Let's make a deal! How shareholder control impacts merger payoffs

Mergers and acquisitions are well-suited events for a detailed study of the valuation effects of corporate governance structures. Using a sample of 388 takeovers announced in the friendly environment of the 1990s, I empirically show that target shareholder control, proxied by low target chief executive officer share ownership, low fractions of inside directors, and the presence of large outside blockholders, is positively correlated with takeover premiums. In contrast, studies of takeovers in the hostile environment of the 1980s have shown a negative relation between target shareholder control and takeover premiums.     

Do auctions induce a winner's curse? New evidence from the corporate takeover market

We contrast the winner's curse hypothesis and the competitive market hypothesis as potential explanations for the observed returns to bidders in corporate takeovers. The winner's curse hypothesis posits suboptimal behavior in which winning bidders fail to adapt their strategies to the level of competition and the amount of uncertainty in the takeover environment and predicts that bidder returns are inversely related to the level of competition in a given deal and to the uncertainty in the value of the target. Our measure of takeover competition comes from a unique data set on the auction process that occurs prior to the announcement of a takeover. In our empirical estimation, we control for the endogeneity between bidder returns and the level of competition in takeover deals. Controlling for endogeneity, we find that the returns to bidders are not significantly related to takeover competition. We also find that uncertainty in the value of the target does not reduce bidder returns. Related analysis indicates that prestigious investment banks do not promote overbidding. Analysis of post-takeover operating performance also fails to find any negative effects of takeover competition. As a whole, the results indicate that the breakeven returns to bidders in corporate takeovers stem not from the winner's curse but from the competitive market for targets that occurs predominantly prior to the public announcement of bids.     

Initial Shareholdings and Overbidding in Takeover Contests

Within the context of takeovers, this paper shows that in private-value auctions the optimal individually rational strategy for a bidder with partial ownership of the item is to overbid, i.e., to bid more than his valuation. This strategy, however, can lead to i) an inefficient outcome, and ii) the winning bidder making a net loss. Further, the overbidding result implies that the presence of a large shareholder increases the bid premium in single-bidder takeovers at the expense of reducing the probability of the takeover actually occurring.     

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.     

Industry structure and horizontal takeovers: Analysis of wealth effects on rivals,suppliers, and corporate customers

We examine the wealth effects of horizontal takeovers on rivals of the merging firms, and on firms in the takeover industry's supplier and customer industries. Inconsistent with the collusion and buyer power motives, we find significant positive abnormal returns to rivals, suppliers, and corporate customers for the subsample of takeovers with positive combined wealth effect to target and bidder shareholders. Overall, our findings suggest that the average takeover in our sample is driven by efficiency considerations. However, we find evidence suggesting that horizontal takeovers increase the buyer power of the merging firms if suppliers are concentrated.     

Effect of independent expert reports in Australian takeovers

The Corporations Law 2001 mandates the preparation of an expert report in circumstances where the bidder is perceived to have a superior bargaining position. The present study tests whether the findings in Eddey (1993) can be extrapolated to all bids, irrespective of payment method. Inconsistent with Eddey, the results indicate that target premiums are lower where an expert report is required. The results confirm a higher frequency of price revisions where an expert indicates that the offer is ‘not fair’. However, this increased offer is insufficient to raise the price to the level in takeovers without expert reports.     

Corporate governance and ownership structure of target companies and the outcome of takeovers

This paper examines the influence of the corporate governance and ownership attributes of target companies on the outcome of takeovers in Australia between 1991 and 2000. The findings suggest that board composition and chairperson identity of target companies and director, institutional investor and external share ownership in targets have minimal effects on the likelihood of takeover success. The nature of the recommendations of target directors is found to be the most significant determinant of takeover success or failure, and bid premium levels and offer price revisions are also shown to be important in discriminating between successful and failed takeovers. The results bring into question the likely effectiveness of the introduction of formal corporate governance requirements in Australia and advocate a modification to existing corporate legislation to encourage takeover activity.     

Mergers and acquisitions research in finance and accounting: Past,present, and future

This study presents an analysis of publication patterns and major themes in research on mergers and acquisitions in finance and accounting. We find that takeovers as mechanisms of governance, drivers of mergers, mechanisms of mergers, bank mergers, cross-border mergers, shareholder wealth effects of mergers and related events, and the role of financial experts and ownership structure form major themes of research in the finance area, while in accounting area major themes are corporate governance and accounting outcomes, predicting takeovers and their outcomes, valuation, financial reporting and takeover decisions, and financial reporting and performance.     

