Governance Mechanisms and Equity Prices

We investigate how the market for corporate control (external governance) and shareholder activism (internal governance) interact. A portfolio that buys firms with the highest level of takeover vulnerability and shorts firms with the lowest level of takeover vulnerability generates an annualized abnormal return of 10% to 15% only when public pension fund (blockholder) ownership is high as well. A similar portfolio created to capture the importance of internal governance generates annualized abnormal returns of 8%, though only in the presence of “high” vulnerability to takeovers. The complementarity effect exists for firms with lower industry‐adjusted leverage and is stronger for smaller firms.     

Industry aspects of takeovers and divestitures: Evidence from the UK

This paper examines takeover and divestiture activity at the industry level for the population of UK firms over the period 1986–2000. Consistent with US research, takeovers in the UK cluster both across industries and over time. The evidence for divestitures indicates clustering across industries only. The paper further investigates whether broad and specific industry shocks (e.g., growth, free cash flow, concentration, deregulation, foreign competition, technology, stock market performance) explain takeover and divestiture clustering at the industry level. The results suggest that broad shocks increase (decrease) the likelihood of takeovers (divestitures), although not significantly for takeovers. Specific industry shocks that increase the likelihood of takeover activity include low growth, the threat of foreign competition and high stock market performance. For divestitures, high industry concentration and deregulation increase activity. Little evidence is found for deregulation as a significant factor in explaining takeover activity.     

TAKEOVER EXPOSURE, AGENCY, AND THE CHOICE BETWEEN PRIVATE AND PUBLIC DEBT

We examine how governance characteristics are related to the corporate choice between public and private debt. We find that firms with fewer takeover defenses and larger outside blockholder ownership are more likely to borrow from banks and to issue 144A debt. We also document that public debt cost is more sensitive to takeover exposure than bank debt cost. These results are consistent with the hypothesis that banks mitigate the expected negative effect of takeovers on debt value through covenants and debt renegotiations. Moreover, we show that firms with weaker internal monitoring are less likely to borrow from banks.     

INDUSTRY PROSPECTS AND ACQUIRER RETURNS IN DIVERSIFYING TAKEOVERS

We use a sample of 816 diversifying takeovers from 1978 to 2003 to examine whether takeover announcements release negative information about the future prospects of the acquirer's main industry. We find that rivals that are most similar to the acquirer (homogeneous rivals) experience significant negative cumulative abnormal returns (CAR) around takeover announcements. Takeovers that result in negative wealth effects to acquirers are associated with negative abnormal revisions in analysts' forecasts of homogeneous rivals' earnings per share. We also find a decline in the posttakeover operating performance of rival firms. The decline is especially pronounced for homogeneous rivals and for takeovers with negative wealth effects to acquirers. Our findings imply that CAR-based estimates of acquirer wealth gains from takeovers that do not account for industrywide information releases are significantly biased downward.     

How crosslisting affects merger and acquisition activity

Consistent with crosslisting decreasing the cost of capital, we find that firms which issue American Depositary Receipts (ADRs) are much more likely to undertake an acquisition than non-crosslisted firms. The results do not appear to be driven by self-selection, as the increase in acquisitions is robust to a Heckman correction as well as to a fixed-effect analysis. Adding the home country’s shareholder rights to the analysis, we find that crosslisted firms increase their takeover activity primarily if they are from weak shareholder rights countries. This evidence is consistent with crosslisting reducing the cost of capital of firms from weak governance countries significantly, and this reduction in cost of capital allows these firms to pursue more domestic and international takeovers.     

TAKEOVER RIGHTS AND THE VALUE OF RESTRICTED SHARES

The premium paid for superior voting shares relative to restricted shares in dual-class equity firms is well documented but not fully explained. In this paper, evidence that the premium reflects the expectation of higher cash flows in takeovers for superior shares is found by examining regulatory actions that changed the right of restricted shares to participate in takeovers. The extension of takeover rights to restricted shares resulted in a significant decline in the premium for superior shares, and the retraction of takeover rights had the reverse effect. This supports the hypothesis that the market expected the restricted shares to be treated less favorably in takeovers.     

