The effect of state antitakeover laws on the firm's bondholders

We examine how state antitakeover laws affect bondholders and the cost of debt, and report four findings. First, bonds issued by firms incorporated in takeover-friendly states have significantly higher at-issue yield spreads than bonds issued by firms in states with restrictive antitakeover laws. Second, firms in takeover friendly states have significantly higher leverage than their counterparts in restrictive law states. Third, bond issues are associated with negative average stock price reactions among firms in takeover-friendly states, but positive stock price reactions among firms in restrictive law states. Fourth, existing bond values increase, on average, upon the introduction of Business Combination antitakeover law. These results indicate that state antitakeover laws tend to decrease bond yields and increase bond values, which is the opposite of their effect on equity values. This, in turn, implies that state laws help mitigate the agency cost of debt by shielding bondholders from expropriation in takeovers. Overall, the empirical evidence suggests that the effect of antitakeover provisions on firm value must take into account the impacts of both bondholders and stockholders.     

STATE ANTITAKEOVER LEGISLATION AND SHAREHOLDER WEALTH

The market reaction to state antitakeover legislation is examined case by case and in aggregate for six bills from four influential states that passed second-generation antitakeover statutes. Prior research offers mixed conclusions concerning the effect. In contrast to the reactions in some earlier studies, negative market reactions in this study are weak, producing little evidence of any permanent harm to shareholder wealth.     

Institutional and Legal Context in Natural Experiments: The Case of State Antitakeover Laws

We argue and demonstrate empirically that a firm's institutional and legal context has first‐order effects in tests that use state antitakeover laws for identification. A priori, the size and direction of a law's effect on a firm's takeover protection depends on (i) other state antitakeover laws, (ii) preexisting firm‐level takeover defenses, and (iii) the legal regime as reflected by important court decisions. In addition, (iv) state antitakeover laws are not exogenous for many easily identifiable firms. We show that the inferences from nine prior studies related to nine different outcome variables change substantially when we include controls for these considerations.     

Takeover defenses and wealth effects on securityholders: The case of poison pill adoptions

This is the first study to examine the valuation effects of any antitakeover amendment on both bondholders and stockholders. We present new evidence documenting that, on average, there is a significant wealth loss experienced by bondholders at poison pill adoption announcement, while stockholders are unaffected. Our finding of significant bondholder losses is consistent with the proposed negative signal hypothesis. We document results which indicate that bondholders correctly anticipate the degree of leverage increase at the time of the announcement. We also show that the proportion of insider ownership is negatively related to bondholder wealth effect at announcement. This supports the notion that higher insider (manager) ownership leads to a greater alignment of manager-stockholder interests while increasing the stockholder-bondholder agency costs. Long-run analysis of leverage and performance measures reveal that pill adopting firms are not under-leveraged as compared to their industry rivals. However, supporting the negative signal hypothesis, the leverage of sample firms rises significantly after the pill adoption. Performance measures reveal that sample firms significantly underperform their industry cohorts. This result suggests that poison pill adoptions are motivated by poor managers attempting to immunize themselves from the disciplinary actions of the corporate control market.     

The Impact of Antitakeover Amendments on Corporate Financial Performance

Previous event studies that examine the impact of antitakeover amendments on firm value provide mixed results. Some studies support the management entrenchment hypothesis, while others support the shareholder interest hypothesis. In this study, a longitudinal approach is used to examine the impact of antitakeover amendments on several financial attributes of the firm including: operating and net income to total assets, operating and overhead expenses to sales, research and development to total sales, capital expenditures to sales, and debt relative to total assets. It is concluded that antitakeover amendments are not deleterious in terms of their impact on various fundamental firm performance measures.     

Takeover defenses,golden parachutes,and bargaining over stochastic synergy gains: a note on optimal contracting

We incorporate managerial risk aversion and stochasticity of takeover synergy gains into Harris’ (Harris, E.G. 1990. Antitakeover measures, golden parachutes, and target firm shareholder welfare. Rand Journal of Economics 21, no. 4: 614–25. bargaining model for the coexistence of antitakeover defenses and golden parachutes in corporate charters. We show that: (i) it is not always optimal that the target-firm shareholders adopt antitakeover defenses, (ii) the size of the golden parachute is proportional to the riskiness of the synergistic gains, and (iii) the target-firm shareholders are unequivocally better-off with golden parachutes than takeover-contingent stock options.     

