Do boutique investment banks have the Midas touch? Evidence from M&As

We study whether the meteoric rise of boutique advisors in mergers and acquisitions (M&As) is justified by their buy-side performance. We find that acquiring firms represented by boutique advisors generate superior short- and long-run abnormal returns over those employing full-service advisors. This effect is mainly prominent in private deals, interindustry mergers, and deals involving inexperienced acquirers, where valuation uncertainty tends to be higher. Overall, our results reflect that acquirer shareholders benefit from boutique investment banks' high level of industry expertise and independent advice, supporting the rising demand for their financial advisory services.     

Loan underpricing and the provision of merger advisory services

This paper investigates the primary and secondary syndicated bank loan market to analyze the effect on pricing when the financial institution commingles syndicated lending with merger advisory services. In particular, we investigate the connection between the acquirer’s choice of financial advisor in a merger and future financing commitments. We find evidence of underpricing of syndicated bank loans in both the primary and secondary market. In the primary market, we show that non-acquisition loans granted by merger advisors to acquiring firms after the merger announcement date are charged a lower all-in-spread relative to acquisition loans if there has been a prior lending relationship. Consistent with this finding, we find that syndicated bank loans for non-acquisition purposes arranged by the acquirer’s advisor after the merger announcement date trade in the secondary market at a significant discount. Since the terms on these non-acquisition loans are not set upon merger announcement, they are most subject to risk shifting and underpricing agency problems. These findings offer evidence consistent with the existence of loss leader and potentially conflicted loans (priced at below-market terms) that are offered by the acquirer’s relationship bank advisor in order to win merger advisory business.     

Do Firms Use M&A Business to Pay for Analyst Coverage?

We find that acquirers in merger and acquisition (M&A) transactions are more likely to hire as advisors investment banks that provided analyst coverage for the acquirer prior to the transaction. We also find that compared to a matched control group of banks, the advisor banks are less likely to terminate and more likely to initiate analyst coverage of the acquirer after the transaction. Finally, the advisor banks that initiate coverage after the transaction collect higher fees. These findings suggest that firms value analyst coverage and use M&A advisor appointments and advisor fees to compensate for it.     

An analysis of advisor choice, fees, and effort in mergers and acquisitions

This paper investigates the choice of financial advisors in mergers and acquisitions, the fees that the targets and the acquiring firms pay to these advisors, and the speed with which advisors complete transactions. Our sample includes 5337 merger deals announced during the period January 1995 to June 2000, that involved publicly traded targets and acquirers. We find that top-tier advisors are more likely to complete deals and to complete them in less time than lower tier advisors. However, the synergistic gains realized by the acquirers declined when top advisors were used. We also find that contingent fees play a significant role in expediting the deal completion. Surprisingly, we find that deals that are initiated by the advisors do not seem to take less time to complete. Our results suggest that the payment of larger advisory fees do not play an important role in determining the likelihood of completing the deal, but they are associated with greater acquisition gains realized by the acquirer. In addition, these synergistic gains are also associated with the switching by acquirers of their financial advisors within the same tier.     

Acquirers’ abnormal returns and the non-Big 4 auditor clientele effect

I analyze the effect of auditor choice on acquirers’ values around merger announcements and the factors affecting the interaction between auditor size and the market reaction to merger announcements. I find that acquirers audited by non-Big 4 accounting firms outperform those audited by Big 4 firms. This effect is more pronounced when the targets are privately held and when the likelihood of the auditors playing a prominent advisory role increases. While the largest auditing firms are usually assumed to offer superior services, the study suggests that smaller firms have a comparative advantage in assisting their clients in merger transactions.     

Competitive and Information Effects of Cross-Border Stock Listings

We examine the effect of 269 cross‐border listings on rivals in the listing and domestic markets and find that U.S. rivals experience significant gains whereas domestic rivals do not. Both competitive and information effects are important in explaining the reaction of U.S. rivals. Regarding the competitive effects, the reaction of rivals is less favorable when listings originate in developed countries and more favorable when listing firms do not have prior operating presence in the United States. Regarding the information effects, the reaction is less favorable when listings are combined with equity offerings and more favorable when the listing is the first to occur within an industry.     

