The role of lockups in takeover contests

We examine breakup fees and stock lockups as devices for prospective target firms to encourage bidder participation in takeover contests. Unless bidding costs for the first bidder are too high, breakup fees provide for the socially desirable degree of competition and ensure the efficient allocation of the target to the highest‐valued buyer in a takeover auction. In contrast, stock lockups permit the target firm to subsidize entry of a new bidder at the expense of an incumbent bidder. Stock lockups induce too much competition when offered to a second bidder and too little competition when offered to a first bidder. Despite their socially wasteful properties, target management would favor stock lockups, as they induce takeover competition at least cost to the target.     

Termination Fees in Mergers and Acquisitions: Protecting Investors or Managers?

Abstract:  Institutional investors closely monitor termination fees in mergers and acquisitions (M&A). We argue that their magnitude reflects either agency problems or efficiency considerations. Focusing on M&A involving Canadian targets between 1997 and 2004, we assess the determinants and market impact of termination fees. Our findings show that the Thomson's SDC Platinum™ Worldwide Mergers & Acquisitions Database underestimates their extent. Results suggest that termination fees are essentially an efficient mechanism as they are relatively higher in M&A with high merger costs, a cash component and expected operating synergies. Stock market returns surrounding the deal announcement do not differ across levels of relative termination fees.     

Competition and dynamics of takeover contests

This paper investigates the effect of potential competition on takeovers which we model as a bargaining game with alternating offers where calling an auction represents an outside option for each bidder at each stage of the game. The model describes a takeover process that is initiated by an unsolicited bidder, and it aims to answer three main questions: who wins the takeover and how? when? and how much is the takeover premium?Our results explain why the takeover premium resulting from a negotiated deal is not significantly different from that resulting from an auction, and why tender offers are rarely observed in reality. We also show that when the threat of the initial bidder to call a tender offer is not credible, the takeover process might end with a private auction organized by the target. Conversely, when the tender offer threat is credible, the takeover process ends with a deal negotiated bilaterally between the bidder and the target. The takeover premium always depends on the degree of potential competition, while it is affected by the target resistance only for weak initial bidders.Finally, the model allows us to draw conclusions on how other dimensions of the takeover process, such as termination fees, control benefits and tender offer costs, affect its dynamics and outcome.     

Regulating bidder participation in auctions

Regulating bidder participation in auctions can potentially increase efficiency compared to standard auction formats with free entry. We show that the relative performance of two such mechanisms, a standard first‐price auction with free entry and an entry rights auction, depends nonmonotonically on the precision of information that bidders have about their costs prior to deciding whether to participate in a mechanism. As an empirical application, we estimate parameters from first‐price auctions with free entry for bridge‐building contracts in Oklahoma and Texas and predict that an entry rights auction increases efficiency and reduces procurement costs significantly.     

Takeover Contests with Asymmetric Bidders

Target firms often face bidders that are not equally well informed,which reduces competition, because bidders with less informationfear the winner’s curse more. We analyze how targets shouldbe sold in this situation. We show that a sequential procedurecan extract the highest possible transaction price. The targetfirst offers an exclusive deal to a better-informed bidder,without considering a less well-informed bidder. If rejected,the target offers either an exclusive deal to the less well-informedbidder, or a modified first-price auction. Deal protection devicescan be used to enhance a target’s commitment to the procedure.(JEL G34, K22, D44)     

Prizes and lemons: procurement of innovation under imperfect commitment

The literature on research and development contests implicitly assumes that contestants submit their innovation regardless of its value. This ignores a potential adverse selection problem. The present article analyzes the procurement of innovations when the procurer cannot commit himself to never bargain with innovators who bypass the contest. We compare fixed‐prize tournaments with and without entry fees, and optimal scoring auctions with and without minimum score requirement. Our main result is that preventing bypass is more costly in the optimal auction, and the optimal fixed‐prize tournament is more profitable than the optimal auction.     

A “matching auction” for targets with heterogeneous bidders

When potential bidders for a target firm are heterogeneous, standard auction methods for selling the firm are not optimal, as they treat the bidders symmetrically. In a two-bidder contest, one way to discriminate against the stronger bidder is to impose an order of moves. A simple “matching auction” can achieve this objective, in which the “strong” bidder is asked to make a first and final offer, and the other bidder is asked to match this bid. We consider two sources of bidder heterogeneity in a common-value setting: differences in initial toeholds, and asymmetric effects of the bidders' private signals on value. The matching auction results in a higher expected selling price than the standard auctions when the asymmetry is sufficiently large. Other properties of the matching auction are discussed.     