Governance Mechanisms and Equity Prices

We investigate how the market for corporate control (external governance) and shareholder activism (internal governance) interact. A portfolio that buys firms with the highest level of takeover vulnerability and shorts firms with the lowest level of takeover vulnerability generates an annualized abnormal return of 10% to 15% only when public pension fund (blockholder) ownership is high as well. A similar portfolio created to capture the importance of internal governance generates annualized abnormal returns of 8%, though only in the presence of “high” vulnerability to takeovers. The complementarity effect exists for firms with lower industry‐adjusted leverage and is stronger for smaller firms.     

Governance Mechanisms and Bond Prices

We investigate the effects of shareholder governance mechanismson bondholders and document two new findings. First, the impactof shareholder control (proxied by large institutional blockholders)on credit risk depends on takeover vulnerability. Shareholdercontrol is associated with higher (lower) yields if the firmis exposed to (protected from) takeovers. In the presence ofshareholder control, the difference in bond yields due to differencesin takeover vulnerability can be as high as 66 basis points.Second, event risk covenants reduce the credit risk associatedwith strong shareholder governance. Therefore, without bondcovenants, shareholder governance, and bondholder interestsdiverge.     

Stock liquidity,empire building,and valuation

We conjecture that high stock liquidity negatively affects firm valuation by inducing inefficient investment. Using takeovers of public targets to study the empire-building motive, we find that a liquid firm is more likely than an illiquid firm to acquire a public firm. Such a takeover by a bidder with higher stock liquidity destroys bidder value to a larger degree. These patterns occur in both stock and cash acquisitions and hold after we use decimalization of tick size as a quasi-exogenous shock to stock liquidity. Finally, we show that financial constraints and corporate governance play important roles in the effects of stock liquidity on empire building in mergers and acquisitions.     

Directors' Recommendations in Takeovers: An Agency and Governance Analysis

Abstract:   This paper evaluates whether directors of target companies make response recommendations in takeovers which are consistent with the interests of shareholders, by examining the relationship between target director recommendations and associated takeover characteristics and ownership and corporate governance characteristics of target companies. The findings suggest that response recommendations appear to be more closely associated with the self‐interest of directors rather than shareholders' concerns, and that common governance initiatives aimed at aligning the interests of shareholders and managers are ineffective in resolving this agency problem. The results suggest the need for legislative or judicial reforms in Australia to encourage takeover activity and reduce takeover hostility.     

CLUSTERED SYNERGIES IN THE TAKEOVER MARKET

In a competitive market for takeover bids, the takeover premium serves as an effective proxy for the expected synergy. We find that the expected synergy is primarily related to the premiums paid in other recent takeovers in the same industry. This relation is even stronger when considering previous takeovers (especially over the previous three‐month horizon) in the same industry that have the same payment method (cash versus stock) or form of takeover (tender offer versus merger). More of the variation in expected synergies among takeovers can be explained by the premiums derived from recent takeovers in the same industry than by all bidder‐ and target‐specific characteristics combined. We also find that the bidder valuation effects are inversely related to the premium paid for targets, implying that abnormally high premiums may reflect overpayment rather than abnormally high synergies.     

The Effect of Illegal Insider Trading on Takeover Premia

This paper empirically investigates whether illegal insider trading increases the premium a bidder pays for a target. Illegal insider trading is trading by traditional corporate insiders, as well as others in a position of trust and confidence (e.g. investment bankers, lawyers), based on material, non-public information (inside information). The paper examines the premia of takeovers with known illegal insider trading and compares them to a control sample of takeovers matched by industry, time period, and size that do not have detected illegal insider trading. After controlling for differences in merger characteristics, such as number of bidders, type of offer, form of payment, etc., we find that takeovers with detected illegal insider trading have takeover premia which are approximately 10 percentage points, or almost one-third, higher than the control sample. We conduct additional tests in an attempt to determine the direction of causality between illegal insider trading and takeover premia size and explore the effect of potential detection bias. The results suggest both that illegal inside traders base their trades on factors other than premia size, and that illegal insider trading in takeovers with large premia is not necessarily more likely to be detected. Our findings are consistent with the hypothesis that the illegal insider trading itself tends to create larger takeover premia.     

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.     

The role of lockups in takeover contests

We examine breakup fees and stock lockups as devices for prospective target firms to encourage bidder participation in takeover contests. Unless bidding costs for the first bidder are too high, breakup fees provide for the socially desirable degree of competition and ensure the efficient allocation of the target to the highest‐valued buyer in a takeover auction. In contrast, stock lockups permit the target firm to subsidize entry of a new bidder at the expense of an incumbent bidder. Stock lockups induce too much competition when offered to a second bidder and too little competition when offered to a first bidder. Despite their socially wasteful properties, target management would favor stock lockups, as they induce takeover competition at least cost to the target.     