Top-tier advisors and the market feedback dynamics in cross-border M&As

We provide evidence that the presence of top-tier advisors increases managers' propensity to withdraw from cross-border mergers and acquisitions (CBAs) with poor market returns around the announcement. This effect is stronger for private target acquisitions, in which information asymmetry is expected to be more pronounced, and smaller bidders, who are likely to lack the expertise required to process information themselves. This suggests that managers assisted by reputable investment banks consider negative market feedback in informationally challenging deals. Our results are robust to several endogeneity tests. We provide novel inferences about the informative role of stock markets in shaping advisory roles in respect of M&As.     

Unionization,product market competition,and strategic disclosure

We examine the disclosure policies of non-unionized firms operating in unionized industries. We test the hypothesis that non-unionized firms have an incentive to disclose more information when their unionized rivals are engaged in labor renegotiations; that is, to weaken them. We find that non-unionized firms disclose more information and more good news when renegotiations are ongoing. This behavior is stronger for larger firms, firms with fewer peers in the industry, and firms more similar to their renegotiating rivals. We also find some evidence that unionized firms are harmed by this behavior and that non-unionized firms benefit from their increased disclosures.     

The spillover effect of financial information in mergers and acquisitions

In this study we investigate whether and how a firm's investment activities are affected by the financial information of peer firms on merger and acquisition (M&A) efficiency. Using changes in M&A accounting performance to measure efficiency, we find a positive association between the post-M&A accounting performance of an acquiring firm and that of previous peer acquirers. We show that this spillover effect is derived from peer firms with improved rather than poorer post-M&A accounting performance. We also find that the spillover effect varies with the characteristics of both the acquiring and the peer firms. The effect is stronger when the peer firms are larger, are non-SOEs (vs. SOEs), have improved accounting performance after M&As and undertake M&As with unrelated (vs. related) entities, and when the acquiring firms are smaller, non-SOEs (vs. SOEs) and have poorer accounting performance before M&As.     

Accountability of independent directors: Evidence from firms subject to securities litigation

We examine which independent directors are held accountable when investors sue firms for financial and disclosure-related fraud. Investors can name independent directors as defendants in lawsuits, and they can vote against their reelection to express displeasure over the directors’ ineffectiveness at monitoring managers. In a sample of securities class action lawsuits from 1996 to 2010, about 11% of independent directors are named as defendants. The likelihood of being named is greater for audit committee members and directors who sell stock during the class period. Named directors receive more negative recommendations from Institutional Shareholder Services, a proxy advisory firm, and significantly more negative votes from shareholders than directors in a benchmark sample. They are also more likely than other independent directors to leave sued firms. Overall, shareholders use litigation along with director elections and director retention to hold some independent directors more accountable than others when firms experience financial fraud.     

Intra-industry effects of completed and cancelled cross border acquisitions in Australia: A test of the acquisition probability hypothesis

Globalization has led to an increase in cross-border mergers and acquisitions in recent years. Australian firms have featured prominently as acquisition targets in the latest merger wave. Cross-border acquisitions significantly affect industry dynamics and competitive balance. We investigate the intra-industry effects of cross-border acquisition of Australian firms and find, among others, that the target firms' rivals realized significantly positive abnormal returns following both the acquisition proposal and termination announcements. We relate our results to competing hypotheses and find evidence consistent with the acquisition probability hypothesis. Interestingly, we find that the abnormal returns earned by the rival firms at the time of the termination of the acquisition involving their industry counterparts were greater than the returns earned at the time of the acquisition proposal announcement. These results are consistent with the assertion that the likelihood of acquisition of the rival firms increases following the termination of the initial acquisition proposal involving their industry counterparts.     

