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.     

Deal size,acquisition premia and shareholder gains

This study examines the contradictory predictions regarding the association between the premium paid in acquisitions and deal size. We document a robust negative relation between offer premia and target size, indicating that acquirers tend to pay less for large firms, not more. We also find that the overpayment potential is lower in acquisitions of large targets. Yet, they still destroy more value for acquirers around deal announcements, implying that target size may proxy, among others, for the unobserved complexity inherent in large deals. We provide evidence in favor of this interpretation.     

Going public to acquire? The acquisition motive in IPOs

Newly public firms make acquisitions at a torrid pace. Their large acquisition appetites reflect the concentration of initial public offerings (IPOs) in mergers and acquisitions-(M&A-) intensive industries, but acquisitions by IPO firms also outpace those by mature firms in the same industry. IPO firms’ acquisition activity is fueled by the initial capital infusion at the IPO and through the creation of an acquisition currency used to raise capital for both cash- and stock-financed acquisitions along with debt issuance subsequent to the IPO. IPO firms play a bigger role in the M&A process by participating as acquirers than they do as takeover targets, and acquisitions are as important to their growth as research and development (R&D) and capital expenditures (CAPEX). The pattern of acquisitions following an IPO shapes the evolution of ownership structure of newly public firms.     

Acquisitions: Private versus Public

Takeovers of privately held companies represent more than 80% of all takeovers. Despite their significance, studies of such takeovers and their impact on the wealth of shareholders are rare. Using a very large, near exhaustive, sample of listed and privately held UK targets we examine the impact of such takeovers on the risk adjusted return of listed UK acquirers over the period 1981 to 2001. Acquirers earn significant positive returns during the period surrounding the bid announcement although the gains are dependent on target status, mode of payment, and the relative size of those involved. The much quoted conclusion, derived from the experiences of listed firm bidders that the shareholders of acquiring firms fail to gain from takeovers, cannot be generalised. Acquiring a privately held company is an attractive option for maximising shareholder wealth.     

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.     

University of Rochester Roundtable on Corporate M&A and Shareholder Value

Robert Bruner's new book, Deals from Hell , serves as the point of departure for a wide-ranging discussion of the effect of mergers and acquisitions on shareholder value and the general economy. Despite the book's title, Bruner's message is at bottom a positive one: Corporate M&A increases efficiency and value, on average, and enriches the shareholders of not only the selling firms, but the buyers as well.
But if the average transaction is value-increasing for acquirers, many acquisitions of publicly traded companies by other public companies are value-destroying for the buyers, in large part because of "control rights" that U.S. laws and regulations have effectively conferred on target company managements. One proposed solution is a return to the legal and regulatory climate of the 1980s, a time when companies that reduced their own values by making bad acquisitions thereby raised the odds that they would become the next takeover targets.     

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.     

Is the grass on the other side greener? Testing the cross-border effect for U.S. acquirers

Why do U.S. acquirers fare worse when acquiring targets in foreign countries than when acquiring domestic targets? This paper investigates reasons for the so called “cross-border effect” by examining the influence of target public status and competitiveness of the takeover market in the target country. Our findings show that the listing status of the target drives the cross-border effect in two opposite directions: acquirers of private targets fare worse in cross-border takeovers, while acquirers of public targets experience significantly higher gains in acquisitions of foreign targets. The positive cross-border benefit for acquirers of public targets is more pronounced if the target is from a country with a less competitive takeover market.     

Relative equity market valuation conditions and acquirers’ gains

We examine whether the relative equity market valuation conditions (EMVCs) in the countries of merging firms help acquirers’ managers to time the announcements of both domestic and foreign targets. After controlling for several deal- and merging firm-specific features we find that the number of acquisitions and acquirers’ gains are higher during periods of high-EMVCs at home, irrespective of the domicile of the target. We also find that the higher gains of foreign target acquisitions realized during periods of high-EMVCs at home stem from acquiring targets based in the RoW (=World-G7), rather than the G6 (=G7-UK) group of countries. We argue that this is due to the low correlation of EMVCs between the UK (home) and the RoW group of countries. However, these gains disappear or even reverse during the post-announcement period. Moreover, acquisitions of targets domiciled in the RoW (G6) countries yield higher (lower) gains than acquisitions of domestic targets during periods of high-EMVCs at home. This suggests that the relative EMVCs between the merging firms’ countries allow acquirers’ managers to time the market and acquire targets at a discount, particularly in countries in which acquirers’ stocks are likely to be more overvalued than the targets’ stocks.     

Does takeover competition affect acquisition choices and bidding firm performance? Australian evidence

We examine the influence of takeover competition on three acquisition choices: (i) public versus private target acquisitions; (ii) stock versus cash financed acquisitions; and (iii) related versus unrelated acquisitions. We find strong evidence of acquirers’ preference for public targets, stock swaps and business focus, in the face of takeover competition. Further, we find that the takeover competition has a positive influence on the bid premium paid to acquirer public targets and those financed with stock issues; competitive bids offered to acquire related targets are associated with significantly low bid premiums. In the short-term announcement window, competition-induced bids to acquire public targets and those financed with stock are penalised by the capital market. However, only stock-financed takeovers undertaken in a competitive takeover market show a long-run decline in performance of acquirers.     

