Bidder returns and merger anticipation: Evidence from banking deregulation

This paper examines the anticipated components of bidder returns by focusing on the banking industry around the passage of interstate deregulation (Riegle Neal Act of 1994). Overall, firms that became bidders after Riegle Neal have large significant positive returns during its passage. Moreover, these positive wealth effects are significantly larger than the effects at the merger announcement. These results suggest that bidder returns are anticipated and focusing only on narrow event windows underestimates gains to bidders. Finally, the positive bidder returns appear to provide evidence against both the entrenchment and hubris hypotheses. Additional tests provide evidence to suggest that mergers are motivated by synergy rather than disciplinary motives.     

Competition in the acquisition market and returns to bidders in Australia

This study investigates the impact of takeover market competition on the short-run market performance of Australian acquirers. While the market for corporate control predicts a positive association between takeover market competition and acquirers’ announcement period returns, the winner’s curse hypothesis predicts a negative relationship. Using six alternative proxies to capture acquisitions market competition, I find that takeover market competition has a significant negative influence on acquirers’ announcement period returns. However, this effect is more pronounced among private target acquirers, large acquirers and stock-financed acquisitions. The findings further reveal that large bidders acquiring private targets through stock-financed acquisitions are the most penalised group in the capital market in a competitive acquisitions market. Additionally, evidence is found which suggests that competition-induced bids are associated with significantly higher bid premiums and experience negative post-acquisition performance. The findings remain robust to the implementation of alterations to several methodological concerns, the issue of endogeneity and sample selection variations.     

Hostile bank takeover offers : Analysis and implications

A comparison of the financial characteristics of banks involved in hostile takeover bids with a control group of nonhostile bank mergers indicates: (1) hostile targets experience abnormal returns that are significantly greater than for the targets of nonhostile bank mergers; (2) hostile bidders experience negative abnormal returns that are insignificantly different than for bidders involved in nonhostile bank mergers; (3) hostile bank acquisition announcements produce positive net wealth effects which are larger than the wealth effects of nonhostile acquisitions; (4) a Logit regression model using financial ratios, stock price data, and ownership data is able to distinguish between hostile and nonhostile targets.     

An analysis of FDIC failed bank auctions

This paper examines whether the sales mechanism used by the FDIC in failed bank auctions results in wealth transfers from the FDIC to the acquiring banks. We test this hypothesis by examining the returns to winning bidders in FDIC auctions. We find positive abnormal returns to these bidders. More importantly, we find a negative and significant relation between the returns to winning bidders and the number of bidders participating in the auction. This evidence suggests that the FDIC's auction procedures do generate wealth transfers.     

The role of investment banks on the impact of firm performance in mergers and acquisitions: evidence from the Asia-Pacific market

This study uses a comprehensive sample of 5271 bidders during the period of 1995–2011 to examine the role of financial advisors on the outcomes of mergers and acquisitions in the Asia Pacific market. The results indicate that bidders take more time to complete deals when hiring tier-3 advisors. In addition, the empirical evidence indicates that bidders obtain higher announcement returns when hiring low reputation financial advisors. The results are robust when controlling for year effects, country effects and self-selection bias. In addition, the regression analysis also reveals that bidders obtain lower post-announcement returns when hiring tier-1 advisors in domestic deals. Thus, the empirical findings illustrate the importance of the quality of financial advisors on firm performance in mergers and acquisitions in the Asia Pacific market.     

Is the M&A announcement effect different across Europe? More evidences from continental Europe and the UK

The United Kingdom (UK) and Continental Europe are two of the most dynamic markets for mergers and acquisitions in the world. Using a sample of 2823 European acquisitions announced between 2002 and 2010, we investigate the effect of M&A announcements on stock returns of acquiring companies located in Continental Europe and the UK. The analysis is based on characteristics of takeover transactions such as method of payment, listing status of the target company, geographic scope (cross-border vs. domestic), industry relatedness of the bidding and the target company, amongst other factors. We find that European bidders earn positive abnormal returns both in cross-border and domestic acquisitions, and there is a significant difference between the abnormal returns of stock and cash deals, and between acquisitions of listed and unlisted target companies. However, the cross-border wealth effects are not significantly different between the UK and Continental Europe. We find that bidding firm’s shareholders gain more in equity than in cash offers if they are located in the UK and if they acquire unlisted targets. Cash bids for listed targets are associated with higher abnormal returns for bidders located in Continental Europe. We do not find supportive evidence that industry diversification destroys value for shareholders of both Continental European and the UK bidders.     