Can material asset reorganizations affect acquirers’’ debt financing costs?——Evidence from the Chinese Merger and Acquisition Market

In this paper, we investigate whether material asset reorganizations (MARs), a special form of merger and acquisition (M&A) transactions, can affect the acquirers’ cost of debt financing. Further, we examine the effect of acquiring firms’ accounting information quality on the cost of debt and on the association between MARs and debt costs. We predict that compared to conventional M&As, large-scale acquisitions through MARs can generate a much greater influx of assets from target firms. This raises the acquirers’ asset collateral and thus reduces the cost of debt. Because the quality of accounting information is a key factor affecting the cost of debt, we suggest that it has a spillover effect on the debt-cost effect of MARs. Using M&A transactions by listed companies in the Chinese A-share market from 2008 to 2014 as our sample, we find that MARs are associated with a higher asset collateral and lower ex post cost of debt than conventional M&As. Furthermore, we show that the acquiring firms’ accounting information quality has a significant negative effect on debt costs, and the negative association between MARs and the cost of debt is more pronounced when accounting information quality is higher.     

Are good financial advisors really good? The performance of investment banks in the M&;A market

The study examines whether prestigious investment banks deliver quality gains to their clients in a sample of 6,379 US M&A deals. It finds that acquirers advised by tier-one advisors lost more than $42 billion, whereas those advised by tier-two advisors gained $42 billion, whereas those advised by tier-two advisors gained 13.5 billion at the merger announcement. The results were mainly driven by the large loss deals advised by tier-one advisors. The evidence indicates that investment banks might have different incentives when they advise on large deals vs. small deals. The results imply that market share based reputation league tables, could be misleading and therefore, the selection of investment banks should be based on their track record in generating gains to their clients. The findings were consistent with the superior deal hypothesis as tier-one target advisors outperformed tier-two advisors and the existence of a prestigious advisor on at least one side of an M&A transaction resulted in higher wealth gains to the combined entity. Target advisors were able to extract more wealth gains for their clients, which led to higher combined gains at the expense of the acquirer.     

Intra-industry transfer effects of credit risk news: Rated versus unrated rivals

We examine the information transfer effect of bond-rating adjustments on industry rivals. Our research is based on the premise that the transfer effect is influenced by the rated status of rivals, i.e., whether the rival’s debt is rated by any credit rating agency. The results reveal that credit rating adjustments induce different/stronger effects. First, the intra-industry transfer effects (on returns and risk) are stronger on rated rivals than on unrated rivals. Second, the credit risk news produces lower co-movements between the returns of the two types of rivals. Third, the differential effect is stronger in the manufacturing industry, in the riskiest industries and in the industries with the lowest competition levels. Interestingly, our results suggest that credit rating news is more relevant for rivals with access to the public debt market (such as re-rated firms) than for rivals that focus on other sources of funding.     

The impact of strategic interaction on earnings expectations associated with corporate product strategies

We examine how strategic interaction in an industry influences the earnings expectations of financial analysts with regard to new product strategies. We find that following announcement of new products, analysts revise earnings forecasts upward more for announcing firms competing in low-strategic interaction industries than for firms competing in high-strategic interaction industries. For value-enhancing (value-reducing) product strategies, earnings forecast revisions are more favorable for rivals competing under a high (low) degree of strategic interaction than for rivals competing under a low (high) degree of strategic interaction. Overall empirical evidence indicates that the nature of strategic competition within the industry is important in assessing the market expectations of earnings for new product announcers and their rivals.     

M&A Decisions and US Firms’ Voluntary Adoption of Clawback Provisions in Executive Compensation Contracts

We examine whether US firms’ M&A decisions influence the likelihood of voluntary adoption of clawback provisions in executive compensation contracts and whether clawback adoption improves subsequent M&A decisions. Because prior research finds that poor M&A decisions are associated with future earnings restatements, we predict that clawback adoption is more likely after these transactions. We further conjecture that M&A decisions will improve after clawback adoption, as its presence reduces executives’ willingness to manipulate post‐acquisition earnings. Consistent with our expectations, we find that (1) firms with more negative M&A announcement returns are more likely to adopt clawbacks; (2) firms that acquire targets with relatively poor accounting quality are more likely to adopt clawbacks; (3) clawbacks improve investor perception of M&A quality; and (4) executives are more responsive to the market when completing M&A deals if their compensation contracts include clawbacks. These results suggest that boards take a pro‐active approach and consider factors that may lead to restatements when adopting clawbacks. Our results have implications for US policymakers, as the Dodd‐Frank Act of 2010 requires mandatory adoption of clawbacks. Our results also suggest that non‐US firms can reduce managerial incentives to manipulate post‐takeover earnings by using clawbacks.     

