Does operating performance really improve following corporate acquisitions?

Previous research indicates that operating performance improves following corporate acquisitions relative to industry-median firms. Such performance results are likely to be biased because acquiring firms undertake acquisitions following a period of superior performance and they are generally larger than industry-median firms. Using firms matched on performance and size as a benchmark, I find no evidence that operating performance improves following acquisitions. I also analyze if performance is higher in cash acquisitions as suggested by various studies. The results indicate that cash flows increase significantly following acquisitions that are made with cash, but decline for stock acquisitions.     

Does favorable investor sentiment lead to costly decisions to go public?

We investigate the real effects of decisions to undertake an initial public offering of stock in periods of favorable investor sentiment. Specifically, we examine potential effects of favorable investor sentiment on investment expenditures and how effects on investment affect firm operating performance and value as well as the likelihood of survival. We find that firms going public during periods of favorable sentiment, on average, spend substantially more on investments, especially acquisitions, than firms going public in other periods. The effect of favorable investor sentiment on investment is more pronounced for younger firms. We do not find, however, that the higher investment spending in the wake of favorable sentiment leads to worse operating or stock performance. Stock returns around acquisitions announcements are also positive for firms going public in favorable sentiment periods. The preponderance of our findings indicate that decisions to go public in favorable investor sentiment periods do not lead to corporate investment decisions that harm firm performance and value.     

Foreign acquisitions and firm performance: The moderating role of prior foreign experience

This paper relies on a sample of 9419 acquisitions by 1443 UK firms during 1988 to 2014 to investigate the impact of foreign acquisitions on corporate performance. Moreover, the moderating role of firms' prior exposure to foreign markets on the foreign acquisition-performance link is explored. The paper finds that, on average, foreign acquisitions have a negative impact on corporate performance. However, the negative impact of foreign acquisitions disappears under two circumstances: (1) when domestic firms undertake foreign acquisitions; and (2) when highly experienced multinationals undertake foreign acquisitions. Collectively, the findings imply that the benefits (costs) associated with foreign acquisitions are greater (lower) for new entrants into foreign markets and for highly experienced multinationals.     

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.     

Corporate Debt Maturity and Acquisition Decisions

This paper provides an empirical analysis of the effects of corporate debt maturity on firms’ acquisition decisions using a large sample of acquisitions from 1991 to 2010. We find that firms with shorter debt maturity are less likely to undertake acquisitions. If they do, they are more likely to undertake smaller deals, take more time to complete, are less likely to make all cash offers, and tend to use less cash in the payment. These results support the predictions of the increased liquidity risk hypothesis. We also find that acquirers with shorter debt maturity realize higher announcement returns and experience better long‐term stock returns and operating performance. These results suggest that short debt maturity improves the efficiency of capital allocation through acquisition decisions.     

Selling to buy: Asset sales and acquisitions

This study explores the impact of joint corporate asset restructuring decisions, where firms sell an asset in order to fund a subsequent acquisition (selling-to-buy). We find that firms with asset sales are associated with increased acquisition probability. The effect is more pronounced for financially constrained firms. We also show that, in addition to the established improved firm efficiency from focus-increasing asset sales, financially constrained firms obtain the necessary funds to conduct focus-increasing acquisitions, improving further their efficiency. This translates into both higher long-run operating performance and stock abnormal returns at the asset sale announcement.     

Partial acquisitions in emerging markets: A test of the strategic market entry and corporate control hypotheses

In this paper, we examine the motivations of acquirers undertaking partial acquisitions in emerging markets by testing two competing hypotheses: the market for corporate control hypothesis and the market entry hypothesis. We find that targets of cross-border acquisitions outperform targets of domestic acquisitions in the pre-acquisition period. While cross-border acquisitions have no significant impact on target firms' operating performance, targets of domestic acquisitions experience significant improvements in operating performance and substantial changes in ownership structure after the acquisition. The evidence suggests that domestic partial acquisitions in emerging markets serve as a market for corporate control, while cross-border partial acquisitions are motivated by the strategic market entry rationale.     

Corporate Multinationality and Acquirer Returns

This paper provides evidence on how corporate multinationality from the perspective of acquiring firms relates to M&A returns. Using multivariate regressions and a large dataset of over 6,000 M&As (both cross-border and domestic) by UK firms during 1987 to 2014, the paper finds multinationality to be associated with significantly higher short-run announcement returns and long-run operating performance. While the multinationality premium (higher M&A returns for multinationals) persists over time, it seems to be restricted to firms with superior resource/managerial capabilities and minimal agency problems. Finally, the multinationality premium appears to be driven by foreign acquisitions into advanced economies. The results are robust to correcting for sample selection bias and controlling for several firm and deal characteristics, as well as accounting for firm-, industry-, and year-fixed effects. Collectively, the findings imply that multinationality could be a source of value creation for acquiring firms, particularly in foreign acquisitions, which tend to be complex, and, thereby, require superior managerial capabilities to succeed.     