The effect of geographical deregulation on bank acquisition premiums

In recent years, many state legislatures have passed laws allowing greater geographical expansion by banking organizations, including interstate acquisitions. The reduction of barriers to geographic expansion may be expected to affect signficantly the prices paid in bank acquisitions. According to the excess demand hypothesis, merger premiums should be larger because of an increase in the number of potential bidders. According to the barriers to entry hypothesis, however, premiums should decrease as the constraints on geographic expansion are relaxed. This study presents empirical results that are consistent with the excess demand theory. Bank merger premiums are significantly larger in states that permit interstate banking. Furthermore, premiums appear to increase significantly in the year following the passage of enabling legislation. Premiums are also greater in states that allow unlimited intrastate holding company acquisitions. Some evidence also exists to support the barriers to entry hypothesis.     

Acquisitions,Overconfident Managers and Self‐attribution Bias

We examine whether acquisitions by overconfident managers generate superior abnormal returns and whether managerial overconfidence stems from self‐attribution. Self‐attribution bias suggests that overconfidence plays a greater role in higher order acquisition deals predicting lower wealth effects for higher order acquisition deals. Using two alternative measures of overconfidence (1) high order acquisition deals and (2) insider dealings we find evidence supporting the view that average stock returns are related to managerial overconfidence. Overconfident bidders realise lower announcement returns than rational bidders and exhibit poor long‐term performance. Second, we find that managerial overconfidence stems from self‐attribution bias. Specifically, we find that high‐order acquisitions (five or more deals within a three‐year period) are associated with lower wealth effects than low‐order acquisitions (first deals). That is, managers tend to credit the initial success to their own ability and therefore become overconfident and engage in more deals. In our analysis we control for endogeneity of the decision to engage in high‐order acquisitions and find evidence that does not support the self‐selection of excessive acquisitive firms. Our analysis is robust to the influence of merger waves, industry shocks, and macroeconomic conditions.     

Abnormal Returns in the Acquisition Market: The Case of Bank Holding Companies, 1990–1993

Recent evidence suggests that announcements of bank holding company acquisitions result in wealth transfers from the bidding to target shareholders. Empirically, this is demonstrated through findings of negative average abnormal returns to bank holding company acquirers and positive average abnormal returns to targets on announcement. Using a sample of acquisitions from the early 1990s—a period marked by the removal of significant geographic entry barriers—this paper reexamines the issue by applying a general statistical model to the event study framework to more precisely measure abnormal returns. In particular, we model returns according to the GARCH process to control for time-varying volatility. With respect to the unconditional distributions of acquirer and target abnormal returns, our findings are consistent with prior research. Further investigation into the conditional distribution of acquirer returns finds that, on announcement, interstate acquisitions using the purchase method of accounting actually increased shareholder wealth for acquirers (on average) by 1.44%. However, over a longer event horizon, the most important determinants of acquirer abnormal returns appear to be the relative size of the transaction and the method of accounting.     

INFORMATION ASYMMETRY AND WEALTH EFFECT OF CANADIAN CORPORATE ACQUISITIONS

This study reports evidence on the wealth effects of bidders and targets involved in Canadian corporate acquisitions. It then examines whether wealth changes at the announcement time are consistent with the hypothesis that the payment method is a surrogate signal for bidder management's beliefs regarding the value of its firm. The findings support the value-maximizing hypothesis and indicate a stronger performance for both bidders and targets in cash takeovers than in acquisitions involving an exchange of securities—in accordance with the existence of asymmetric information and the tax effect resulting from the payment method.     

Shareholder Wealth Effects of European Domestic and Cross‐border Takeover Bids

This paper analyses the short‐term wealth effects of large intra‐European takeover bids. We find announcement effects of 9% for the target firms compared to a statistically significant announcement effect of only 0.7% for the bidders. The type of takeover bid has a large impact on the short‐term wealth effects with hostile takeovers triggering substantially larger price reactions than friendly operations. When a UK firm is involved, the abnormal returns are higher than those of bids involving both a Continental European target and bidder. There is strong evidence that the means of payment in an offer has an impact on the share price. A high market‐to‐book ratio of the target leads to a higher bid premium, but triggers a negative price reaction for the bidding firm. We also investigate whether the predominant reason for takeovers is synergies, agency problems or managerial hubris. Our results suggest that synergies are the prime motivation for bids and that targets and bidders share the wealth gains.     