Resolving Information Asymmetry Through Contractual Risk Sharing: The Case of Private Firm Acquisitions

When private firms are acquired, buyers commonly rely on seller financing and earnouts. Using a novel database of private acquisitions, I find that seller financing and earnouts become more common as information asymmetry increases between the acquirer and the target. Financial statement audits of the targets attenuate these results, which suggests that audits decrease information asymmetry in firm acquisitions. Seller-financed acquisitions also close faster and at higher prices, reducing the private firm discount. These findings suggest that these contract structures are an important channel through which privately held firms mitigate adverse selection that arises from information asymmetry.     

Do Firms Strategically Internalize Disclosure Spillovers? Evidence from Cash-Financed M&As

We investigate whether managers internalize the spillover effects of their disclosure on the stock price of related firms and strategically alter their disclosure decisions when doing so is beneficial. Using data on firm-initiated disclosures during all-cash acquisitions, we find evidence consistent with acquirers strategically generating news that they expect will depress the target's stock price. Our results suggest the disclosure strategy leads to lower target returns during the negotiation period when the takeover price is being determined and results in a lower target premium. These findings are robust to a battery of specifications and falsification tests. Our results are consistent with expected spillovers influencing the timing and content of firms’ disclosures in M&A transactions.     

The wealth effects of takeover bids regulation in the European Union

We investigate the wealth effects of the Takeover Bids Directive, enacted by the European Union (EU), on mergers and acquisitions. The directive aims at protecting target minority shareholders by restricting antitakeovers provisions and preventing managerial entrenchment. We test the regulation impact using a treatment sample of EU public acquisitions and a control sample from outside the EU. Our results suggest diverse effects of the regulation across treatment countries: acquirers from countries with better shareholder protection engage in more value-enhancing acquisitions postregulation that could otherwise be too costly. The regulation also increases the likelihood of firms becoming targets and raises market value.     

Spring-loading future performance when no one is looking? Earnings and cash flow management around acquisitions

We find evidence that performance—reflected in earnings and cash flows—is transferred from targets to acquirers around acquisitions. Using a sample of 2128 completed deals from 1985 to 2010, our results suggest that targets depress performance when investor attention declines once the deal parameters are set, and much of that performance understatement is transferred to boost post-acquisition acquirer performance. Evidence of variation across subsamples provides additional confirmation: transfers are more visible for large deals (with transfers large enough to be detected) and muted for pooling transactions (with lower incentives to transfer). We contribute to the earnings management literature by showing that earnings and cash flows are transferred not just within firms but also across firms, and to the mergers and acquisitions literature by documenting that performance is managed not only before but also after deals are announced.     

Do targets grab the cash in takeovers: The role of earnings management

Extant research on Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A) provides evidence that acquirers underperform subsequent to the takeover completion. Such evidence is more unequivocal for acquirers that finance the acquisition by issuing equity relative to those that use cash. Current literature recognizes various reasons for this underperformance, most of which suggest overvaluation of the acquirers and/or overpayment for the targets at the time of acquisition announcement. Alternatively, this paper aims to investigate whether acquirers' post-takeover abnormal return is also attributed to target firms' real and/or accrual earnings management. Our results indicate that, on average, targets manage earnings upwards using real transactions rather than accruals, during the year preceding the takeover. More specifically, we find evidence of earnings management through sales among targets of cash acquisitions and that it is significantly and negatively related to the post-acquisition performance of the acquirers. These findings suggest that there is an association between the method of financing in acquisitions and earnings management in target firms, which could impact the post-takeover performance of acquirers.     

Acquisitions driven by stock overvaluation: Are they good deals?

Theory and recent evidence suggest that overvalued firms can create value for shareholders if they exploit their overvaluation by using their stock as currency to purchase less overvalued firms. We challenge this idea and show that, in practice, overvalued acquirers significantly overpay for their targets. These acquisitions do not, in turn, lead to synergy gains. Moreover, these acquisitions seem to be concentrated among acquirers with the largest governance problems. CEO compensation, not shareholder value creation, appears to be the main motive behind acquisitions by overvalued acquirers.     

How an IPO Helps in M&A

An initial public offering (IPO) can often provide a powerful stimulus to private companies seeking to pursue an acquisition-driven growth strategy. Based on a comprehensive analysis of U.S. IPOs, the authors show that newly public companies are prolific acquirers. Over 30% of companies conducting an IPO make at least one acquisition in their IPO year, and the typical IPO firm makes about four acquisitions during its first five years as a public company. IPOs facilitate M&A not only by providing infusions of capital but also by creating ongoing access to equity and debt markets for cash-financed deals. In addition, IPOs create an acquisition currency that can prove valuable in stock-financed deals when the shares are attractively priced. The authors also argue that IPOs improve the ability of companies to conduct M&A by resolving some of the valuation uncertainty facing privately held companies.     

The Geography of Block Acquisitions

Using a large sample of partial block acquisitions, we examine the importance of geographic proximity in corporate governance and target returns. We find that block acquirers have a strong preference for geographically proximate targets and acquirers that purchase shares in such targets are more likely to engage in post‐acquisition target governance activities than are remote block acquirers. Moreover, the targets of these acquirers realize higher announcement returns and better post‐acquisition operating performance than do targets of other types of acquirers, particularly when they face greater information asymmetries.     

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.