The Intra-Industry Effects of Going-Private Transactions

We demonstrate that bids to take firms private generate significantly positive valuation effects for industry rivals of target firms. These valuation effects cannot reflect either synergy or monopoly since no consolidation of operating firms is involved in such transactions. Participation by buyout specialists in the bid does not significantly affect these gains. Bids by outsiders and bids by incumbent managers generate similar valuation effects for industry rivals. The effect on share prices of industry rivals is inversely related to the capitalized values of rival firms relative to the target firm. We also report valuation effects for target firms.     

Intra-industry signals embedded in bank acquisition announcements

Bank acquisitions have increased in recent years, as more banks attempt to exploit potential synergies, economies of scale, and other benefits. Numerous studies have determined that bank acquisitions generate strong positive valuation effects for targets on average, while the evidence of the impact on acquirers is mixed. Our objectives are: (1) determine whether the announcement of a bank acquisition transmits intra-industry signals; (2) explain why the intra-industry effects vary across acquisition announcements; and (3) explain why the valuation effects of individual rival banks vary. We find that bank acquisition announcements generate significant positive intra-industry effects, on average.The intra-industry effects of rival bank portfolios are not uniform across announcements, as they are conditioned by variables that could signal information about the probability that rival banks will become takeover targets. The valuation effects of rival bank portfolios are positively related to the valuation effects of the target banks, and inversely related to the size and prior performance of rival bank portfolios. Furthermore, the valuation effects are more favorable for individual rival banks that are ultimately acquired. To the extent that these variables reflect the probability of being acquired in the future, the intra-industry effects appear to be more favorable for acquisitions in which there is a higher probability that the corresponding rivals will become targets. Overall, investors discriminate based on event-specific and rival bank-specific characteristics when interpreting the signal transmitted as a result of bank acquisitions.     

INDUSTRY PROSPECTS AND ACQUIRER RETURNS IN DIVERSIFYING TAKEOVERS

We use a sample of 816 diversifying takeovers from 1978 to 2003 to examine whether takeover announcements release negative information about the future prospects of the acquirer's main industry. We find that rivals that are most similar to the acquirer (homogeneous rivals) experience significant negative cumulative abnormal returns (CAR) around takeover announcements. Takeovers that result in negative wealth effects to acquirers are associated with negative abnormal revisions in analysts' forecasts of homogeneous rivals' earnings per share. We also find a decline in the posttakeover operating performance of rival firms. The decline is especially pronounced for homogeneous rivals and for takeovers with negative wealth effects to acquirers. Our findings imply that CAR-based estimates of acquirer wealth gains from takeovers that do not account for industrywide information releases are significantly biased downward.     

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.     

THE INTRA-INDUSTRY EFFECTS OF OPEN MARKET SHARE REPURCHASES: CONTAGION OR COMPETITIVE?

We examine the extent to which announcements of open market share repurchase programs affect the valuation of competing firms in the same industry. On average, although firms announcing open market share repurchase programs experience a significantly positive stock price reaction at announcement, portfolios of rival firms in the same industry experience a significant and contemporaneous negative stock price reaction. This suggests that perceived changes in the competitive positions of the repurchasing firms occur at the expense of rival firms and dominate any signals of favorable industry conditions. Thus, the competitive intra-industry effects of open market repurchases outweigh any contagion effects. In addition, cross-sectional tests indicate that these competitive effects are more pronounced in industries characterized by a lower degree of competition and less correlation between the stock returns of the repurchasing firm and its rivals.     

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.     

U.S. takeovers in foreign markets: Do they impact emerging and developed markets differently?

We investigate the effect that U.S. acquisitions of targets in emerging and developed countries have on the targets' rivals by measuring their stock price reaction to the acquisition announcement. On average, emerging market rivals react positively to these acquisitions while the reaction in developed markets is insignificant. In developed markets, the main factors explaining the reaction of rival firms are individual rival characteristics such as rival size, efficiency, growth opportunities, and leverage. In contrast, in emerging markets, country, industry, and acquisition characteristics such as economic development, shareholder protection, and the target's public status, industry, and percent acquired, play a more important role.     

The Effects of Stock Repurchases on Rival Firms

This paper investigates the stock price behavior of rival firms in the same industry as firms announcing stock repurchase tender offers. Using a sample of 134 repurchase announcements, I find that rival firms on average realize insignificant announcement period abnormal returns. Negative rival stock price performance is detected over longer intervals surrounding the announcement period and for a subset of announcements which ex ante were identified as most likely to affect rivals. This evidence, however, is statistically weak and does little to alter the overall conclusion that the information in repurchase announcements is primarily firm-specific.     

