Abnormal returns of Japanese acquisition bidders—impact of pro-M&A legislation in the 1990s

This paper examines the market's reaction to news of corporate mergers and acquisitions (M&A) by Japanese bidders during the 1990s. Domestic versus global bids and pro-M&A legislation are considered as determinants of bidders' abnormal returns. The results show that bidders for domestic targets earn significant abnormal returns after the institutions of pro-M&A legislation in Japan. These findings help determine gains from trading strategies for M&A deals in Japan, and provide insight into the current M&A environment in Japan as shaped by pro-M&A legislation.     

One way out of the share pledging quagmire: Evidence from mergers and acquisitions

Share pledging by controlling shareholders is accompanied with a risk of control transfer when stock price decline triggers a margin call. This situation motivates controlling shareholders and firms to initiate value-enhancing activities to manage the pledging quagmire. Using a sample of Chinese listed firms, we find that firms with pledging controlling shareholders are more likely to implement mergers and acquisitions (M&As) than other firms. Their M&As also perform better, regardless of whether using short- or long-term stock returns or operating income as the performance measure. Furthermore, the positive effect of share pledging on M&As is more pronounced in non-state-owned enterprises, firms with individual controlling shareholders (especially families), firms with better governance, and firms with higher financial capabilities. Additional analyses on deal types also show that firms with pledging controlling shareholders are more likely to engage in diversified, non-affiliated, and cash-financed acquisitions. These results consistently suggest that M&As may effectively eliminate firms' pledging risks and that share pledging mitigates shareholders' conflict of interest regarding M&A decisions.     

Corporate Control and the Choice of Investment Financing: The Case of Corporate Acquisitions

We test the proposition that corporate control considerations motivate the means of investment financing—cash (and debt) or stock. Corporate insiders who value control will prefer financing investments by cash or debt rather than by issuing new stock which dilutes their holdings and increases the risk of losing control. Our empirical results support this hypothesis: in corporate acquisitions, the larger the managerial ownership fraction of the acquiring firm the more likely the use of cash financing. Also, the previously observed negative bidders' abnormal returns associated with stock financing are mainly in acquisitions made by firms with low managerial ownership.     

Antitakeover Provisions and Firm Value: New Evidence from the M&A Market

New evidence from acquisition decisions suggests that antitakeover provisions (ATPs) may increase firm value when internal corporate governance is sufficiently strong. We document that, in Germany, firms with stronger ATPs, and particularly supermajority provisions, are better acquirers. Managers of high-ATP firms create value in acquisitions by making governance-improving deals. They are more likely to engage in acquisitions that reduce their own entrenchment level and less likely to invest in declining industries. The empirical evidence is consistent with a short-termist interpretation. Takeover threats can induce myopic investment decisions, which ATPs can mitigate. They lead managers to engage more often in value-creating long-term and innovative investing, and increase a firm's sensitivity to investment opportunities. Our findings contribute to a growing literature challenging conventional wisdom that the agency-increasing effect of ATPs empirically dominates the myopia-eliminating effect, suggesting that a more contextual view of the value implications of ATPs is necessary.     

The power of control: the acquisition decisions of newly public dual-class firms

Many private firms that go public opt for a dual-class share structure which gives insiders stronger voting power, at the expense of shareholder democracy. We examine how the dual-class structure influences the merger decisions of newly public firms, which have a notable appetite for acquisitions. Specifically, we compare acquisition activity, method of payment choice, and the long-run value implications of acquisitions by newly public single-class and dual-class US companies. Our results show that dual-class IPO firms make relatively more acquisitions in innovative industries and are less likely to pay with stock as compared to single-class IPO firms. The reluctance of dual-class firms to pay with stock is positively related to the wedge between the insiders’ voting rights and cash-flow rights. We also find that newly-public dual-class acquirers perform better in the long-run than newly-public single-class acquirers, mainly due to dual-class acquisitions in innovative industries. Our multivariate analysis shows that these findings hold after controlling for relevant risk factors associated with industry, deal, and firm specific characteristics. These results suggest that the dual class structure may enable newly-public firms to make better M&A decisions after going public.     

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.     

