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.     

Labor mobility and antitakeover provisions

How do firms protect their human capital? We test whether firms facing an increased threat of being acquired strengthen their antitakeover provisions (ATPs) in order to bond with their employees. We use the adoption of the Inevitable Disclosure Doctrine (IDD) by US state courts, which exogenously decreases knowledge-worker mobility, thus elevating takeover risk and reducing employee incentives to innovate. Firms respond to the IDD adoption by strengthening ATPs that defend against hostile takeovers, especially when they have greater ex-ante employee mobility and human capital and place greater importance on employee relations. We find no evidence that managers strengthen ATPs for entrenchment or takeover bargaining purposes in this setting. Our findings show that ATPs can be used to credibly commit to employees in order to protect long-term value creation.     

Why Hang on to Losers? Divestitures and Takeovers

We study the divestiture decisions of managers who care about their reputations. Managers' divestiture and investment decisions are publicly observable, but managers privately observe signals with respect to the future payoff distribution of investments they have initiated. We establish that in equilibrium there is too little divestiture. These inefficiencies create the opportunity for wealth-enhancing divestiture-motivated takeovers. A key result is that only managers of targets with “middle of the road” asset specificity should consider the takeover threat credible. These findings suggest that uniqueness of assets is an important determinant of both agency costs and takeover activity. Our analysis leads to several empirical predictions.     

An Examination of Takeovers, Job Loss and the Wage Decline within UK Industry

This paper investigates the effects of takeovers on workers’ employment prospects and wages in the UK for the years 1987–1995. We address directly the idea that takeovers involve a ‘breach of trust’ with employees. Our results provide no support for the breach of trust hypothesis and rather suggest shareholders and workers in the post‐acquisition joint entity are locked in a form of ‘equal misery’ following the execution of the takeover. There already an exist a wide range of event studies documenting the effect of takeovers on shareholders and a smaller number of studies discussing the impact of takeovers on employees. The contribution of the present study is to relate the separate effects of acquisition on these two groups to each other. By doing so we seek to test directly the proposition that takeovers reallocate rents from workers to target shareholders, via the bid‐premia paid on acquisition.     

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.     

How Has Takeover Competition Changed Over Time?

Since the boom in takeovers in the 1980s, research in both law and financial economics has debated the role of takeover impediments such as poison pills, staggered boards, and state antitakeover laws. Have these impediments entrenched target management to the detriment of shareholders? Or have they increased the bargaining power of target boards of directors and left shareholders, if not better off, then at least unharmed? In their study published recently in the Journal of Corporate Finance, the authors provide new answers to these questions with a detailed analysis of takeover competition during the period 1981 through 2014. Using a random sample of 388 completed and withdrawn deals from this 34‐year period, the authors begin by confirming the already well‐documented increase in the use of takeover impediments over time. They then report evidence that takeover competition has not declined during this period. First of all, takeover premiums—the average percentage over market paid by acquirers to consummate transactions—have remained steady over time. Second, and the most striking of the authors' findings, is that the corporate auction process has “gone underground” since the 1980s. Although we now see fewer hostile attempts and publicly reported takeover bidding contests, the amount of competition for targets has remained largely unchanged when one takes account of “private” as well as public auctions—that is, contests that, as the authors discovered, included unidentified bidders. The authors view such a fundamental change in the takeover auction process as a response to the widespread growth of takeover impediments. In this sense, as Bill Schwert commented years ago, “hostile takeovers are less about shirking target management than about the bargaining tactics of targets and bidders.” Or as the authors put it, “the greater bargaining power provided by state laws and other takeover impediments has changed the manner in which takeover auctions are conducted,” but without greatly affecting the goal of economic efficiency that such transactions are designed to help bring about.     