Glamour versus value,market timing and firm performance: evidence from mergers and acquisitions

This study examines the performance of glamour versus value firms in M&As. Specifically, the current study takes into account the market timing to explore the performance of glamour versus value firms in M&As. Using the standard event study methodology with 1109 targets and 6980 bidders during the 2000–2013 period, the results show that glamour (value) firms are more likely to choose the hot (cold) market condition to engage in M&As for both targets and bidders. The evidence also reveals that the performance of glamour versus value firms is less sensitive to the market timing for targets. While glamour bidding firms obtain lower announcement returns, the losses are even more significant during long run post-announcement period. A further analysis indicates that bidders in general experience negative announcement returns in the hot market irrespective of glamour versus value firms. While glamour bidding firms obtain lower post-announcement returns in the hot market relative to their value counterparts, glamour bidders generate higher post-announcement returns during the cold market than value bidders. The regression analysis finds consistent results for bidders. Overall, this study sheds lights on the importance of the market timing on the performance of glamour versus value firms in M&As.     

Top-tier advisors and the market feedback dynamics in cross-border M&As

We provide evidence that the presence of top-tier advisors increases managers' propensity to withdraw from cross-border mergers and acquisitions (CBAs) with poor market returns around the announcement. This effect is stronger for private target acquisitions, in which information asymmetry is expected to be more pronounced, and smaller bidders, who are likely to lack the expertise required to process information themselves. This suggests that managers assisted by reputable investment banks consider negative market feedback in informationally challenging deals. Our results are robust to several endogeneity tests. We provide novel inferences about the informative role of stock markets in shaping advisory roles in respect of M&As.     

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.     

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.     

Motives for partial acquisitions between firms in the spanish stock market

The paper analyses the motivations for inter-company investment on the Spanish Stock Market through the study of a sample of significant acquisitions reported to the CNMV (the Spanish Securities and Exchange Commission) by quoted firms. By analysing the sign of the cumulative abnormal returns (CAR) and of the correlations among the gains produced by the operation, an attempt is made to find out which motives predominate of the three most important ones suggested by the literature for takeovers: synergy, agency and hubris. Empirical evidence is presented that in the Spanish Stock Market the main motive for acquiring a holding is similar to synergy, especially in partial acquisitions with positive total gains. However, in the samples with negative total gains a main motive similar to hubris always appears. The analysis takes into account the size of the investment and distinguishes between the first report and subsequent ones. Results are similar to those obtained by other authors for takeovers in the US Stock Market, except that in this sample, agency motives do not appear clearly.     

Private equity alliances in mergers

This paper examines reasons for alliance formation between private equity bidders when compared to sole-sponsored private equity deals. Testing a comprehensive set of hypotheses, we find strong evidence for the relative-risk hypothesis of Robinson (2008), as private bidders are more likely to form an alliance in a diversifying acquisition. We also find that private equity alliances involved more profitable target firms when compared to sole-sponsored private equity deals. Finally, we find that the significantly lower abnormal returns for target firms in private equity alliance deals are eliminated once we control for differences in the types of target firms acquired by private equity alliances and single private equity bidders. The last result suggests that private equity alliances do not generate significantly lower target returns because of collusion.     

Do Chinese managers listen to the media?: Evidence from mergers and acquisitions

This study investigates whether listed companies in China are sensitive to public media coverage when making investment decisions regarding mergers and acquisitions (M&As). We find that the likelihood of abandoning a proposed M&A transaction is positively associated with negative media coverage, and this association is stronger with lower announcement abnormal returns. Our analysis demonstrates that the negative information effect is amplified for glamour acquirers. We argue that negative media reactions drive the external feedback mechanism of M&A attempts and help guard against managerial hubris.     

GAINS TO BIDDER FIRMS IN CASH AND SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS

This paper presents empirical test results of alternative hypotheses regarding differences in returns to shareholders of bidding firms that choose different payment methods (cash or securities). The evidence is consistent with the payment method signaling hypothesis, which asserts that when management of the bidding firm believes its own stock to be overvalued (undervalued), securities (cash) will be the preferred payment method. The results are not consistent with either the overpayment hypothesis or the present value/hubris hypothesis. The findings also explain the conflicting results reported in prior work on gains to bidding firms.     

US Evidence on Bank Takeover Motives: A Note

Existing studies on bank takeovers have not been able to distinguish among the three competing motives: synergy, agency, and hubris. This paper distinguishes the three competing motives by examining the relations between target gains and total gains and between acquirer gains and target gains. Empirical results show that bank takeovers are primarily motivated by synergy, although there is also strong evidence of hubris. Our results also suggest that hubris may explain the positive target gains and zero or negative acquirer gains found in this and many other bank takeover studies. Lastly, evidence exists to suggest that agency, along with hubris, may explain takeovers with negative total gains (JEL G21, G34).