Industry Expertise,Information Leakage and the Choice of M&A Advisors

This paper examines the impacts of M&A advisors’ industry expertise on firms’ choice of advisors in mergers and acquisitions. We show that an investment bank's expertise in merger parties’ industries increases its likelihood of being chosen as an advisor, especially when the acquisition is more complex, and when a firm in M&A has less information about the merger counterparty. However, due to the concerns about information leakage to industry rivals through M&A advisors, acquirers are reluctant to share advisors with rival firms in the same industry, and they are more likely to switch to new advisors if their former advisors have advisory relationship with their industry rivals. In addition, we document that advisors with more industry expertise earn higher advisory fees and increase the likelihood of deal completion.     

Does an Industry Effect Exist for Initial Public Offerings?

We examine the impact of initial public offerings (IPOs) on rival firms and find that the valuation effects are insignificant. This insignificant reaction can be explained by offsetting information and competitive effects. Significant positive information effects are associated with IPOs in regulated industries and the first IPO in an industry following a period of dormancy. Significant negative competitive effects are associated with larger IPOs in competitive industries, those in relatively risky industries, those in high‐performing industries, and those in the technology sector. IPO firms that use the proceeds for debt repayment appear to represent a more significant competitive threat to rival firms relative to IPO firms that use their proceeds for other purposes.     

Does the response of competitors to privatization announcements reflect competitive or industry-wide information effects? International evidence

We examine the stock price reaction of rival firms to the announcement of the privatization of their industry counterparts to infer information about the intra-industry effects of privatization. We find that the rival firms reacted negatively to the privatization announcements, suggesting that the announcement effects reflect competitive rather than positive industry effects. The reaction is stronger for industry counterparts in low economic freedom countries than those in high economic freedom countries. Interestingly, we also find that full privatization announcements generate larger negative abnormal returns for rival firms than partial privatization announcements where the privatized firm gains only partial autonomy from the government. In this regard, we find that, as the proportion of government ownership reduces, subsequent partial privatization announcement elicits stronger market reaction from rival firms. The negative abnormal returns earned by shareholders of rival firms are not due to price pressure and portfolio rebalancing effects resulting from index composition changes. We conclude that the negative effects documented for the rival firms reflect investors' concern about the potential competitive effects resulting from privatization of the state enterprise.     

Intra-industry transfer effects of credit risk news: Rated versus unrated rivals

We examine the information transfer effect of bond-rating adjustments on industry rivals. Our research is based on the premise that the transfer effect is influenced by the rated status of rivals, i.e., whether the rival’s debt is rated by any credit rating agency. The results reveal that credit rating adjustments induce different/stronger effects. First, the intra-industry transfer effects (on returns and risk) are stronger on rated rivals than on unrated rivals. Second, the credit risk news produces lower co-movements between the returns of the two types of rivals. Third, the differential effect is stronger in the manufacturing industry, in the riskiest industries and in the industries with the lowest competition levels. Interestingly, our results suggest that credit rating news is more relevant for rivals with access to the public debt market (such as re-rated firms) than for rivals that focus on other sources of funding.     

INTRA-INDUSTRY EFFECTS OF BOND RATING ADJUSTMENTS

Several studies find that bond rating downgrades cause negative valuation effects. Other studies find that signals conveyed by earnings releases, earnings forecasts, bankruptcies, and stock offerings of individual firms can be transmitted to their corresponding industries. By combining the two sets of studies, we hypothesize that bond rating changes may contain relevant information not only about the firm, but also about the corresponding industry. We find significantly negative valuation effects for rating downgrades, which are transmitted throughout the industry. Furthermore, we find that intra-industry effects depend on particular characteristics of the bond downgrade, the downgraded firm, and industry rivals. Specifically, the negative intra-industry effects are more pronounced when (1) the downgraded firm experiences a more severe share price response to the bond rating downgrade, (2) the downgraded firm is dominant in the industry, (3) the downgraded firm is more closely related to its rivals in the industry, and (4) the downgrade is due to a deterioration in the firm's financial prospects.     

Does political connection distort competition and encourage corporate risk taking? International evidence

We investigate the impact of political connection on corporate risk-taking by connected firms, their industry counterparts, as well as non-rival firms from 48 countries. We find that political connection induces higher risk taking by connected firms. By contrast, we do not find evidence that political connection, with the attendant potential competitive distortions in the industry, induces higher risk taking by competitors. We focus on non-financial industries. Our results are consistent with the hypothesis that the inability to avail themselves of political rents compels the non-connected rivals to adopt more conservative strategies. However, large rival firms, generally considered to be too-important-to-fail, exhibit evidence of higher risk taking. The top size quartile industry rivals take as much risk as the politically connected firms. The higher risk exhibited by large rivals of politically connected firms suggests that our baseline regression results of lower risk-taking among rivals of politically connected firms are biased upward by firms that would be considered too-big-to-fail. This finding also suggests that the too-big-to fail phenomenon is not unique to banks. Our results are robust to the use of alternative measures of risk, to the exclusion of privatized and state-owned firms, and to controlling for the effects of financial crisis.     

