overbidding. Analysis of post-takeover operating performance also fails to find any negative effects of takeover competition. As a whole, the results indicate that the breakeven returns to bidders in corporate takeovers stem not from the winner's curse but from the competitive market for targets that occurs predominantly prior to the public announcement of bids.     

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.     

Takeover duration and negotiation process

We study the relations between takeover negotiations duration, competition and learning, focusing on the private phase of bidder-initiated transactions. While the negotiation goes on, both parties learn about true deal synergies. At any moment, rival bidders can show up and compete for the target. Using a discrete-time finite-horizon dynamic programming approach, we derive the equilibrium relations between the negotiation duration, the pressure of potential competition and the learning process. Next, we perform a calibration exercise on a large sample of merger negotiations with hand-collected data from the Securities and Exchange Commission filings. Our results provide evidence of a very competitive M&A (Mergers and acquisitions) market.     

The Performance of the European Market for Corporate Control: Evidence from the Fifth Takeover Wave

This paper presents an in‐depth analysis of the performance of large, medium‐sized, and small corporate takeovers involving Continental European and UK firms during the fifth takeover wave. We find that takeovers are expected to create takeover synergies as their announcements trigger statistically significant abnormal returns of 9.13% for the target and of 0.53% for bidding firms. The characteristics of the target and bidding firms and of the bid itself are able to explain a significant part of these returns: (i) deal hostility increases the target's but decreases bidder's returns; (ii) the private status of the target is associated with higher bidder's returns; and (iii) an equity payment leads to a decrease in both bidder's and target's returns. The takeover wealth effect is however not limited to the bid announcement day but is also visible prior and subsequent to the bid. The analysis of pre‐announcement returns reveals that hostile takeovers are largely anticipated and associated with a significant increase in the bidder's and target's share prices. Bidders that accumulate a toehold stake in the target experience higher post‐announcement returns. A comparison of the UK and Continental European M&A markets reveals that: (i) the takeover returns of UK targets substantially exceed those of Continental European firms. (ii) The presence of a large shareholder in the bidding firm has a significantly positive effect on takeover returns in the UK and a negative one in Continental Europe. (iii) Weak investor protection and low disclosure in Continental Europe allow bidding firms to adopt takeover strategies enabling them to act opportunistically towards the target's incumbent shareholders.     

What is the relationship between investor protection legislation and target takeover returns? Evidence from Europe

We show that investor protection legislation is an important determinant of the returns of target companies that are subject to takeovers within Europe. Announcement and post-announcement returns are higher in strong investor protection countries, which indicates that bidders are forced to offer larger premiums when the original offer is made, and are more likely to have to revise their offer higher before a takeover is successful. This is consistent with targets having relatively greater bargaining power in strong investor protection environments. Our findings are robust to the inclusion of common determinants of takeover returns.     

Director networks and takeovers

We study the impact of corporate networks on the takeover process. We find that better connected companies are more active bidders. When a bidder and a target have one or more directors in common, the probability that the takeover transaction will be successfully completed augments, and the duration of the negotiations is shorter. Connected targets more frequently accept offers that involve equity. Directors of the target firm (who are not interlocked) have a better chance to be invited to the board of the combined firm in connected M&As. While connections have a clear impact on the takeover strategy and process, we do not find evidence that the market acknowledges connections between bidders and targets as the announcement returns are not statistically different from those bidders and targets which are ex ante not connected.     

Target’s earnings quality and bidders’ takeover decisions

This study examines how takeover decisions are influenced by the quality of information in target firms’ earnings. We show that bidders prefer negotiated takeovers in deals involving targets with poor earnings quality. Moreover, earnings quality and takeover premiums are negatively related in negotiated takeovers, suggesting that bidders obtain valuable private information through negotiations. We also find that bidders share information risk with target shareholders by paying with more equity for targets with poor earnings quality. These findings are driven primarily by the asymmetric information component of earnings quality (as opposed to the symmetric component) and are observed mainly in inter-industry takeovers, where asymmetric information concerns are greater, rather than in intra-industry takeovers. We conclude that targets’ earnings quality affects bidders’ takeover decisions, particularly in cases of large asymmetric information between targets and bidders.     

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.     

Toeholds, bid jumps, and expected payoffs in takeovers

We estimate sequentially outcome probabilities and expectedpayoffs associated with first, second, and final bids in a largesample of tender offer contests. Rival bids arrive quickly andproduce large bid jumps. Greater bidder toeholds (prebid ownershipof target shares) reduce the probability of competition andtarget resistance and are associated with both lower bid premiumsand lower prebid target stock price runups. The expected payoffto target shareholders is increasing in the bid premium andin the probability of competition, but decreasing in the bidder'stoehold. The initial bidder's expected payoff is significantlypositive in the 'rival-bidder-win' outcome, in part reflectinggains from the pending toehold sale. Despite these dramatictoehold effects, only half of the initial bidders acquire toeholds.     

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.     

Do private equity consortiums facilitate collusion in takeover bidding?

We address whether the joint bidding by private equity consortiums facilitates collusion in the takeover market. We employ a sample of 870 takeovers of publicly traded targets in the 2003 to 2007 period, the time period which is the focus of investigation by the Justice Department and the source of cases for class action lawsuits. A unique aspect of our analysis is that we determine the identification of private equity bidders from actual merger documents rather than rely on sources such as Securities Data Corp and that we analyze both prominent private equity bidders as well as smaller private equity firms. Our analysis finds competitive reasons for consortium formation based on scale, risk and bidder expertise. We also find that both single private equity bidders and private equity consortiums are associated with significantly greater levels of takeover competition than other types of bidders. While we find some evidence that target abnormal returns are lower in private equity consortium deals for narrow windows around the initial takeover-related announcement date, we find that these results do not hold for longer event windows that better account for the differences in the takeover process across types of bidders. Analysis that controls for the endogenous selection of consortium formation also fails to find any negative effect of consortiums on either takeover competition or target returns. We also do not find any negative effects of consortiums formed by prominent private equity firms. We interpret the evidence to be inconsistent with a collusive explanation for consortium formation in the 2003 to 2007 period and to be consistent with competitive reasons for consortium formation.     

Can Stock Markets Predict M&A Failure? A Study of European Transactions in the Fifth Takeover Wave

In this paper we develop various measures of M&A failure for an intra‐European sample during the fifth takeover wave: inferior long‐term stock performance, inferior operating performance, and target divestment. After documenting the extent of M&A failure, we test the relation between short‐term abnormal returns at deal announcement and M&A failure. We examine a sample where listed bidders acquire listed targets (267 deals) as well as privately‐held targets (336 deals). Our results indicate M&A failure rates up to 50% in both samples. When acquirers and targets are listed, lower M&A announcement returns are consistently and significantly associated with higher M&A failure probabilities and long‐term losses. In contrast, when targets are privately held, we find no evidence of such an association.     

Sold Below Value? Why Takeover Offers Can Have Negative Premiums

Many studies have acknowledged the existence of negative offer premiums where the initial bid undercuts the target's preannouncement market price. However, this phenomenon has not been explained. Negative premiums occur frequently and are no measurement error. We demonstrate theoretically and empirically that “hidden earnouts,” where target shareholders participate in the bidder's share of joint synergies, and corrections of overvaluation explain negative premiums. We find that target shareholders profit from the consummation of a takeover even if the announced offer has a negative premium. Our theory generalizes to low positive premiums with predictive power for the bottom 25% of all premiums.