Board connections and M&A transactions

We examine M&A transactions between firms with current board connections and find that acquirers obtain higher announcement returns in transactions with a first-degree connection where the acquirer and the target share a common director. Acquirer returns are also higher in transactions with a second-degree connection where one acquirer director and one target director serve on the same third board. Our results suggest that first-degree connections benefit acquirers with lower takeover premiums while second-degree connections benefit acquirers with greater value creation. Overall, we provide new evidence that board connectedness plays important roles in corporate investments and leads to greater value creation.     

Working for the enemy? The impact of investment banker job changes on deal flow

This paper examines the impact of job changes by prominent investment bankers on the M&A and equity market shares of investment banks. Using a hand-collected sample of job changes between 1998 and 2006, we find that after controlling for deal and bank-level characteristics, hiring a banker from an investment bank with a more prominent industry presence has a positive impact on both equity and M&A market share for the gaining bank and a negative impact on the losing bank's M&A market share. After the banker switches firms, we find a significant amount of business following the banker from the losing bank to the gaining bank, particularly when the relationship is strong between the client firm and the banker. Abnormal returns around the announcement of a banker changing employers are positive and significant for the gaining bank, suggesting that the market views banker additions as value increasing. Overall, our results suggest human capital is a critical component of investment banking deal flow.     

Consolidation and value creation in the insurance industry: The role of governance

We examine the long run performance of M&A transactions in the property–liability insurance industry. We specifically investigate whether such transactions create value for the bidders’ shareholders, and assess how corporate governance mechanisms, internal and external, affect such performance. Our results show that M&A create value in the long run as buy and hold abnormal returns are positive and significant after 3 years. While tender offers appear to be more profitable than mergers, our multivariate evidence does not support the conjecture that domestic transactions create more value than cross-border transactions. Furthermore, positive returns are significantly higher for frequent acquirers and in countries where investor protection is weaker. Internal corporate governance mechanisms, such as board independence, and CEO share ownership, are also significant determinants of the long run positive performance of bidders.     

Determinants of M&A success in the European insurance industry

This research analyzes the success of mergers and acquisitions (M&A) for European acquiring insurers using a stock market perspective. In contrast to previous papers that use an event study approach, our analysis is based on the stochastic dominance methodology, in which we analyze short and long term capital market reactions following an M&A announcement. In addition, we examine firm- and transaction-specific determinants associated with superior M&A success. Using a sample of 102 European insurance M&A transactions over the period 1993–2009, our results indicate that acquiring insurers are second-order dominated by their benchmark portfolio in the short term. In the long run, we find no evidence of stochastic dominance compared to their non-acquiring counterparts. Moreover, we find that geographically diversifying acquirers are rewarded by the market, and that transactions in which the acquirer and target have a business relationship before the M&A announcement outperform transactions without pre-M&A participation in the short-term. Finally, we detect a positive relationship between cash payment and acquirers’ M&A success.     

Directors' and officers' liability insurance and acquisition outcomes

We examine the effect of directors' and officers' liability insurance (D&O insurance) on the outcomes of merger and acquisition (M&A) decisions. We find that acquirers whose executives have a higher level of D&O insurance coverage experience significantly lower announcement-period abnormal stock returns. Further analyses suggest that acquirers with a higher level of D&O insurance protection tend to pay higher acquisition premiums and their acquisitions appear to exhibit lower synergies. The evidence provides support for the notion that the provision of D&O insurance can induce unintended moral hazard by shielding directors and officers from the discipline of shareholder litigation.     

The impact of all-star analyst job changes on their coverage choices and investment banking deal flow

Using a sample of all-star analysts who switch investment banks, we examine (1) whether analyst behavior is influenced by banking relationships and (2) whether analyst behavior affects investment banking deal flow. Although the stock coverage decision depends on the relationship with the client firms, we find no evidence that analysts change their optimism or recommendation levels when joining a new firm. Investment banking deal flow is related to analyst reputation only for equity transactions. For debt and M&A transactions, analyst reputation does not matter. There is no evidence that issuing optimistic earnings forecasts or recommendations affects investment banking deal flow.     

Can material asset reorganizations affect acquirers’’ debt financing costs?——Evidence from the Chinese Merger and Acquisition Market

In this paper, we investigate whether material asset reorganizations (MARs), a special form of merger and acquisition (M&A) transactions, can affect the acquirers’ cost of debt financing. Further, we examine the effect of acquiring firms’ accounting information quality on the cost of debt and on the association between MARs and debt costs. We predict that compared to conventional M&As, large-scale acquisitions through MARs can generate a much greater influx of assets from target firms. This raises the acquirers’ asset collateral and thus reduces the cost of debt. Because the quality of accounting information is a key factor affecting the cost of debt, we suggest that it has a spillover effect on the debt-cost effect of MARs. Using M&A transactions by listed companies in the Chinese A-share market from 2008 to 2014 as our sample, we find that MARs are associated with a higher asset collateral and lower ex post cost of debt than conventional M&As. Furthermore, we show that the acquiring firms’ accounting information quality has a significant negative effect on debt costs, and the negative association between MARs and the cost of debt is more pronounced when accounting information quality is higher.     

