Have changing takeover defense rules and strategies entrenched management and damaged shareholders? The case of defeated takeover bids

Using the Delaware Supreme Court's Time-Warner decision of July 1989 as a focal point, we study defeated takeover bids before and after July 1989 to assess the direct effects of stronger takeover impediments on takeover defense tactics used to defeat bids and the resulting shareholder wealth outcomes and managerial turnover. We find that firms that defeated takeover bids after July 1989 shifted away from the use of active takeover defenses (repurchases, special dividends, greenmail, and leverage increases). Nevertheless, shareholders of firms that defeat a takeover experienced slightly better wealth outcomes in the 1990s than in the 1980s. We also find increased managerial turnover rates after defeating a takeover bid post Time-Warner, suggesting that managers that defeat hostile takeover bids did not become more entrenched due to greater takeover impediments relative to prior years.     

Voluntary Disclosure of Profit Forecasts by Target Companies in Takeover Bids

This paper examines factors influencing voluntary forecast disclosure by target companies, whether good/bad news forecasts are disclosed and the influence of forecasts on the outcome of hostile bids. Disclosure was significantly more likely during contested bids. In agreed bids, probability of forecast disclosure was greater the shorter the bid horizon. In contested bids, forecasts were more likely where there were large block shareholdings, for larger targets and for targets in the capital goods industry. There was a clear tendency to disclose good news forecasts. A significant positive association between forecast disclosure and increase in offer price was found.     

Ownership Concentration,Corporate Control Activity,and Firm Value: Evidence from the Death of Inside Blockholders

We analyze how ownership concentration affects firm value and control of public companies by examining effects of deaths of inside blockholders. We find shareholder wealth increases, ownership concentration falls, and extensive corporate control activity ensues. Share price responses are related to the deceased's equity stake. Control group holdings fall for two-thirds of the firms due to either the estate's dispersal or inheritors selling stock. A majority of firms become targets of control bids: three-quarters of bids are successful; one-third are hostile. Our evidence is broadly consistent with Stulz's (1988) model of the relationship between ownership concentration and firm value.     

The role of defensive strategies and ownership structure of target firms: Evidence from UK hostile takeover bids

The outcome of a hostile takeover bid hinges on an interplay of the defensive strategies of targets and the offensive strategies of bidders. This study examines the determinants of outcome for a sample of 205 hostile bids for UK public company targets over the period 1983–1989. the impact of a number of defensive strategies adopted by the targets, their ownership structure which could aid or hinder the deployment of those strategies, and the method of payment selected by bidders is investigated using multivariate logit methodology. the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers in the UK and its influence on the choice of defensive and offensive strategies is described. the study finds outcome in hostile bids in the UK is significantly influenced by the use of certain defensive strategies, the presence of large institutional shareholders in targets, the size of targets and the method of payment chosen by the bidder. the results of this study are useful in devising effective strategies to frustrate or prosecute hostile bids.     

Friends in the right places: The effect of political connections on corporate merger activity

This study examines how the appointment of former politicians and regulators to boards of directors or management teams influences corporate acquisition activity and performance. We find that bidders with political connections are more likely to acquire targets and avoid regulatory delay or denial. The merger premium paid increases with political connectedness. The announcement period returns show that investors recognize that bids by politically connected acquirers are more likely to create firm value. Connected bidders make more bids and bid on larger targets. Connected acquirers also enjoy superior post-merger financial and operating performance.     

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.     

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.     

Deal Size,Bid Premium,and Gains in Bank Mergers: The Impact of Managerial Motivations

Do mergers with greater target relative to acquirer size create more value than mergers with smaller relative sized targets? Do larger bid amounts represent wealth transfers from acquirers or do they signal greater expected merger gains? We hypothesize that the relations among aggregate merger gains, relative size, and bid premiums are asymmetric across mergers made by value‐enhancing versus value‐reducing managers. We use a large sample of bank mergers to test these predictions and find that the value response to different explanatory variables is asymmetric. Our findings provide new insights into how the market values merger bids.     

The Information Content of Defence Documents in UK Hostile Takeover Bids

This study examines the defence documents of 79 hostile take-over bids of publicly quoted companies in the UK during the period 1988–1990 using logit regression and discriminant analysis to determine if any of the 41 identified characteristics of the defence document and seven continuous control variables lead to a higher or lower probability of a successful defence. The study finds that managers in target companies are unable to introduce new information in their defence documents that materially affects the outcome of a bid. This suggests that managers may advise shareholders to reject a bid for other reasons, such as to drive up the offer price.     