Bondholder governance,takeover likelihood,and division of gains

We investigate the effect of creditor rights on the probability of becoming a takeover target by constructing firm-level bond covenant indices. Our primary result is that the more restrictive covenants a firm has, the more likely it is to become the target of an acquisition. This finding is robust to the exclusion of merger-related event-risk covenants which have the opposite impact and appear to reduce takeover likelihood. Furthermore, this effect is not driven by financially distressed firms and rather contained in small, profitable, financially healthy firms with high growth opportunities and low cash holdings. We also find that a higher target covenant index leads to a significant decrease (increase) in target (acquirer) abnormal returns around acquisition announcements and tilts merger gains towards the acquirer, suggesting the presence of a ‘covenant discount’ for potential target firms. Overall, our results are consistent with covenants creating key frictions, and in turn, making firms viable targets for acquirers with possibly deep pockets.     

The Real Effects of Financial Markets: The Impact of Prices on Takeovers

Using mutual fund redemptions as an instrument for price changes, we identify a strong effect of market prices on takeover activity (the “trigger effect”). An interquartile decrease in valuation leads to a seven percentage point increase in acquisition likelihood, relative to a 6% unconditional takeover probability. Instrumentation addresses the fact that prices are endogenous and increase in anticipation of a takeover (the “anticipation effect”). Our results overturn prior literature that finds a weak relation between prices and takeovers without instrumentation. These findings imply that financial markets have real effects: They impose discipline on managers by triggering takeover threats.     

Does liberalization reduce agency costs? Evidence from the Indian banking sector

On February 16, 2002, the Reserve Bank of India issued a circular that signaled a policy liberalization facilitating acquisition of private sector banks in India by foreign entities. Portfolios of private sector and nationalized banks posted significant value gains in the days surrounding the announcement. The gains by private sector banks were almost double those of nationalized banks. We further analyze the firm specific abnormal returns using cross-sectional regressions and find a significant relation between firm-specific abnormal returns and factors typically associated with a bank’s potential for takeover. These results provide the first empirical support for Stulz’s hypothesis that one cause of the valuation gains associated with liberalization is the expected gain from a reduction of agency costs.     

Going public to acquire? The acquisition motive in IPOs

Newly public firms make acquisitions at a torrid pace. Their large acquisition appetites reflect the concentration of initial public offerings (IPOs) in mergers and acquisitions-(M&A-) intensive industries, but acquisitions by IPO firms also outpace those by mature firms in the same industry. IPO firms’ acquisition activity is fueled by the initial capital infusion at the IPO and through the creation of an acquisition currency used to raise capital for both cash- and stock-financed acquisitions along with debt issuance subsequent to the IPO. IPO firms play a bigger role in the M&A process by participating as acquirers than they do as takeover targets, and acquisitions are as important to their growth as research and development (R&D) and capital expenditures (CAPEX). The pattern of acquisitions following an IPO shapes the evolution of ownership structure of newly public firms.     

The effect of quarterly earnings guidance on share values in corporate acquisitions

We investigate whether quarterly earnings guidance by corporate takeover targets is associated with acquisition premiums. Regulators have expressed recurring concerns that quarterly guidance is associated with a misallocation of resources because it encourages management to focus on excessively short-term horizons. If so, firms providing quarterly guidance represent an acquisition opportunity for non-guiding firms because acquired resources can be redeployed towards more productive long-term uses. Based on prior research that finds value created by acquisitions accrues primarily to target shareholders, we predict that an expected increase in value from the termination of guidance will be observed in acquisition premiums. We find that, after controlling for the other determinants of acquisition gains, the premium paid for an acquired corporation is associated with the target's practice of issuing quarterly earnings guidance. Consistent with our prediction, we find that no incremental premium is paid to acquire guiding targets when the bidding firm also provides guidance.     

Intangible investment and the importance of firm-specific factors in the determination of earnings

We examine the effect of intangible investment on earnings noncommonality, defined as the extent to which a firm’s earnings performance is determined by firm-specific factors versus market and industry factors. Such insight is important in determining the appropriate weighting of these factors when forecasting a firm’s earnings. For a sample of US firms over the 1980–2006 period, we find that earnings noncommonality is positively associated with intangible asset intensity. This finding is consistent with the resource-based view of the firm, which posits that intangible investments allow firms to differentiate themselves economically from their rivals. We also find that separable recognized intangibles contribute more to earnings noncommonality than do either goodwill or R&D, perhaps because separable recognized intangibles are more likely to arise from contractual or legal rights and thus are less susceptible to expropriation by rival firms. Finally, we find that the positive impact of R&D on earnings noncommonality is significantly greater for those industries where patents and other legal mechanisms are most effective in protecting R&D. This result suggests that the success of intangible investment as a differentiation strategy depends largely on the effectiveness of mechanisms used to protect intangible investments from expropriation.