Ownership structure, family control, and acquisition decisions

We investigate how ownership and family control influence the decision to take part in M&As as an acquirer or as an acquired company in a sample of 777 large Continental European companies in the period 1998-2008. We find that ownership is negatively correlated with the probability of launching a takeover bid, and family firms are less likely to make acquisitions, especially when the stake held by the family is not large enough to assure the persistence of family control. On the passive side of M&A deals, the effect of the largest shareholders' ownership on the decision to accept an acquisition proposal depends non-linearly on the voting rights they hold, and family control reduces the probability of being acquired by an unrelated party. We do not find evidence that family-controlled firms destroy wealth when they acquire other companies. Finally, we document that ownership and family control, while being negatively correlated with M&A activity, are not negatively correlated with growth in firm size.     

Corporate social responsibility overinvestment in mergers and acquisitions

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been advocated by scholars and practitioners whereas overinvestment in CSR can destroy value. This paper investigates how CSR overinvestment influences firm value in the context of mergers and acquisitions (M&As). Specifically, we examine the shareholder wealth and financial performance of firms who bid on targets with CSR overinvestment. The results suggest that firms purchasing CSR-overinvesting targets experience significant declining market reactions to the M&A announcements and deteriorating financial performance following the M&A transactions. We further show significant improvement in CSR ratings and CEO pay among acquirers purchasing CSR-overinvesting targets. Moreover, the adverse effects of CSR-overinvesting targets on M&A outcomes are more pronounced for the acquiring firms with weak corporate governance or with retiring CEOs. Our findings suggest that a firm makes a value-destroying M&A with a CSR-overinvesting target probably for the benefit of improved CSR and CEO gains. This study provides evidence for the agency view of CSR investment in the context of M&As.     

Bank mergers and acquisitions in emerging markets: evidence from Asia and Latin America

Following a global wave of consolidation in the banking industry, this study analyses 132 mergers and acquisitions (M&As) involving banks in emerging markets in Asia and Latin America between 1998 and 2009. An event study measures the change in shareholder value for acquirers and targets; and a multivariate regression identifies the drivers of the change in shareholder value for acquirers. On average M&As create shareholder value for target firms, while acquirer firms do not lose shareholder value. Geographical diversification creates shareholder value for acquirers. Acquirer shareholders benefit from the acquisition of underperforming targets; from transactions settled by cash rather than exchange of equity; and from government-instigated M&A transactions.     

Surge in the Urge to Merge: M&A Trends and Analysis

If history is any guide, we may be at the front end of another mergers and acquisition (M&A) wave. M&A activity tends to follow the stock market with a modest lag. The strong rally in equities off the March 2009 lows, combined with improved credit conditions, solid nonfinancial corporate balance sheets, and the presence of companies seeking to enhance their strategic positions, all point to more deals. Notably, research shows that companies making acquisitions in the early part of the cycle deliver better returns to their shareholders, on average, than those that act toward the end of the cycle. This is largely because early in the cycle there are more companies to choose from and the targets are cheap. As the cycle matures, options dissolve and valuations rise. Despite the importance of M&A, many companies and investors do not have a firm grasp of how M&A deals create or destroy shareholder value. In fact, research shows that roughly two-thirds of M&A transactions destroy shareholder value for the acquiring companies. Executives appear to miss the mark because they focus on accounting-based measures instead of considering the extent to which the value of synergies can exceed the premium. This paper provides a sound approach to evaluating M&A deals based on expected returns on invested capital and economic value added.     

Is more less? Propensity to diversify via M&A and market reactions

Mergers and acquisitions (M&As) could lead to a firm diversifying into new industries, and the impact of this may be related to the firm's prior diversification. Using a panel of 1030 M&A transactions from 2000 to 2010, we find that previously diversified firms are more likely to pursue industrially diversifying M&As. Both previous and contemporary diversification measures are not associated with the firm's cumulative abnormal returns (CARs) at time of announcement but have a lasting effect on various performance measures up to two years later. We find evidence supporting both a diversification discount and premium, which can be predicted by the sign of the CAR at the time of announcement. This suggests that while diversification is necessary to explain firm value, it is not sufficient.     

What do bank acquirers want? Evidence from worldwide bank M&A targets

What drives bankers to create larger and larger, often multinational banking groups? In this paper we investigate whether the targets in cross-border bank M&As are materially different from those banks targeted in domestic M&A deals. The main message of this paper is that, with few exceptions, domestic and foreign investors target similar banks. In particular, and contrary to what one might expect, bank size does not have a different effect on the probability of being a domestic or a cross-border target, instead it has a positive and highly significant effect in both cases. We find that the main differences between national and international M&As are the characteristics of the countries where the banks operate.     