Agency, Bid Resistance and the Market for Corporate Control

In this paper we investigate the effects of post-bid defence activity for a sample of takeover bids in the UK. We find that most of the defences investigated promote the interests of target managers by significantly lowering the probability of bid success. We also find that most of the defences promote the interests of shareholders by increasing wealth gains by an amount that varies between 9% and 14%. These results suggest that bid resistance is to the mutual benefit of the managers and shareholders of target firms. This conclusion is in line with recent developments in agency theory.     

Acquisition Activity and IPO Underpricing

We propose an “M&A activity” hypothesis as a partial explanation for initial public offering (IPO) underpricing. When going public during active corporate control markets, managers may take actions to safeguard their control. In support of this conjecture, we find that pre-IPO M&A activity directly explains IPO underpricing. We also find that underpricing and ownership dispersion are positively correlated, as are ownership dispersion and the probability of remaining independent. Considering the possibility that some managers take their firms public to be acquired, we find that the positive link between M&A activity and underpricing is not robust for firms that are viewed as likely targets.     

Capital market pressure,real earnings management,and institutional ownership stability - Evidence from Poland

This study investigates whether and how institutional ownership stability influences real earnings management. We find that institutional investors holding stable equity stakes play an important monitoring role in reducing real earnings management by managers pressured by capital market forces to “meet or beat” earnings targets. We also document no relationship between institutional ownership stability and real earnings management in companies with entrenched managers protected from capital market pressure by a dual-class ownership structure. Our findings of the negative association between real earnings management and institutional ownership stability also indicate that firms with more stable ownership are engaged in lesser sales manipulation and overproduction. In addition, we reveal that pressureresistant institutions (pension funds and mutual funds) that reduce real earnings management are an essential part of the external governance mechanism in an emerging economy.     

Dual-class premium,corporate governance,and the mandatory bid rule: Evidence from the Brazilian stock market

This paper conducts a systematic analysis of the determinants of the relative price difference between voting and non-voting shares, i.e., the “dual-class premium,” within the context of a mandatory bid rule. While the removal of the mandatory bid rule can increase potential gains from control, it can also weaken protection for minority shareholders. We provide evidence that the latter effect dominates by showing that the premium increases (decreases) in response to enhancement (lowering) of investor protection via regulatory alterations in the rule. The premium is lower in government-owned firms, which may be an indicator that control transfers, that allow benefits from the mandatory bid rule to accrue to minority shareholders, are less likely in government-owned firms. We also find that the premium is inversely related to an index designed to capture the firm's corporate governance practices. The results suggest that expropriations of minority shareholders are more likely at firms with poor corporate governance provisions and weak takeover rules relating to mandatory bids.     

Institutional trading in firms rumored to be takeover targets

In this paper we examine institutional trading in proximity to takeover rumors by combining the ANcerno dataset of transaction-level institutional trades with a unique sample of takeover rumor ‘scoops’. We find that institutions are net buyers in firms which subsequently become subject to takeover speculation and that institutional trading predicts which rumored firms will eventually receive takeover bids. Segregating funds according to their propensity to trade, we show that those less likely to purchase rumored targets by chance over the pre-rumor period are more likely to identify firms which will receive bid proposals and that they trade more profitably over both the pre- and post-rumor periods. We test for the presence of informed trading in a variety of ways and conclude that institutional investors appear to trade on material private information which identifies the firms soon to be the target of takeover speculation.     

Does takeover competition affect acquisition choices and bidding firm performance? Australian evidence

We examine the influence of takeover competition on three acquisition choices: (i) public versus private target acquisitions; (ii) stock versus cash financed acquisitions; and (iii) related versus unrelated acquisitions. We find strong evidence of acquirers’ preference for public targets, stock swaps and business focus, in the face of takeover competition. Further, we find that the takeover competition has a positive influence on the bid premium paid to acquirer public targets and those financed with stock issues; competitive bids offered to acquire related targets are associated with significantly low bid premiums. In the short-term announcement window, competition-induced bids to acquire public targets and those financed with stock are penalised by the capital market. However, only stock-financed takeovers undertaken in a competitive takeover market show a long-run decline in performance of acquirers.     