The Effect of Illegal Insider Trading on Takeover Premia

This paper empirically investigates whether illegal insidertrading increases the premium a bidder pays for a target. Illegalinsider trading is trading by traditional corporate insiders,as well as others in a position of trust and confidence (e.g.investment bankers, lawyers), based on material, non-publicinformation (‘inside information’). The paper examinesthe premia of takeovers with known illegal insider trading andcompares them to a control sample of takeovers matched by industry,time period, and size that do not have detected illegal insidertrading. After controlling for differences in merger characteristics,such as number of bidders, type of offer, form of payment, etc.,we find that takeovers with detected illegal insider tradinghave takeover premia which are approximately 10 percentage points,or almost one-third, higher than the control sample. We conductadditional tests in an attempt to determine the direction ofcausality between illegal insider trading and takeover premiasize and explore the effect of potential detection bias. Theresults suggest both that illegal inside traders base theirtrades on factors other than premia size, and that illegal insidertrading in takeovers with large premia is not necessarily morelikely to be detected. Our findings are consistent with thehypothesis that the illegal insider trading itself tends tocreate larger takeover premia.     

Are Golden Parachutes an Optimal Contracting Response or Evidence of Managerial Entrenchment?: Evidence from Successful Takeovers

Two models that attempt to explain the adoption of golden parachutes are examined. The first model views golden parachutes as an optimal contracting response to a takeover, the other perceives them as an outgrowth of severe managerial entrenchment that results in contracts for the benefit of managers. Using a sample of 169 successful acquisitions of NYSE targets from 1981 through 1989, I document that targets that have adopted golden parachutes experience significantly higher excess returns around the announcement of a takeover than targets without these contracts. I find similar increased excess returns for the bidder/target portfolios. In addition, bidder excess return is independent of the existence of golden parachutes in targets. Additional results suggest that golden parachutes do not reduce managerial resistance to takeovers. The results are consistent with the managerial entrenchment hypothesis and inconsistent with the optimal contracting hypothesis. Sensitivity tests confirm these results.     

Corporate Governance and Value: Evidence from “Close Calls” On Shareholder Governance Proposals

The authors summarize the findings of their recent study of the effects of specific corporate governance provisions on firm value. Using a sample of governance provisions that were subjected to shareholder votes during the period 1997–2011, this study analyzes cases in which shareholder‐sponsored corporate governance proposals were either rejected or passed by a small margin (no more than 5% of the vote). By so doing, this study helps correct two limitations of the existing governance literature: (1) that the effects of expected governance changes are already incorporated in share prices (the “expectations” problem); and (2) that governance policies are often a consequence rather than a cause of other variables such as corporate performance and are thus correlated with many other firm characteristics (the “endogeneity” problem). The authors' findings show that expected improvements in corporate governance through the adoption of particular corporate governance provisions—particularly the removal of anti‐takeover provisions—is associated with both positive abnormal stock returns and improvements in long‐term firm operating performance. The authors estimate that the adoption of such governance proposals increases shareholder value by 2.6%, on average. Moreover, these returns are consistent with, and thus accurate predictors of, future changes in corporate investment (reductions of capital spending, in most cases) and improvements in operating performance.     

AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF SOME DETERMINANTS OF THE TARGET SHAREHOLDER PREMIUM IN TAKEOVERS

While a considerable amount of research in Australia, the United States and elsewhere shows that takeovers create value for target shareholders, there is relatively little research investigating the explanations for cross-sectional differences in the size of the premium paid to target shareholders. This paper tests various arguments proposed to explain some of the sources of this premium. One such explanation is the removal of inefficient target management. Takeovers have been recognised as a mechanism that allows management teams to compete for the right to manage corporate assets. We test the associations between bidder and target managerial ownership (proxied by director's holdings), the prior performance of the bidder and target and the size of the premium paid to target shareholders. Other potential influences on the premium include a reduction in the agency costs of free cash flow and the provision of financial slack or reserve borrowing capacity to the target firm by the bidder. Using a sample of seventy-eight Australian takeovers occurring between 1981 and 1989 our tests indicate that the provision of financial slack to the target is associated with a significantly higher premium, while high bidder ownership results in a significantly lower premium. The premium is found to be positively related to the performance of the bidder in the period prior to the bid. The tests disclose an association between the agency costs of free cash flow and the target premium which is inconsistent with the theory, and reveal only weak evidence that the takeover premium is higher when inefficient target management is removed.