Managerial conservatism and corporate policies

This paper investigates how conservative managers make corporate decisions. Motivated by psychology research, we use handwritten signatures (i.e., emotionally restraint disclosure styles) as a proxy for CEO conservatism. We find that firms with conservative CEOs engage more with safer investments (capital expenditures), engage less with risky policies (Research & Development expenses and debt financing), hold more cash, are less likely to pay cash dividends, and more likely to use stock repurchase schemes. We use the same proxy for CFO conservatism. We find that CFO conservatism is a better determinant than CEO conservatism for cash holding and financing policies, but the reverse is true for investment policies. Conservative CFOs prefer long-term debt to short-term debt.     

Foreign ownership restrictions and cross-border markets for corporate control

The paper investigates the link between host country laws restricting the ability of foreign bidders to conduct cross-border mergers and acquisitions (M&As) and the dynamics of domestic and foreign markets for corporate control. The results indicate that, as governments, especially governments of less wealthy, faster growing economies, relax their cross-border M&A laws, foreign bidders increase the number of cross-border M&As. The likelihood that foreign bidders establish cross-border M&As in which they obtain a controlling stake in the target is greater in host countries with less restrictive cross-border M&A laws. In such countries, foreign bidders are also more likely to use cross-border M&As than cross-border joint ventures as the means for entering the market. As host country cross-border M&A laws improve, foreign bidders are increasingly more likely to seek the types of entry modes that provide them with greater control over their investments.     

Acquisitions and funding conditions

We find evidence that aggregate funding conditions play an instrumental role in mergers and acquisitions (M&A). Funding conditions impact the benefits, participants and the number of deals transacted and this impact extends well beyond merger waves. Specifically, when aggregate funding conditions are favorable, the merger market is especially active and small, financially-constrained firms participate heavily. These same firms, however, are largely absent from the deal market when funding conditions are tight. Furthermore, investors view deals during favorable environments as relatively attractive, particularly if the deals are initiated by small bidders. In contrast, deals transacted by large firms during easy-money periods are viewed as value-destroying. We also document that these value-destroying deals are particularly prevalent among large bidders with significant potential for agency costs. Overall, our results suggest that aggregate funding conditions do not merely cause bidders to adjust the scope of their investment decisions consistent with capital rationing, but rather, the changing state of aggregate funding appears to significantly determine the size and composition of the M&A potential bidder pool.     

Managerial ability,corporate social culture,and M&As

We investigate the predictive power of corporate social culture, as measured by corporate social responsibility (CSR) intensity, on shareholder wealth when mergers and acquisitions (M&As) are carried out by managers with different traits. We find acquiring firms with talented managers are more inclined to engage in CSR activities to shape corporate social culture, thereby realizing larger short- and long-term gains than their counterparts. We also document that acquiring firms with higher levels of CSR commitment led by talented managers tend to acquire targets of similar corporate social culture and experience significantly positive post-merger returns, suggesting that corporate cultural similarity constitutes an important source of M&A synergies. These findings suggest that corporate culture built through stakeholder relations acts as a differentiation strategy that pays off when skilled managers engage in M&As, which typically prompt information asymmetries between managers and outsiders.     

Who Writes the News? Corporate Press Releases during Merger Negotiations

Firms have an incentive to manage media coverage to influence their stock prices during important corporate events. Using comprehensive data on media coverage and merger negotiations, we find that bidders in stock mergers originate substantially more news stories after the start of merger negotiations, but before the public announcement. This strategy generates a short‐lived run‐up in bidders' stock prices during the period when the stock exchange ratio is determined, which substantially impacts the takeover price. Our results demonstrate that the timing and content of financial media coverage may be biased by firms seeking to manipulate their stock price.     

The role of accounting conservatism in M&A target selection

Mergers and acquisitions (M&As) are among the most important investment activities for companies, but they contain great risks. We investigate the role of accounting conservatism in M&A target selection and risk. We find that for risk-averse reasons, firms with high accounting conservatism are likely to acquire profitable targets and avoid loss-making targets. When such firms acquire loss-making targets, the conservatism’s risk-control role reduces M&A risk and increases M&A performance, but only when control of the target is transferred and the acquirer has high long-term debt and low management power. Furthermore, accounting conservatism reduces risk by increasing the maturity match between cash flow and debt. Our results suggest that accounting conservatism plays not only a risk-averse role but also a risk-control role, providing new evidence for the usefulness of accounting conservatism in M&A decisions.     