Corporate Governance, Incentives, and Industry Consolidations

This article studies the determinants of the success of industryconsolidations using a unique sample of firms established atthe time of their initial public offering: roll-up IPOs. Inthese transactions, small, private firms merge into a shellcompany, which goes public at the same time. These firms deliverpoor stock returns; their operating performance mimics thatof comparable firms but does not justify their high initialvaluations. However, if the managers and owners of the firmsincluded in the transaction remain involved in the businessas shareholders and directors, operating and stock price performanceimprove, and future acquisitions are better received by themarket. Higher ownership by the sponsor of the transaction leadsto a reduction in performance, consistent with the view thatthe sponsor's compensation is excessive. These findings highlightthe impact of corporate governance on performance.     

Are Good Performers Bad Acquirers?

We examine how the market reacts to announcements of mergers and acquisitions (M&As) by well‐performing acquirers and evaluate the results in light of three hypotheses: 1) managerial ability, 2) empire building, and 3) chief executive officer (CEO) overconfidence. Our results indicate that an empire‐building motive drives the relationship between past superior operating performance and M&A announcements. Long‐term operating performance drops significantly for acquiring firms with past superior operating performance. Our evidence also indicates that the presence of insider directors helps to alleviate the negative perception of acquisitions made by firms with better operating performance or empire‐building CEOs.     

The long-run performance of acquiring firms in mergers and acquisitions: Does managerial ability matter?

This paper examines the association between the managerial ability of acquiring firms and their long-term performance after mergers and acquisitions (M&As). Based on M&A data for U.S. firms from 2000 to 2012, we find that acquiring firms with higher managerial ability achieve better long-term operating performance and stock returns. We also find that the positive effect of managerial ability on long-term performance is more pronounced when acquirers and target firms belong to the same industry. The result suggests that managers who have higher ability to manage their firms, i.e., to generate higher revenues for given resources, are more capable of achieving higher synergy benefits and better post-acquisition performance in same-industry acquisitions than in cross-industry acquisitions.     

Is Japanese management superior? Evidence from the performance of the USA targets in partial acquisitions

This paper examines the efficacy of Japanese management and corporate governance by comparing the long-term post-merger operating performance of the U.S. targets acquired by Japanese bidders compared to the performance of well-matched U.S. targets of U.S. bidders. Unlike prior studies that focus on short-term stock price reactions of target firms, it is possible to undertake this long-term analysis of performance by identifying targets that survive as independent entities because of partial acquisitions. The findings suggest that targets of Japanese bidders either perform no differently from targets of U.S. bidders, or possibly even underperform. Thus, the evidence does not support the oft-claimed superiority of Japanese management and corporate governance system.     

The Effect of Corporate Multinationalism on Shareholders' Wealth: Evidence from International Acquisitions

This study presents direct evidence on the effect of international acquisitions on stock prices of U.S. bidding firms. Shareholders of MNCs not operating in the target firm's country experience significant positive abnormal returns at the announcement of international acquisitions. Shareholders of U.S. firms expanding internationally for the first time experience insignificant positive abnormal returns, while shareholders of MNCs operating already in the target firm's country experience insignificant negative abnormal returns. The abnormal returns are larger when firms expand into new industry and geographic markets—especially those less developed than the U.S. economy. The evidence is consistent with the theory of corporate multinationalism, predicting an increase in the firm's market value from the expansion of its existing multinational network.     

Corporate Cash Reserves and Acquisitions

Cash-rich firms are more likely than other firms to attempt acquisitions. Stock return evidence shows that acquisitions by cash-rich firms are value decreasing. Cash-rich bidders destroy seven cents in value for every excess dollar of cash reserves held. Cash-rich firms are more likely to make diversifying acquisitions and their targets are less likely to attract other bidders. Consistent with the stock return evidence, mergers in which the bidder is cash-rich are followed by abnormal declines in operating performance. Overall, the evidence supports the agency costs of free cash flow explanation for acquisitions by cash-rich firms.     