Rational expectations,analysts' forecasts of earnings and sources of value gains for takeover targets

Value gains to target firm shareholders in takeover bids may be due to potential synergy between bidder and target and/or potential target restructuring based on new information released by the bid. Since these two models have different implications for the anticipated earnings of the target as a stand-alone entity, analysts' earnings forecast revisions (AFR) for the target during the bid may provide evidence for the new information hypothesis. For 326 UK targets of takeover bids during 1987–1993, we estimate analysts' earnings forecast revisions using the Institutional Brokers Estimate System (IBES) and relate them to bid premia paid to target shareholders. Analysts revise their forecasts significantly up on bid announcement. For failed, especially failed hostile, bids, the earnings forecast revision and bid premium are more positively correlated than for successful and friendly bids. This is consistent with the rational expectations behaviour of target shareholders modelled by Grossman and Hart [S.J. Grossman, O.D. Hart, Bell Journal of Economics 11(1) (1980) 42; S.J. Grossman, O.D. Hart, Journal of Finance 36 (1981) 253].     

Governance and takeovers: are public-to-private transactions different from traditional acquisitions of listed corporations?

Using a unique hand-collected dataset comprising 96 public-to-private (PTP) transactions and 258 acquisitions of listed corporations by existing corporate groups completed during the period 1998 to 2000, this paper investigates the extent to which PTPs have different internal and external governance and other characteristics from traditional acquisitions of listed corporations by existing corporate groups. The paper analyses acquisition activity during a period in which three new features were present: the decline in hostile takeovers, the increase in the adoption of governance Codes of Best Practice and the growth in PTP activity. PTPs are usually a response to takeover threat (Lehn and Poulsen, 1989) and so the paper analyses the acquisition decision from two perspectives: first, takeovers as a disciplinary mechanism which substitute for weak internal governance and second, as part of a non-disciplinary perspective where takeovers are complementary to internal governance mechanisms. We find support for the argument that improved internal governance and non-disciplinary takeovers, that is takeovers where the motive is not as a response to under-performing management, are complementary. PTPs are more likely to have higher board ownership and are likely to have duality of CEO and chairman. They are also more likely to have lower growth prospects and lower valuations. However, they do not have sub-optimal internal corporate governance structures in terms of lower proportions of outside directors. With respect to external governance, they are not more likely to experience pressure from the market for corporate control in the form of greater takeover speculation and are also not more likely to suffer hostile threats. We find that PTPs involving management buy-outs (MBIs) have fewer non-executive directors and a greater incidence of duality. MBO also have higher board shareholdings. We find no evidence that management buy-ins (MBIs) have different characteristics. Our results suggest that going private by MBO may result from management's knowledge of private information that leads them to believe that the market has an incorrect perspective of the company's prospects.     

Do managers seek control and entrenchment?

A unique dataset of post-IPO thrifts with heterogeneous initial insider ownership allows us to use revealed preferences to determine the level of ownership insiders believe to be optimal. We find strong evidence that insider ownership converges to the 20% to 30% range, whether insiders begin with diffuse or concentrated ownership. This range of ownership has been found consistent with entrenchment and control in the literature. Our results are robust to a battery of variables related to insider ownership such as moral hazard, adverse selection, market timing, insider characteristics, and firm characteristics. Furthermore, we find that managers with diffuse ownership accumulate shares most aggressively during the period of regulatory anti-takeover protection, consistent with an entrenchment motive. We find that managers with above-average pay are more likely to seek higher ownership, consistent with the existence of private benefits of control. Finally, we find that insider ownership determines equity issuance, leverage, and share liquidity in ways consistent with expected accumulation or reduction in insider ownership for control purposes.     

Managerial Motives and Merger Financing

We examine how managerial motives influence the choice of financing for a sample of 209 completed mergers from 1981–1988. Our evidence indicates that bidding firm management is more likely to finance mergers with cash when target firm ownership concentration is high, preventing the creation of an outside blockholder. This suggests bidding firm managers prefer to keep ownership structure widely diffused to reduce external monitoring. We also find that bidding firm management is more likely to finance mergers with stock when the variance of bidding firm's stock return is high. This suggests managers of risky firms prefer leverage‐reducing transactions to reduce their personal risk.     

Political risk and the factors that affect international bids

This study examines the determinants of bidder returns, target premiums and the likelihood of winning a bid in cross-border acquisitions. We identify how risk associated with the target home country affects these outcomes. Expected improvement in efficiency is the more powerful factor explaining the variation in premiums, while returns to bidders reflect the information asymmetry. Foreign targets are more likely to accept first or lower bids if target countries are culturally close to the U.S. Targets in poor-governance nations are more likely to accept a lower bid, explained by the ability of a good-governance nation acquirer to create benefits for the target.