Does deregulation induce competition in the market for corporate control? The special case of banking

Using a sample of 936 acquisitions of commercial banks, we examine the relation between the probability to engage in value-reducing acquisitions and corporate governance structures, as well as the relation between acquirer announcement-period abnormal stock returns and antitakeover indices and measures, and how these relations were affected by the change in the market for corporate control, caused by deregulation due to the implementation of the Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 and the Financial Service Modernization Act of 1999. We find that prior to deregulation there is no relation between probability to engage in value destroying acquisitions or acquirer returns and antitakeover indices, whereas after the adoption of the FSMA, probability to engage in value destroying acquisitions and the stock market reaction to bidder M&A announcements are both significantly related to governance indexes and measures. Our findings further confirm the linkage between the market for corporate control, antitakeover indices and firm value.     

Acquisitions and the cost of debt: Evidence from China

A large body of literature has examined the effect of mergers and acquisitions (M&As) on firm valuation, and generally find that M&As reduce acquirers' shareholder value. However, relatively little is known about the effect of M&As on the pricing of corporate debt by debtholders, especially for firms in less developed countries. Using a sample of Chinese listed firms with outstanding bonds from 2007 to 2020, we find that the cost of debt is lower for acquirers than for non-acquirers, and that the effect of acquisitions in reducing cost of debt is more pronounced for firms from provinces with less developed markets, for private firms, and for firms undertaking cross-province acquisitions. Our results are robust to a series of robustness checks that address various endogeneity concerns, including the use of a matched-sample approach, the use of the Heckman two-stage model and a change analysis, the control for acquirers' pre-acquisition bond yield spread, and the exclusion of acquisitions of publicly listed targets. Our analyses of provincial institutional factors show that the relationship between M&As and cost of debt is moderated by government relations to market, private economy development, and the development of market intermediaries and legal environment. We further document that acquirers have lower default risk during the post-acquisition period because of a coinsurance effect, and that acquirers attract more analyst following and investors after acquisitions. Overall, our results indicate that acquisitions can reduce cost of debt through reducing firms' default risk and information risk, and that institutional factors matter for the effect of M&As on the cost of debt.     

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.     

Do REITs use cash reserves efficiently? Evidence from corporate acquisitions

We examine the combined impact of corporate governance and excess cash holdings on the propensity of firms to become bidders and engage in value destroying acquisitions. We focus on the REIT market, due to its unique characteristics caused by regulation and the nature of the industry. The lack of active real estate takeover market should lead to entrenchment and exacerbate agency costs. However, given the mandatory high cash payout for REITs, the absence of takeover market should not cause concerns to shareholders. Our analyses reveal that unlike conventional firms, cash-rich REITs are not more likely to become acquirers and acquisitions by cash-rich REITs are not value decreasing. However, similarly to industrial firms, REITs with higher excess cash and lower insider ownership are more likely to become bidders. We interpret our results to be consistent with the hypothesis that agency problems are less severe in real estate and investors are not averse to use of excess cash by REIT managers on intra-industry acquisitions.     

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.     

Antitakeover provisions and investment in mergers and acquisitions: A causal reevaluation

In this study, we are the first to reevaluate causally the effects of antitakeover provisions (ATPs) on the likelihood and quality of investment in mergers and acquisitions (M&A). We do so by exploiting instrumental variables to circumvent evidential endogeneity in ATPs. Our causal analysis is new to reveal that higher levels of ATPs are associated with lower propensity for investment in M&A and, after accounting for unobservable factors that affected the decision to invest in M&A, with investment that is more likely to be both value enhancing to shareholders and personally riskier to managers. Our findings support theory and evidence in other corporate contexts that gives weight to the possibility that ATPs curb risk related agency conflict. Our collective findings of a (positive) surprise also provide substantiation for known information about ATPs having value relevance for market perception of the quality of investment in M&A.     

Gender and corporate finance: Are male executives overconfident relative to female executives?

We examine corporate financial and investment decisions made by female executives compared with male executives. Male executives undertake more acquisitions and issue debt more often than female executives. Further, acquisitions made by firms with male executives have announcement returns approximately 2% lower than those made by female executive firms, and debt issues also have lower announcement returns for firms with male executives. Female executives place wider bounds on earnings estimates and are more likely to exercise stock options early. This evidence suggests men exhibit relative overconfidence in significant corporate decision making compared with women.