Corporate governance, insider ownership and operating performance of Australian initial public offerings

We examine ownership structures and corporate governance attributes of 313 Australian initial public offerings (IPOs) between 1976 and 1993 and their relation with up to 5 years of post‐listing operating performance, adjusted for similar (non‐IPO) firms. Consistent with prior share price‐based evidence, we find that the operating performance of Australian IPOs typically deteriorates over the first 4 post‐listing years. Any evidence of a positive association between insider ownership and firm performance is confined to the fourth and fifth years after the IPO. Evidence of a positive relation between institutional ownership and performance is restricted to the latter part of our 5‐year post‐listing window. Board composition (i.e. outsider versus insider control) is not associated with operating performance, although there is some evidence that independent board leadership is associated with better operating performance.     

Empirical evidence of the value of monitoring in joint ownership

Joint ownership of assets by two partners can have an adverse effect on the incentives to invest and can result in unstable and inefficient organizational structures. Control sharing, however, plays an important role in economic, political, and social institutions. There is scarce empirical evidence on the benefits of joint ownership in corporate finance. We analyze acquisitions of corporate assets by joint ventures to empirically ascertain the value of joint ownership in economic activities. The results indicate that firms experience significantly larger returns in joint acquisitions than in full-control acquisitions and that this difference is restricted to the sample of firms in which both partners share equal ownership in the target. These findings suggest that monitoring in joint ownership structures ameliorates the possibility of value-destroying corporate decisions.     

Firm size and the effectiveness of the market for corporate control

Recent research has shown evidence that larger firms are more likely to destroy shareholder wealth through acquisitions. Those findings suggest that managers of larger firms are less likely to be disciplined by the market for corporate control than managers of smaller firms. With a sample of nearly 8000 acquisitions over the period from 1980–1999, this paper offers evidence to the contrary. The results suggest that larger firms are more likely to be the target of a disciplinary takeover than smaller firms. Further tests indicate that CEOs of larger firms are significantly more likely to be replaced following a series of poor acquisitions than CEOs of smaller firms. In total, managers of the largest firms continue to make the worst acquisitions despite the evidence that they are more likely to be punished for doing so.     

Are small family firms financially sophisticated?

We study the drivers of financial sophistication in small family firms. Sophistication is defined as the use of non-basic financial products such as options, swaps, debt restructuring, and mergers and acquisitions (M&A) advisory services. Our analysis is based on a unique dataset with detailed information on 187 Italian family firms. We find that the main drivers of financial sophistication are: (1) the generation that currently owns the firm; (2) the presence of a non-family CFO; and (3) the existence of a non-family shareholder. We analyze the impact of these factors on the following four classes of non-basic financial products: corporate finance, cash management, corporate lending and risk management. Our results can be used to determine the characteristics of financially sophisticated family firms and whether their corporate governance and ownership structure increase the use of non-basic financial products.     

Cross-border mergers and acquisitions and corporate social responsibility: Evidence from Chinese listed firms

This study examines the impact of cross-border mergers and acquisitions (M&As) on acquirers’ corporate social responsibility (CSR). Based on a sample of Chinese listed firms, we find that firms with cross-border M&A activities experience an improvement in subsequent CSR performance. Specifically, the CSR rating is approximately 8.24% higher in firms with cross-border M&As than in those without such activities. We also find that this positive influence is more pronounced in firms with low initial CSR ratings than in those with high initial CSR ratings at the time when a cross-border M&A deal is completed. Additional analyses reveal that this positive effect is mainly driven by the target firms from countries with high social preference relative to China and that the enhancement in CSR driven by cross-border M&As translates into higher operating performance and easier access to finance. Overall, our findings demonstrate that cross-border M&As can serve as a critical channel for acquirers from a country with low institutional quality to build a better reputation through environmentally friendly behaviour and socially responsible engagement, and therefore gain capital market benefits.     

Accounting conservatism and voluntary corporate governance mechanisms by Australian firms

This study examines the relationship between voluntary adoption of selected corporate governance mechanisms and accounting conservatism for a sample of firms listed on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) over the 11‐year period prior to the promulgation of the ASX Corporate Governance Council Good Governance Principles and Best Practice Recommendations in 2003. Using four accounting and market‐based accounting conservatism measures, our results provide evidence of both conditional and unconditional conservatism in accounting reporting for Australian firms. We find that voluntary audit committee formation, increasing board independence and decreasing board size are positively associated with unconditional accounting conservatism and negatively related to the degree of conditional conservatism. Our results support the contention that firms voluntarily adopting perceived best practice corporate governance mechanisms employ unconditional accounting conservatism as a complimentary agency control device and are consistent with the observed negative association between the unconditional and conditional forms of accounting conservatism practice.