Value creation and the probability of success in merger and acquisition transactions

This paper presents and tests a hypothesis that expands existing explanations of value creation in merger and acquisition (M&A) transactions. The main premise is that value creation is determined by not only the target’s pre-acquisition value, as indicated by numerous studies in extant literature, but also by the acquirer’s competency (among other factors) demonstrated by their pre-merger financial ratios. The paper shows that M&A transactions create value in the longer-run and the gain is commensurate with the acquirer’s historical performance and the target’s pre-acquisition value. Further, the paper employs statistical procedures and model-building techniques in order to develop and validate parsimonious Altman-style predictive models. The models reasonably identify successful M&A deals and are statistically significant and consistent with a few existing theories. Specifically, the evidence on liquidity supports internal capital markets hypothesis but does not support the theories of agency problems, while the evidence on financial leverage supports the view that lower debt enhances corporate control.     

Cross-border M&As in the financial sector: Is banking different from insurance?

This paper investigates what factors might help explain the internationalization strategy of banks and insurance companies, by comparing the determinants of cross-border M&As in the two sectors in a unified framework. The empirical analysis shows that between 1990 and 2003 the internationalization of banks and insurance companies followed similar patterns. Distance and economic and cultural integration are important determinants for both the banks’ and the insurance companies’ expansion abroad. Comparative advantage also has a prominent role, the more so for banks. The evidence is less supportive of the view that cross-border M&As are more frequent between similar countries, as predicted by the new trade theory. Finally, and most interestingly, we find indirect evidence consistent with the hypothesis that implicit barriers to foreign entry are more important in explaining the behavior of banks than that of insurance companies.     

The impact of technology-motivated M&A and joint ventures on the value of IT and non-IT firms: a new examination

We extend Lee and Lim (Rev Quant Financ Account 27:111–123, 2006) who provide empirical evidence on the impact of mergers and acquisitions (M&As) and joint ventures on the value of information technology (IT) and non-IT firms. Using technology-motivated transactions, we examine whether there are differences in market response to the announcement of M&As and joint ventures, and we consider the long-term performance of such firms. We find the market provides no (positive) reaction to joint ventures (M&As) at the announcement. We also present new evidence suggesting the market reacts more favorably to the announcement of technology M&As relative to joint ventures for our full sample, IT sample and non-IT sample. However, our examination of these firms’ long-term performance suggests the initial reaction is not fully supported. The findings suggest improved (declining) operating performance for joint venture (M&A) firms, and evidence to conclude joint venture firms achieve superior long-term performance changes for both accrual- and cash-based measures. To explain these inconsistencies, we employ a set of control variables previously documented as determinants of the innovation ownership decision. For joint venture firms, we find that, while the market fails to consider the importance of the firms’ R&D intensity and growth prospects in its initial reaction, these are ultimately key indicators of their future performance. The evidence also suggests the market overreacts to M&A announcements because it over-weights the impact of R&D intensity on the firms’ future performance in its initial response.     

Mergers and acquisitions in Germany: 1981–2010

We examine the long-term performance of German acquiring firms for M&A transactions that took place between 1981 and 2010. Over this period, the German corporate governance system experienced substantial changes that led to the emergence of an active M&A market. In contrast to many U.S. studies, we do not find significant negative abnormal long-term performance for our full sample. However, the results support the method-of-payment hypothesis. For our first subsample, from 1981 to 1990, when M&A transactions were rather rare, acquirers exhibit positive abnormal long-term returns compared to their German industry peers. Our findings are robust for various firm and deal characteristics and consistent with our analysis of pre and postmerger operational performance and announcement returns.     

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.     

Mergers and acquisitions in the US property-liability insurance industry: Productivity and efficiency effects

This paper analyzes the productivity and efficiency effects of mergers and acquisitions (M&As) in the US property-liability insurance industry during the period 1994–2003 using data envelopment analysis (DEA) and Malmquist productivity indices. We seek to determine whether M&As are value-enhancing, value-neutral, or value-reducing. The analysis examines efficiency and productivity change for acquirers, acquisition targets, and non-M&A firms. We also examine the firm characteristics associated with becoming an acquirer or target through probit analysis. The results provide evidence that M&As in property-liability insurance were value-enhancing. Acquiring firms achieved more revenue efficiency gains than non-acquiring firms, and target firms experienced greater cost and allocative efficiency growth than non-targets. Factors other than efficiency enhancement are important factors in property-liability insurer M&As. Financially vulnerable insurers are significantly more likely to become acquisition targets, consistent with corporate control theory, and we also find evidence that M&As are motivated to achieve diversification. However, there is no evidence that scale economies played an important role in the insurance M&A wave.     

Cross-Border M&As Involving an Emerging Market

This study analyzes Korean firms’ motives for cross-border M&As, Asia’s representative emerging capital market, from the perspective of financial attributes, and defines the effects of group attributes of cross-border M&As on the wealth of acquiring firms’ shareholders. As for the group attributes of cross-border M&As, shareholders of small firms with high ROA do not like cross-border M&As, because the shareholders of small acquiring firms with sufficient internal growth factors are reluctant to transfer their present wealth to shareholders of foreign target firms. We also verify that the diversification effect with regard to cross-border M&As is accompanied by the diversification discount, but that firms with ample internal funds due to their high ROA like entering into new industries through cross-border M&As. Lastly, when target companies are listed in countries with highly uncertain GDP growth rates, acquiring firms’ value decreased.