Governance and takeovers: are public-to-private transactions different from traditional acquisitions of listed corporations?

Using a unique hand-collected dataset comprising 96 public-to-private (PTP) transactions and 258 acquisitions of listed corporations by existing corporate groups completed during the period 1998 to 2000, this paper investigates the extent to which PTPs have different internal and external governance and other characteristics from traditional acquisitions of listed corporations by existing corporate groups. The paper analyses acquisition activity during a period in which three new features were present: the decline in hostile takeovers, the increase in the adoption of governance Codes of Best Practice and the growth in PTP activity. PTPs are usually a response to takeover threat (Lehn and Poulsen, 1989) and so the paper analyses the acquisition decision from two perspectives: first, takeovers as a disciplinary mechanism which substitute for weak internal governance and second, as part of a non-disciplinary perspective where takeovers are complementary to internal governance mechanisms. We find support for the argument that improved internal governance and non-disciplinary takeovers, that is takeovers where the motive is not as a response to under-performing management, are complementary. PTPs are more likely to have higher board ownership and are likely to have duality of CEO and chairman. They are also more likely to have lower growth prospects and lower valuations. However, they do not have sub-optimal internal corporate governance structures in terms of lower proportions of outside directors. With respect to external governance, they are not more likely to experience pressure from the market for corporate control in the form of greater takeover speculation and are also not more likely to suffer hostile threats. We find that PTPs involving management buy-outs (MBIs) have fewer non-executive directors and a greater incidence of duality. MBO also have higher board shareholdings. We find no evidence that management buy-ins (MBIs) have different characteristics. Our results suggest that going private by MBO may result from management's knowledge of private information that leads them to believe that the market has an incorrect perspective of the company's prospects.     

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.     

Spillover of corporate governance standards in cross-border mergers and acquisitions

In cross-border acquisitions, the differences between the bidder and target corporate governance (measured by newly constructed indices capturing shareholder, minority shareholder, and creditor protection) have an important impact on the takeover returns. Our country-level corporate governance indices capture the changes in the quality of the national corporate governance regulations over the past 15 years. When the bidder is from a country with a strong shareholder orientation (relative to the target), part of the total synergy value of the takeover may result from the improvement in the governance of the target assets. In full takeovers, the corporate governance regulation of the bidder is imposed on the target (the positive spillover by law hypothesis). In partial takeovers, the improvement in the target corporate governance may occur on voluntary basis (the spillover by control hypothesis). Our empirical analysis corroborates both spillover effects. In contrast, when the bidder is from a country with poorer shareholder protection, the negative spillover by law hypothesis states that the anticipated takeover gains will be lower as the poorer corporate governance regime of the bidder will be imposed on the target. The alternative bootstrapping hypothesis argues that poor-governance bidders voluntarily bootstrap to the better-governance regime of the target. We do find support for the bootstrapping effect.     

Backing into being public: an exploratory analysis of reverse takeovers

We examine 121 reverse takeovers (RT), in which a privately held firm acquires a publicly traded firm to obtain their exchange listing. The public firms, many of which went public during the initial public offering (IPO) bubble, are generally poor performers. Their shareholders receive significant wealth gains upon announcement, suggesting that these events may provide shareholders of distressed firms a way to recover some of their investment. We observe little post-event improvement in operations or profitability, and only 46% of the sample survives two years. Thus, while reverse takeovers provide alternative means of going public, they are risky and may fail to generate long-term wealth.     

Let's make a deal! How shareholder control impacts merger payoffs

Mergers and acquisitions are well-suited events for a detailed study of the valuation effects of corporate governance structures. Using a sample of 388 takeovers announced in the friendly environment of the 1990s, I empirically show that target shareholder control, proxied by low target chief executive officer share ownership, low fractions of inside directors, and the presence of large outside blockholders, is positively correlated with takeover premiums. In contrast, studies of takeovers in the hostile environment of the 1980s have shown a negative relation between target shareholder control and takeover premiums.     