Do antitakeover provisions harm shareholders?

We reexamine the negative relation between firm value and the number of antitakeover provisions a firm has in place. We document that firms with characteristics indicating low power to bargain for favorable terms in a takeover, but also indicating high potential agency costs, have more antitakeover provisions in place. We also find that for these firms, Tobin's Q increases in the number of adopted provisions. These findings are robust to several methods that control for endogeneity. Our evidence suggests that adopting more antitakeover provisions is beneficial for certain firms and challenges the commonplace view that antitakeover provisions are universally harmful for shareholders.     

Insider ownership, ownership concentration and investment performance: An international comparison

This article makes two important contributions to the literature on the incentive effects of insider ownership. First, it presents a clean method for separating the positive wealth effect of insider ownership from the negative entrenchment effect, which can be applied to samples of companies from the US and any other country. Second, it measures the effects of insider ownership using a measure of firm performance, namely a marginal q, which ensures that the causal relationship estimated runs from ownership to performance. The article applies this method to a large sample of publicly listed firms from the Anglo-Saxon and Civil law traditions and confirms that managerial entrenchment has an unambiguous negative effect on firm performance as measured by both Tobin's (average) q and our marginal q, and that the wealth effect of insider ownership is unambiguously positive for both measures. We also test for the effects of ownership concentration for other categories of owners and find that while institutional ownership improves the performance in the USA, financial institutions have a negative impact in other Anglo-Saxon countries and in Europe.     

Corporate Governance and Acquirer Returns

We examine whether corporate governance mechanisms, especially the market for corporate control, affect the profitability of firm acquisitions. We find that acquirers with more antitakeover provisions experience significantly lower announcement‐period abnormal stock returns. This supports the hypothesis that managers at firms protected by more antitakeover provisions are less subject to the disciplinary power of the market for corporate control and thus are more likely to indulge in empire‐building acquisitions that destroy shareholder value. We also find that acquirers operating in more competitive industries or separating the positions of CEO and chairman of the board experience higher abnormal announcement returns.     

Golden Parachutes: Incentive Aligners,Management Entrenchers,or Takeover Bid Signals?

In this paper we investigate the effect of golden parachute (GP) adoptions on shareholder wealth. We control for the potential effect a GP adoption has on the probability that a firm will receive a takeover bid by investigating the wealth effects for firms that are in play when the GP is adopted. We find that announcements are wealth neutral when firms are in play and wealth increasing when firms are not in play when a GP is adopted. The results suggest that GPs have no influence on the success of a tender offer, refuting the hypotheses that they either align manager and shareholder interests or that they entrench inefficient managers. The difference in the results for in-play and not-in-play firms is consistent with the hypothesis that GPs signal an increased likelihood that a firm will receive a takeover bid.     

Dual-class share structure and innovation

Using a sample of dual-class firms matched with single-class firms possessing similar antitakeover protection, we find a positive association between disproportionate insider control and patent output, quality, creativity, research and development efficiency, and chief executive officer innovative risk taking. We also find, however, that the positive effects of disproportionate control on innovation are concentrated in financially constrained firms and firms in highly competitive industries, and that the positive effects dissipate within 10 years after the initial public offering. Most important, the positive effect of dual-class structures for innovation is conditional on the presence of innovative insiders in the firm. These findings imply that entrenchment through concentrated control in the hands of uniquely innovative corporate insiders provides a positive environment for innovativeness beyond the entrenchment effects of alternative antitakeover measures.     

A target's perspective on the effects of ATPs in takeovers after recognizing its choice in the process

The use of antitakeover provisions (ATPs) in corporate charters/bylaws has evoked substantial debate over their costs and benefits. While there are many empirical studies of their effects in takeovers, these studies have ignored the self selection issues introduced by studying completed transactions, which reflect the target's choice. We examine data on a sample of U.S. corporations and show that accounting for self selection leads to a more nuanced understanding of how ATPs influence target shareholder wealth. We show that the effect of ATPs is more on the likelihood of receiving a bid rather than the success of a bid and that the success of a takeover is driven primarily by the characteristics of the offer and offer process rather than by the characteristics of the target and its ATPs. Further, we document that prior empirical studies that ignore these issues have mis-estimated the economic and statistical significance of various ATPs on target shareholder wealth.     