Bidder contests in international mergers and acquisitions: The impact of toeholds,preemptive bidding,and termination fees

For international mergers and acquisitions we analyze the effectiveness of different bidder strategies, first in preventing bidder competition, and second in increasing the likelihood of success. We provide robust empirical evidence of the effectiveness of toeholds and termination fees in reducing the likelihood of competition and, if a contest occurs, increasing the probability of success, especially after controlling for bidder asymmetries. The effects of termination fees vary over time and legal origin. Overall, there is hardly any evidence that high initial offers can prevent contests. However, competition is preempted in civil law countries with a high initial premium. A higher percentage of cash payment also increases the probability of success in bidder contest. Moreover, latent competition is generally not sufficient to curb the influence of observable bidder competition on target and bidder wealth. Finally, serial acquirers are more likely to prevent bidder contests and experienced and reputably advised bidders are more successful in deal completion. Overall, we offer novel evidence for the success of different bidding strategies in international mergers and acquisitions.     

Creditor financing and overbidding in bankruptcy auctions: Theory and tests

We present unique empirical tests for auction overbidding using data from Sweden's auction bankruptcy system. The main creditor (a bank) can neither bid in the auction nor refuse to sell in order to support a minimum price. However, we argue that the bank may increase its expected revenue by financing a bidder in return for a joint bid strategy, and we show that the optimal coalition bid exceeds the bidder's private valuation (overbidding) by an amount that is increasing in the bank's ex ante debt impairment. We find that bank–bidder financing arrangements are common, and our cross-sectional regressions show that winning bids are increasing in the bank-debt impairment as predicted. While, in theory, overbidding may result in the coalition winning against a more efficient rival bidder, our evidence on post-bankruptcy operating performance fails to support such allocative inefficiency effects. We also find that restructurings by bank-financed bidders are relatively risky as they have greater bankruptcy refiling rates, irrespective of the coalition's overbidding incentive.     

Bidding to lose? Auctions with resale

A losing bidder can still purchase the prize from the winner after the auction. We show why a strong bidder may prefer to drop out of the auction before the price has reached her valuation and acquire the prize in the aftermarket: a strong bidder may be in a better bargaining position in the aftermarket if her rival won at a relatively low price. So it can be common knowledge that, in equilibrium, a weak bidder will win the auction and, even without uncertainty about relative valuations, resale will take place. The possibility of reselling to a strong bidder attracts weak bidders to participate in the auction and raises the seller's revenue.     

Shareholder litigation in mergers and acquisitions

Using hand-collected data, we examine the targeting of shareholder class action lawsuits in merger and acquisition (M&A) transactions, and the associations of these lawsuits with offer completion rates and takeover premia. We find that M&A offers subject to shareholder lawsuits are completed at a significantly lower rate than offers not subject to litigation, after controlling for selection bias, different judicial standards, major offer characteristics, M&A financial and legal advisor reputations as well as industry and year fixed effects. M&A offers subject to shareholder lawsuits have significantly higher takeover premia in completed deals, after controlling for the same factors. Economically, the expected rise in takeover premia more than offsets the fall in the probability of deal completion, resulting in a positive expected gain to target shareholders. However, in general, target stock price reactions to bid announcements do not appear to fully anticipate the positive expected gain from potential litigation. We find that during a merger wave characterized by friendly single-bidder offers, shareholder litigation substitutes for the presence of a rival bidder by policing low-ball bids and forcing offer price improvement by the bidder.     

When It Pays to Pay Your Investment Banker: New Evidence on the Role of Financial Advisors in M&As

We provide new evidence on the role of financial advisors in M&As. Contrary to prior studies, top‐tier advisors deliver higher bidder returns than their non‐top‐tier counterparts but in public acquisitions only, where the advisor reputational exposure and required skills set are relatively larger. This translates into a $65.83 million shareholder gain for an average bidder. The improvement comes from top‐tier advisors' ability to identify more synergistic combinations and to get a larger share of synergies to accrue to bidders. Consistent with the premium price–premium quality equilibrium, top‐tier advisors charge premium fees in these transactions.     

Managing M&A Risk with Collars,Earn‐outs,and CVRs*

M&A transactions expose both the bidder and target shareholders to a number of major risks both prior to the close of the deal and during the post‐close integration phase. The main pre‐closing risk is the possibility that fl uctuations of bidder and target stock prices will affect the terms of the deal and reduce the likelihood the deal closes. After the closing, a major risk for bidder shareholders is the failure of the target to perform up to expectations, thus resulting in overpayment. This article describes a number of tools that can be used to manage such risks, using a number of examples to illustrate the structure and pricing of such tools. In the case of pre‐closing risks, offers with “collars” can protect target company shareholders from a drop in bidder company share prices while at the same protecting acquirers from excessive dilution. Post‐closing instruments such as earn‐outs and contingent value rights can be used to manage the risk of substandard performance and the overpayment that would result from underperformance.     

Powerful bidders and value creation in M&As

This paper explores the role of bargaining ability in corporate mergers and acquisitions (M&As) by focusing on acquiring firms with ex-ante market power—powerful bidders. Drawing from a bargaining power theoretical stance, we argue that powerful bidders create value from M&A activity by paying comparatively lower premiums. We test our empirical proposition using a sample of 9327 M&A deals announced between 2004 and 2016 by bidders across 30 countries. Contrary to the stylized fact that bidders do not gain from M&A activity, we uncover evidence suggesting that powerful bidders pay lower bid premiums and, consequently, earn positive (and relatively higher) cumulative announcement returns (CARs) from M&A deals. On average, the mean returns to powerful bidders (1.3%) are at least twice those of their less powerful counterparts (0.6%). We identify “low financial constraints” as a potential channel through which higher bidder power translates to improved deal performance. Overall, our results provide new evidence on how industry dynamics, notably bargaining power, influences M&A outcomes.     

