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.     

The effect of managers on M&As

In this paper, we document diverse levels of managerial ability and firm performance in the cross section of acquiring firms. Acquirers with strong managerial ability realize higher announcement-period abnormal returns and experience better post-merger firm performance than their low-ability counterparts. Our results are robust to endogeneity concerns and show that the observed variation in acquirer abnormal returns is attributed to the heterogeneity of managerial ability fixed effects across acquirers. Managerial ability adds value to acquirers, especially in stock-financed acquisitions, implying that the method of payment is not driving the negative stock-financed valuation effect documented in previous literature. Moreover, we find that target firms with strongly ingrained growth potential and low levels of financial constraint and bankruptcy risk are highly favored by skilled acquiring managers.     

Liquidity and information asymmetry considerations in corporate takeovers

ABSTRACT

We examine how stock market liquidity and information asymmetry considerations influence the wealth effects of Mergers and Acquisitions (M&As). We present a simple model predicting that M&As of listed targets that have relatively illiquid stocks are profitable for acquirers due to (a) the weak bargaining power of the targets’ shareholders, and (b) the limited information asymmetry concerns when evaluating takeover synergies. Our results show that cash-financed M&As of listed targets that have relatively illiquid stocks are associated with an increase in acquirer risk-adjusted returns. These gains are equivalent to those realized from comparable private target M&As. When engaging in stock-financed listed-target M&As, acquirers with liquid stocks enjoy significant gains when the targets have relatively illiquid stocks. This result holds especially when the deal is announced during periods of deterioration in the overall stock market liquidity. Lastly, we find that liquidity considerations affect the acquirer’s choice of the target firm’s listing status, as well as the M&A method of payment.     

Firm size,takeover profitability,and the effectiveness of the market for corporate control: Does the absence of anti-takeover provisions make a difference?

The market for corporate control is generally regarded as an important disciplinary mechanism in well developed economies. Entrenchment mechanisms commonly used by US firms in the form of anti-takeover provisions (ATPs) may offer some protection from disciplinary action, facilitating entrenchment and value-reducing behavior. One manifestation of entrenchment is poor acquisitions, with the literature reporting significant losses to large acquirers, and to acquirers with a higher number of ATPs. We examine the profitability of acquisitions in Australia, a market where US-style ATPs are prohibited. The results show that unlike their US counterparts, large Australian acquirers earn significant value for their shareholders, both in terms of announcement returns and long-run operating performance improvements. Takeover premiums are also substantially lower than those reported for the US and UK, and do not differ between large and small acquirers. Premiums are also positively correlated with long-run operating performance, indicating that they reflect real synergies, as opposed to hubris or overpayment. We also find that bidders who destroy value in takeovers are likely to be subsequently acquired. However, unlike US evidence, larger acquirers are just as likely to be targeted for takeover as smaller acquirers, indicating that size is not an effective impediment to the disciplining function of the market for corporate control in Australia. The findings are robust to several econometric issues common to the type of models used in our analysis.     

Glamour Acquirers, Method of Payment and Post‐acquisition Performance: The UK Evidence

We study the effect of different acquirer types, defined by financial status and their payment methods, on their short and long‐term performance, in terms of abnormal returns using a variety of benchmark models. For a sample of 519 UK acquirers during 1983–95, we examine the abnormal return performance of acquirers based on their pre‐bid financial status as either glamour or value acquirers using both the price to earnings (PE) ratio and market to book value ratio (MTBV). Value acquirers outperform glamour acquirers in the three‐year post‐acquisition period. One interpretation is that glamour firms have overvalued equity and tend to exploit their status and use it more often than cash to finance their acquisitions. As we move from glamour to value acquirers, there is a greater use of cash. Our results are broadly consistent with those for the US reported by Rau and Vermaelen (1998). However, in contrast to their study, we find stronger support for the method of payment hypothesis than for extrapolation hypothesis. Cash acquirers generate higher returns than equity acquirers, irrespective of their glamour/ value status. Our conclusions, based on four benchmark models for abnormal returns, suggest that stock markets in both the US and the UK may share a similar proclivity for over‐extrapolation of past performance, at least in the bid period. They also tend to reassess acquirer performance in the post‐acquisition period and correct this overextrapolation. These results have implications for the behavioural aspects of capital markets in both countries.     