Does investment banker human capital matter in acquisitions? Evidence from China

Investment banker human capital is valuable in mergers and acquisitions. Exploiting a unique hand-built dataset, this paper studies whether and how investment banker's education and experience impact the merger performance in China. We find that investment bankers' education credentials are positively related to the post-merger performance; however, greater investment banker experience does not. We further explore the channels and show that the education effect is stronger in deals with higher information asymmetry and acquirers with worse corporate governance. On the other hand, experience increases merger performance in deals with high information asymmetry but reduces deal performance in poorly governed firms. Our findings suggest that higher education attainment facilitates both the advisory and monitoring role of investment bankers, while more experience makes investment bankers better advisors yet worse monitors. Our findings also suggest that investment bankers' roles in value creation are highly dependent on different institutional backgrounds, and one cannot generalize the findings in the U.S. across borders.     

Conference calls around merger and acquisition announcements: Do they reduce information asymmetry? UK Evidence

This paper examines conference call meetings held around merger and acquisition (M&A) announcements in the UK market. Our main findings indicate that conference calls not only facilitate the smoother transmission of M&A-related information in the stock market and smooth the rate of the information flow to the market, but also they reduce informed trading through option markets before M&A events. We also find that there is an inverse relation of analysts’ forecast error and conference call probability, that firms initiate conference calls during M&As when their transactions are large and are facing liquidity constraints, and that the probability of a firm holding a conference call around an M&A is strongly and inversely related to the existence of traded equity options on its stock.     

Transparency and fund governance efficacy: The effect of the SEC'S disclosure rule on advisory contracts

In June 2004, the SEC required mutual fund boards to disclose additional information about the inputs and processes involved in advisory contract approvals to help investors make more informed decisions and to encourage independent directors to act more independently when negotiating advisory fees. We find that CEF advisory fees are more likely to decrease after the 2004 SEC amendments, especially for those CEFs with high advisory fees and low investment performances. After the 2004 SEC amendments, CEF advisory rates decrease on average and the magnitudes of their decreases increase. We find that more board meetings and the likelihood of a decrease in advisory fees after the amendments increases with the number of board meetings. Our results are not only supported by textual analysis and type of filing downloads but are also robust to time-series placebo tests, changes in the ratios of independent directors, and funds belonging to “scandal” families. Overall, our results are consistent with the notion that the 2004 SEC amendments successfully encouraged independent fund directors to exert more effort and to act more independently in negotiating advisory fees with fund advisors.     

Naked M&A Transactions: How the Lack of Local Expertise in Cross‐Border Deals Can Negatively Affect Acquirer Performance – and How Informed Institutional Investors can Mitigate This Effect

This paper tests how informed investors with local expertise can affect cross‐border deal success using a comprehensive dataset of corporate acquirers’ share registers. We posit that deals in which long‐term investors have a high level of expertise in the target firm's region are more likely to perform better than if the deal is ‘naked’, i.e., when such regional expertise amongst the investors is low. We show that the strength of this effect depends upon an index of country‐level M&A maturity which measures the relative divergence between acquirer and target countries. Specifically, we investigate whether acquirers investing in countries with low M&A maturity gain greater benefit from investors with regional expertise. We present evidence which confirms the hypothesis that acquirers in cross‐border corporate transactions are more likely to be successful if the acquirer's investors have a higher level of expertise in the target region, and that this effect is strongest when the maturity for corporate transactions of the target country is low. This provides a specific setting which is consistent with earlier theoretical work that argues in general that information flows should not just be from firms to capital markets but also in the opposite direction, and that this flow of information is particularly important whenever information is dispersed.