Product market competition and the cost of bank loans: Evidence from state antitakeover laws

The extant literature documents a positive relationship between a firm’s takeover vulnerability and its agency cost of debt. Using state antitakeover laws as an exogenous measure of variation in takeover vulnerability, I investigate whether product market competition has a disciplinary effect that can lower a firm’s cost of bank loans. After taking into account the industry composition of borrowers, I find that banks charge higher spreads to borrowers that are vulnerable to takeovers, but only in concentrated industries. In the absence of disciplinary competitive pressure, the effect of takeover vulnerability on the cost of bank loans is mitigated for larger firms, firms followed by analysts, firms with existing credit ratings, non-family firms, and for borrowers with shorter maturity loans or loans with covenants and collateral in place. Taken together, the results suggest that the effect of governance on the cost of financing is not homogenous across all industries, and that concentrated industry firms may need to use supplementary governance mechanisms to mitigate debt holder agency problems.     

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.     

A Comparative Analysis of Takeovers of Single and Dual Class Firms

This paper analyzes takeovers of dual class companies listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange over the period 1976 to 1989. It finds support for the hypothesis that despite the evidence that restricted shares sell at a discount compared to superior voting shares, takeover returns are the same for both classes of shares. Secondly, it tests the hypothesis that the classification of common equity into two classes confers differential takeover value on controlling shareholders and find that superior voting shares of dual class firms experience higher returns during takeovers than do shares of single class firms.     

Industry structure and horizontal takeovers: Analysis of wealth effects on rivals,suppliers, and corporate customers

We examine the wealth effects of horizontal takeovers on rivals of the merging firms, and on firms in the takeover industry's supplier and customer industries. Inconsistent with the collusion and buyer power motives, we find significant positive abnormal returns to rivals, suppliers, and corporate customers for the subsample of takeovers with positive combined wealth effect to target and bidder shareholders. Overall, our findings suggest that the average takeover in our sample is driven by efficiency considerations. However, we find evidence suggesting that horizontal takeovers increase the buyer power of the merging firms if suppliers are concentrated.     

Capital Structure and Corporate Control: The Effect of Antitakeover Statutes on Firm Leverage

We find that firms protected by "second generation" state antitakeover laws substantially reduce their use of debt, and that unprotected firms do the reverse. This result supports recent models in which the threat of hostile takeover motivates managers to take on debt they would otherwise avoid. An implication is that legal barriers to takeovers may increase corporate slack.     

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.     

Cash holdings and bond returns around takeovers

Using a large sample of 2712 unique U.S. domestic takeovers over the period 1993 to 2014, we show a negative relation between the level of cash holdings and post-announcement corporate bond returns. Our findings support the agency cost of cash holdings view and show that bondholders and shareholders share the same interests with respect to cash policy around takeovers. We further find that cash holdings are viewed less negatively by bondholders in firms with strong shareholders. This paper is the first to document the role of cash holdings on bondholder wealth around takeover announcements.     

CORPORATE TAKEOVER BARRIERS: VALUATION AND FIRM PERFORMANCE

This study provides additional evidence on the share price effect of takeover barriers such as antitakeover charter amendments, dual classes of common stock, and poison pill plans. The share price reaction to the construction of takeover barriers is found to be negative but insignificant. However, when disaggregated by type, significant negative share price reactions are found on construction of poison pill plans. New evidence on the possible relationship between firm performance and takeover barrier construction is also presented. The results of this study suggest that management of 'efficiently-run' firms may construct takeover barriers to deter value-diminishing takeovers.     

Target CEO age,ownership decisions,and takeover outcomes

This paper examines the effect of target CEO age, in association with target corporate governance mechanisms, on the ownership decisions and takeover outcomes in eight East and Southeast Asian countries. The results show that acquirers are more likely to select partial-control acquisitions of target firms managed by older CEOs, and that the impact of target CEO age on the partial-control acquisition propensity is much stronger in emerging markets relative to developed economies. The study further finds that target CEO age leads to a lower probability of obtaining desired equity ownership levels compared to unmatched ownership achievements, controlling for target corporate governance structures. The findings also run robustness checks regarding variations in the compulsory acquisition cut-off in the sample countries. Overall, this paper adds to the growing of mainstream corporate governance literature regarding the relevance of CEO personal characteristics in agency problems for corporate decisions.