Competition Policy and the Profitability of Corporate Acquisitions

Merger control exists to help safeguard effective competition. However, findings from a natural experiment suggest that regulatory merger control reduces the profitability of corporate acquisitions. Uncertainty about merger control decisions reduces takeover threats from foreign and very large acquirers, therefore facilitating agency-motivated deals. Valuation effects are more pronounced in countries with stronger law enforcement and in more concentrated industries. Our results suggest that competition policy may impede the efficiency of the M&A market.     

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.     

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.     

An Examination of the Long Run Performance of UK Acquiring Firms

This study examines a comprehensive data set of large domestic takeovers by UK listed companies between 1984 and 1992. The contribution of this paper is to show, by using a series of models of abnormal returns, together with the Ibbotson (1975) 'Returns Across Time Series' model and a simple cross-sectional model of returns across all listed UK companies, that the average abnormal return for up to two years post-acquisition is unambiguously and significantly negative. In particular, acquirers financing a takeover through equity, and single (as opposed to regular) acquirers exhibit significant negative performance. There is also some evidence to suggest that diversifying acquirers perform worse than non-diversifying acquirers and that recommended bids are associated with poorer subsequent under-performance by acquirers than are hostile bids.     

Indexing mergers and acquisitions

We measure the efficiency of mergers and acquisitions by putting forward an index (the ‘M&A Index’) based on stochastic frontier analysis. The M&A Index is calculated for each takeover deal and is standardized between 0 and 1. An acquisition with a higher index encompasses higher efficiency. We find that takeover bids with higher M&A Indices are more likely to succeed. Moreover, the M&A Index shows a strong and positive relation with the acquirers’ post-acquisition stock performance in the short run and operating performance in the long run. After constructing three portfolios under a buy-and-hold strategy, we find that efficient portfolios with the highest indices earn higher equity returns and monthly alphas than inefficient portfolios with the lowest indices. Overall, our findings indicate that the M&A Index is positively associated with merger outcomes for acquirers.     

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.     

Acquisition pricing in India during 1995–2011: Have Indian acquirers really beaten the odds?

We examine the announcement returns of acquisitions made by Indian firms during the period 1995–2011. Our results confirm that the announcement returns to Indian acquirers are on average significantly positive. However, we are first to document that the announcement returns to Indian acquirers decline over time and become, on average, negative towards the end of our sample period. We analyze several hypotheses for such decline and find that the decline, while robust to a variety of explanations, is related to the intensity of the market for corporate control in India. Finally, the post-acquisition long-run returns for acquirers are, on average, consistently positive, do not change over time, and are unrelated to the initial market reaction to the acquisition announcement.     

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.     

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.     

Heterogeneity in the information content of 8-K disclosures about private targets: Acquirer size and target significance

In this paper, we empirically analyze the disclosures required by the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) for acquisitions of privately held target firms by public acquirers. We find that 8-K disclosures filed by public acquirers within a week after the announcement date of the takeover of a privately held target firm materially affect the pricing and the trading of the acquirers' shares around the event date, but only for large acquiring firms. This impact is economically significant even for targets classified as “insignificant” by the SEC, but again, only for large acquirers. Our results suggest that it may be optimal to further reduce the disclosure costs faced by smaller acquirers in acquisitions of private targets.     

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.     

Are Stock‐for‐Stock Acquirers of Unlisted Targets Really Less Overvalued?

Extant studies assume that targets’ private ownership mitigates acquirers’ incentives and opportunities to finance acquisitions with inflated stocks. This view stems from the observation that, although the average stock‐for‐stock acquirer's merger announcement return is negative when the target is listed, it is positive when the target is unlisted. Accordingly, extant studies often suggest that announcements of stock‐for‐stock acquisitions of unlisted targets convey favorable private information about the acquirers. However, an analysis of stock‐for‐stock acquirers’ stock performance, abnormal accruals, net operating assets, and insider trading suggests the opposite. Acquirers of unlisted targets are generally more overvalued than acquirers of listed targets.     

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.     

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.     

Gains from Mergers and Acquisitions Around the World: New Evidence

Using a global M&A data set, this paper provides evidence that the empirical observations relating public acquisitions to, at best, zero abnormal returns, and their stock-financed subset to negative abnormal returns for acquiring firms around the deal announcement are not unanimous across countries. Acquirers beyond the most competitive takeover markets (the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada) pay lower premia and realize gains, while share-for-share offers are at least non-value-destroying for their shareholders. In contrast, target shareholders within these markets gain significantly less, implying that the benefits generated are more evenly split between the involved parties.