Target Company Cross‐border Effects in Acquisitions into the UK

We analyse the abnormal returns to target shareholders in cross‐border and domestic acquisitions of UK companies. The cross‐border effect during the bid month is small (0.84%), although cross‐border targets gain significantly more than domestic targets during the months surrounding the bid. We find no evidence for the level of abnormal returns in cross‐border acquisitions to be associated with market access or exchange rate effects, and only limited support for an international diversification effect. However, the cross‐border effect appears to be associated with significant payment effects, and there is no significant residual cross‐border effect once various bid characteristics are controlled for.     

The Performance of the European Market for Corporate Control: Evidence from the Fifth Takeover Wave

This paper presents an in‐depth analysis of the performance of large, medium‐sized, and small corporate takeovers involving Continental European and UK firms during the fifth takeover wave. We find that takeovers are expected to create takeover synergies as their announcements trigger statistically significant abnormal returns of 9.13% for the target and of 0.53% for bidding firms. The characteristics of the target and bidding firms and of the bid itself are able to explain a significant part of these returns: (i) deal hostility increases the target's but decreases bidder's returns; (ii) the private status of the target is associated with higher bidder's returns; and (iii) an equity payment leads to a decrease in both bidder's and target's returns. The takeover wealth effect is however not limited to the bid announcement day but is also visible prior and subsequent to the bid. The analysis of pre‐announcement returns reveals that hostile takeovers are largely anticipated and associated with a significant increase in the bidder's and target's share prices. Bidders that accumulate a toehold stake in the target experience higher post‐announcement returns. A comparison of the UK and Continental European M&A markets reveals that: (i) the takeover returns of UK targets substantially exceed those of Continental European firms. (ii) The presence of a large shareholder in the bidding firm has a significantly positive effect on takeover returns in the UK and a negative one in Continental Europe. (iii) Weak investor protection and low disclosure in Continental Europe allow bidding firms to adopt takeover strategies enabling them to act opportunistically towards the target's incumbent shareholders.     

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.     

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.     

Investor protection and cross-border acquisitions of private and public targets

We examine the announcement-period acquirer returns and target values for a large sample of cross-border acquisitions by U.S. firms, differentiating between private and public targets and paying particular attention to the legal protection of minority shareholders in the target country. For high-protection target countries, acquirer announcement-period returns are significantly negative for public targets and significantly positive for private targets. For low-protection target countries, the acquirer returns are significantly positive for public targets and insignificantly different from zero for private targets. For public targets, acquirer returns are decreasing and target-firm values and acquisition premia are increasing with the level of investor protection. For private targets, investor protection does not affect acquirer returns or target-firm values. We find that bidder returns decrease with the level of creditor protection in the target country and increase with the quality of accounting standards. Our results also show that in low- protection countries, firm-level corporate governance mechanisms, such as higher insider ownership, may substitute for the lower level of investor protection.     

Do Poorly Governed Acquirers Transfer Wealth to Targets in Cross‐Border Acquisitions?

We use the number of antitakeover provisions (ATPs) as a proxy for corporate governance and examine its impact in US domestic and foreign acquisitions made by US acquirers. We find that the targets of poorly governed acquirers earn higher postannouncement premiums, despite controls for deal characteristics, macroeconomic conditions, and country‐level protections, suggesting that these acquirers overpay. Puzzlingly, in contrast with the domestic US findings of Masulis, Wang, and Xie, poorly governed acquirers in cross‐border deals experience higher announcement period returns. The relation between governance and target returns appears concave, but this nonlinearity disappears once differences in country‐level governance and deal characteristics are accounted for.     

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.     

When do managers listen to the market? Impact of learning in acquisitions of private firms

We study the influence of market signals and agency problems on the decision to cancel an announced acquisition. We find major differences between deals involving private vs. public targets. First, controlling for the value of expected synergies, acquisitions are less likely to be cancelled when the target is private rather than public. This finding supports learning rather than the alternative common-information hypothesis. Second, better manager-shareholder interest alignment makes the cancellation of a “bad” deal more likely only when the target is a private firm. This suggests bidder agency problems have a greater influence on acquisition outcome (i.e., learning) when the target is private. Third, cancellation is more likely for private targets when their post-announcement abnormal returns are low, especially if the method of payment includes stock. This indicates that it is important to control for bidder overvaluation when testing the managerial learning hypothesis. Overall, both the learning and agency hypotheses help explain observed differences in deal completion by target type.     

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.     

Target Firm Returns: Does the Form of Payment Affect Abnormal Returns?

Research indicates that at the time of a takeover announcement, target firm shareholders receiving cash earn larger abnormal returns than those receiving stock. Our work confirms that cash targets receive larger direct payments from bidders and that the size of target firm abnormal returns is related to the relative size of this direct payment. Once we control for the size of the payment, however, we find the target firm abnormal returns to be unrelated to the payment method. Thus the relationship between payment method and target firm abnormal returns is indirect. This finding is important because it casts doubt on the signaling (asymmetric information) hypothesis. That is, cash offers do not seem to be valued by the market as a means of reducing this uncertainty. Something else, such as the tax implication differences between cash and stock offers, drives cash target firms to demand larger payments from bidding firms.     

What Do Returns to Acquiring Firms Tell Us? Evidence from Firms That Make Many Acquisitions

We study shareholder returns for firms that acquired five or more public, private, and/or subsidiary targets within a short time period. Since the same bidder chooses different types of targets and methods of payment, any variation in returns must be due to the characteristics of the target and the bid. Results indicate bidder shareholders gain when buying a private firm or subsidiary but lose when purchasing a public firm. Further, the return is greater the larger the target and if the bidder offers stock. These results are consistent with a liquidity discount, and tax and control effects in this market.     