Foreclosure,REO, and Market Sales in Residential Real Estate

Assessment of lender and third-party bidder acquired properties at foreclosure auction is provided. Properties acquired at foreclosure auction by third-party bidders transact at a discount to lender dispositions of real estate owned (REO) properties. The discount reflects a reduction in costs associated with lender owned (REO) dispositions and uncertainty faced by third-party bidders. Moreover, there is a ranking in transaction prices among initial purchases by third-party bidders at foreclosure auction, REO sales, non-distressed property sales and the subsequent sales of third-party bidder acquired properties. Third-party bidder auction prices are below REO sale prices, which are below non-distressed property sale prices, which are below the subsequent sale prices of third-party bidder acquired properties. The price spacing by cohort is logical, intuitive and economically justified in a market with rational participants. Implications are also apparent for the measurement of price changes, net sale proceeds and returns to residential real estate.     

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.     

One size does not fit all: Selling firms to private equity versus strategic acquirers

This paper investigates the selling process of firms acquired by private equity versus strategic buyers. In a single regression setup we show that selling firms choose between formal auctions, controlled sales and private negotiations to fit their firm and deal characteristics including profitability, R&D, deal initiation and type of the eventual acquirer (private equity or strategic buyer). At the same time, a regression model determining the buyer type shows that private equity buyers pursue targets that have more tangible assets, lower market-to-book ratios and lower research and development expenses relative to targets bought by strategic buyers. To reflect possible interdependencies between these two choices and their impact on takeover premium, as a last step, we estimate a simultaneous model that includes the selling mechanism choice, buyer type and premium equations. Our results show that the primary decision within the whole selling process is the target firm's decision concerning whether to sell the firm in an auction, controlled sale or negotiation which then affects the buyer type. These two decisions seem to be optimal as then they do not impact premium.     

The role of investment banks in M&A transactions: Fees and services

We examine the pricing and performance of advisers in M&A transactions. We determine adviser quality on the basis of a contemporaneous market share measure and show that high quality advisers receive higher M&A advisory fees. High quality advisers also complete deals faster, but their superiority is not reflected in increasing the likelihood of deal completion or delivering greater abnormal equity returns to their clients. It is well known that stock bids are received more negatively than cash bids, so we further partition the sample of acquirers by consideration type and examine the abnormal returns of each partition. We find that high quality investment banks are able to differentiate themselves by delivering greater abnormal returns to their acquirer clients in deals involving stock.     

Automatic bankruptcy auctions and fire-sales

We test for fire-sale tendencies in automatic bankruptcy auctions. We find evidence consistent with fire-sale discounts when the auction leads to piecemeal liquidation, but not when the bankrupt firm is acquired as a going concern. Neither industry-wide distress nor the industry affiliation of the buyer affect prices in going-concern sales. Bids are often structured as leveraged buyouts, which relaxes liquidity constraints and reduces bidder underinvestment incentives in the presence of debt overhang. Prices in “prepack” auctions (sales agreements negotiated prior to bankruptcy filing) are on average lower than for in-auction going-concern sales, suggesting that prepacks may help preempt excessive liquidation when the auction is expected to be illiquid. Prepack targets have a greater industry-adjusted probability of refiling for bankruptcy, indicating that liquidation preemption is a risky strategy.     

Merger negotiations and the toehold puzzle

The substantial control premium typically observed in corporate takeovers makes a compelling case for acquiring target shares (a toehold) in the market prior to launching a bid. Moreover, auction theory suggests that toehold bidding may yield a competitive advantage over rival bidders. Nevertheless, with a sample exceeding 10,000 initial control bids for US public targets, we show that toehold bidding has declined steadily since the early 1980s and is now surprisingly rare. At the same time, the average toehold is large when it occurs (20%), and toeholds are the norm in hostile bids. To explain these puzzling observations, we develop and test a two-stage takeover model where attempted merger negotiations are followed by open auction. With optimal bidding, a toehold imposes a cost on target management, causing some targets to (rationally) reject merger negotiations. Optimal toeholds are therefore either zero (to avoid rejection costs) or greater than a threshold (so that toehold benefits offset rejection costs). The toehold threshold estimate averages 9% across initial bidders, reflecting in part the bidder's opportunity loss of a merger termination agreement. In the presence of market liquidity costs, a threshold of this size may well induce a broad range of bidders to select zero toehold. As predicted, the probability of toehold bidding decreases, and the toehold size increases, with the threshold estimate. The model also predicts a relatively high frequency of toehold bidding in hostile bids, as observed. Overall, our test results are consistent with rational bidder behavior with respect to the toehold decision.