Earnings quality effect of state antitakeover statutes

Existing theories suggest two opposite effects that antitakeover protection may have on earnings management: the exacerbating effect and the mitigating effect. We use the introduction of state antitakeover laws during the mid- to late-1980s as a natural experiment to test the relationship between antitakeover protection and earnings quality. The results show that firms incorporated in states that passed the laws have lower magnitudes of abnormal accruals and higher levels of earnings informativeness in the post-passage periods, suggesting that antitakeover protection mitigates earnings management and enhances earnings quality. Further evidence shows that reductions in earnings management are concentrated in firms with low firm-level antitakeover protection and in firms with serious agency problems, and that the earnings management effect of state antitakeover laws is likely to be of short-term duration.     

Payout Policy with Legal Restrictions

We hypothesize that firms that face limitations on debt may use increased dividend payments to mitigate the free cash flow problem. Limitations on debt are implicit in state laws that restrict the firm from making payouts when the asset‐to‐liability ratio is low. We find that: 1) firms incorporated in states with stricter payout restrictions pay more dividends, 2) the probability of paying dividends or repurchasing shares decreases as firms approach a binding payout constraint, and 3) bonding with dividends is less prevalent with increased managerial equity holdings. In addition, antitakeover and director liability laws have a less consistent effect on payout policy.     

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.     

CEO turnover and bondholder wealth

We examine the impact of CEO turnover announcements on bondholder wealth, stockholder wealth, and overall firm value. Using publicly traded data for the period from 1973 to 2000, we find evidence consistent with both the wealth transfer and signaling hypotheses. Specifically, we find that CEO turnover events are associated with lower bondholder values, higher stockholder values, and that net changes in firm value are a function of turnover type (forced vs voluntary and outside vs inside firm replacements) and the riskiness of the firm’s debt (investment vs non-investment grade). Overall, the results contribute to the understanding of the effects of corporate governance mechanisms, of which CEO turnover is an extreme form, on bondholders.     

Risk and Return Around Bond Rating Changes: New Evidence From the Spanish Stock Market

Abstract:  This study analyzes the effect of corporate bond rating changes on stock prices in the Spanish stock market. We explore their effects on excess of returns and systematic risk. Rating changes by Moody's, Standard and Poor's and FitchIBCA are analyzed. On an efficient market, these changes will only have some effect if they contain some new information or if they are associated to a redistribution of wealth between shareholders and bondholders. We use an extension of the event study dummy approach. Our results support the redistribution of wealth hypothesis in the abnormal returns behavior. We also find that changes in both directions cause a rebalancing effect in the total risk of the firm, with significant reductions on their systematic component.     

INFORMATION ASYMMETRY AND WEALTH EFFECT OF CANADIAN CORPORATE ACQUISITIONS

This study reports evidence on the wealth effects of bidders and targets involved in Canadian corporate acquisitions. It then examines whether wealth changes at the announcement time are consistent with the hypothesis that the payment method is a surrogate signal for bidder management's beliefs regarding the value of its firm. The findings support the value-maximizing hypothesis and indicate a stronger performance for both bidders and targets in cash takeovers than in acquisitions involving an exchange of securities—in accordance with the existence of asymmetric information and the tax effect resulting from the payment method.     

REINCORPORATION: MOTIVES AND SHAREHOLDER WEALTH

This study provides evidence on the wealth effects of reincorporation and the association of these wealth effects with motives to change the state of incorporation. There are no wealth effects observed on the announcement of the change for shareholders of corporations that change as part of a set of measures to defend against a pending or possible hostile takeover. However, for corporations that reincorporate without stated antitakeover intentions, a positive reaction is observed at the announcement of the change. These results indicate that the defensive posture assumed by reincorporating may offset other positive effects of the change in corporate charters.     

Corporate governance roles of information quality and corporate takeovers

We examine the corporate governance roles of information quality and the takeover market with asymmetric information regarding the value of the target firm. Increasing information quality improves the takeover efficiency however, a highly efficient takeover market also discourages the manager from exerting effort. We find that perfect information quality is not optimal for either current shareholders’ expected payoff maximization or expected firm value maximization. Furthermore, current shareholders prefer a lower level of information quality than the level that maximizes expected firm value, because of a misalignment between current shareholders’ value and total firm value. We also analyze the impact of antitakeover laws, and find that the passage of antitakeover laws may induce current shareholders to choose a higher level of information quality and thus increase expected firm value.