Investor protection and the value effects of bank merger announcements in Europe and the US

Investor protection regimes have been shown to partly explain why the same type of corporate event may attract different investor reactions across countries. We compare the value effects of large bank merger announcements in Europe and the US and find an inverse relationship between the level of investor protection prevalent in the target country and abnormal returns that bidders realize during the announcement period. Accordingly, bidding banks realize higher returns when targeting low protection economies (most European economies) than bidders targeting institutions which operate under a high investor protection regime (the US). We argue that bidding bank shareholders need to be compensated for an increased risk of expropriation by insiders which they face in a low protection environment where takeover markets are illiquid and there are high private benefits of control.     

Exploring the Double‐Sided Effect of Information Asymmetry and Uncertainty in Mergers and Acquisitions

We examine the joint effect of bidder and target information asymmetry and uncertainty on the payment consideration and subsequent wealth effects in a large sample of acquisitions with both listed and private targets. In line with a risk‐sharing argument, we find that acquisitions of targets characterized by higher uncertainty are more likely to be settled with stock. In contrast, higher target information asymmetry increases the likelihood of a cash payment, consistent with bidders strategically exploiting superior information. Acquirers of more opaque targets obtain a larger fraction of total acquisition gains and avoid sharing these gains with target shareholders by offering cash.     

Intra-industry effects of completed and cancelled cross border acquisitions in Australia: A test of the acquisition probability hypothesis

Globalization has led to an increase in cross-border mergers and acquisitions in recent years. Australian firms have featured prominently as acquisition targets in the latest merger wave. Cross-border acquisitions significantly affect industry dynamics and competitive balance. We investigate the intra-industry effects of cross-border acquisition of Australian firms and find, among others, that the target firms' rivals realized significantly positive abnormal returns following both the acquisition proposal and termination announcements. We relate our results to competing hypotheses and find evidence consistent with the acquisition probability hypothesis. Interestingly, we find that the abnormal returns earned by the rival firms at the time of the termination of the acquisition involving their industry counterparts were greater than the returns earned at the time of the acquisition proposal announcement. These results are consistent with the assertion that the likelihood of acquisition of the rival firms increases following the termination of the initial acquisition proposal involving their industry counterparts.     

Does carbon risk matter for corporate acquisition decisions?

In this study, we examine whether carbon risk matters in acquisitions. Using a firm's carbon emissions to proxy for carbon risk, we examine whether an acquirer's level of carbon emissions is related to the decision to engage in acquisitions and achieve subsequent acquisition returns. The results show that firms with higher emissions have an increased likelihood of acquiring foreign targets while, at the same time, having a decreased likelihood of acquiring domestic targets. Acquirers with large carbon footprints seek out targets in foreign countries that have low gross domestic product (GDP) or weak environmental, regulatory, or governance standards. We also examine the relationship between carbon emissions and announcement returns. We find that cross-border acquisition announcement returns are higher when acquirers with high carbon emissions acquire targets in countries with fewer regulations or weaker environmental standards. Focusing on the interplay of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and carbon emissions, we find that investors censure acquirers that promote CSR while also having high carbon emissions, thus resulting in worse abnormal returns. This is particularly the case if the target country is wealthy or has stronger country governance or strong environmental protection. Our findings add insight on the channels through which a focus on reducing carbon risk can add value for shareholders.     

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.     

A Reexamination of the Conglomerate Merger Wave in the 1960s: An Internal Capital Markets View

One possible explanation for bidding firms earning positive abnormal returns in diversifying acquisitions in the 1960s is that internal capital markets were expected to overcome the information deficiencies of the less-developed capital markets. Examining 392 bidder firms during the 1960s, we find the highest bidder returns when financially "unconstrained" buyers acquire "constrained" targets. This result holds while controlling for merger terms and for different proxies used to classify firms facing costly external financing. We also find that bidders generally retain target management, suggesting that management may have provided company-specific operational information, while the bidder provided capital-budgeting expertise.     

Abnormal Returns from Takeover Prediction Modelling: Challenges and Suggested Investment Strategies

While takeover targets earn significant abnormal returns, studies tend to find no abnormal returns from investing in predicted takeover targets. In this study, we show that the difficulty of correctly identifying targets ex ante does not fully explain the below‐expected returns to target portfolios. Target prediction models’ inability to optimally time impending takeovers, by taking account of pre‐bid target underperformance and the anticipation of potential targets by other market participants, diminishes but does not eliminate the potential profitability of investing in predicted targets. Importantly, we find that target portfolios are predisposed to underperform, as targets and distressed firms share common firm characteristics, resulting in the misclassification of a disproportionately high number of distressed firms as potential targets. We show that this problem can be mitigated, and significant risk‐adjusted returns can be earned, by screening firms in target portfolios for size, leverage and liquidity.     

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.     

Bidder Gains and Losses of Firms Involved in Many Acquisitions

Abstract:  We examine shareholders' wealth effects (both in the short- and the long-run) of UK frequent bidders acquiring public, private, and/or subsidiary targets with alternative methods of payment between 1987 and 2004. We find that, in the short-run, bidders break even when acquiring public targets and gain significantly when buying private and subsidiary targets. This result is robust after controlling for relative size, bidder's book-to-market ratio, target origin, and industry diversification. Our long-run evidence, however, reveals that acquirers experience, significant wealth losses regardless of the target type acquired, indicating that markets may initially overreact to the acquisition announcement. As a result, we argue that contrary to Fuller et al. (2002) who suggest that acquiring private and subsidiary firms creates value for bidding firms, a reliable conclusion on bidders' shareholders wealth effects cannot be based solely on a short-run event study.