Corporate Performance,Corporate Takeovers,and Management Turnover

This paper examines the hypothesis that an important role of corporate takeovers is to discipline the top managers of poorly performing target firms. We document that the turnover rate for the top manager of target firms in tender offer-takeovers significantly increases following completion of the takeover and that prior to the takeover these firms were significantly under-performing other firms in their industry as well as other target firms which had no post-takeover change in the top executive. We interpret the results to indicate that the takeover market plays an important role in controlling the nonvalue maximizing behavior of top corporate managers.     

Target’s earnings quality and bidders’ takeover decisions

This study examines how takeover decisions are influenced by the quality of information in target firms’ earnings. We show that bidders prefer negotiated takeovers in deals involving targets with poor earnings quality. Moreover, earnings quality and takeover premiums are negatively related in negotiated takeovers, suggesting that bidders obtain valuable private information through negotiations. We also find that bidders share information risk with target shareholders by paying with more equity for targets with poor earnings quality. These findings are driven primarily by the asymmetric information component of earnings quality (as opposed to the symmetric component) and are observed mainly in inter-industry takeovers, where asymmetric information concerns are greater, rather than in intra-industry takeovers. We conclude that targets’ earnings quality affects bidders’ takeover decisions, particularly in cases of large asymmetric information between targets and bidders.     

The impact of the EU takeover directive on takeover performance and empire building

This paper uses the EU takeover directive as a natural experiment to test when legal harmonization creates value, and to examine the impact of increased entrenchment on investment decisions. The EU promulgated the takeover directive in April 2004. The implementation deadline was May 2006. The goal was to encourage value-creating takeovers by harmonizing takeover laws across the EU. However, the takeover directive has received criticism for being vague and discretionary, and for entrenching managers. I hypothesize that because the directive hinders takeovers, it might increase managerial entrenchment and enable managers of EU-companies to make agency-motivated investments (or simply exercise less discipline). I find supportive evidence: after the directive, EU-companies make investments that are less profitable (as proxied by takeover returns) and that take longer to compete. Further, asset growth increased in treated companies following the takeover directive, suggesting that the additional entrenchment facilitates empire building.     

What determines the financing decision in corporate takeovers: Cost of capital,agency problems,or the means of payment?

How is a takeover bid financed and what is its impact on the expected value creation of the takeover? An analysis of the sources of transaction financing has been largely ignored in the takeover literature. Using a unique dataset, we show that external sources of financing (debt and equity) are frequently employed in takeovers involving cash payments. Acquisitions with the same means of payment but different sources of transaction funding are in fact quite distinct. Acquisitions financed with internally generated funds significantly underperform those financed with debt. The takeover financing decision is influenced by the bidder's pecking order preferences, its growth potential, and its corporate governance environment, all of which are related to the cost of external capital. The choice of equity versus internal cash or debt financing also depends on the bidder's strategic preferences with respect to the means of payment.     

TAKEOVER RIGHTS AND THE VALUE OF RESTRICTED SHARES

The premium paid for superior voting shares relative to restricted shares in dual-class equity firms is well documented but not fully explained. In this paper, evidence that the premium reflects the expectation of higher cash flows in takeovers for superior shares is found by examining regulatory actions that changed the right of restricted shares to participate in takeovers. The extension of takeover rights to restricted shares resulted in a significant decline in the premium for superior shares, and the retraction of takeover rights had the reverse effect. This supports the hypothesis that the market expected the restricted shares to be treated less favorably in takeovers.     

A Comparative Analysis of Takeovers of Single and Dual Class Firms

This paper analyzes takeovers of dual class companies listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange over the period 1976 to 1989. It finds support for the hypothesis that despite the evidence that restricted shares sell at a discount compared to superior voting shares, takeover returns are the same for both classes of shares. Secondly, it tests the hypothesis that the classification of common equity into two classes confers differential takeover value on controlling shareholders and find that superior voting shares of dual class firms experience higher returns during takeovers than do shares of single class firms.     

Abnormal returns and asymmetric information surrounding strategic and financial acquisitions

Using takeover bids from the United States, we investigate the importance of information asymmetry in self-selection when evaluating the abnormal returns of financial versus strategic takeover targets during a period of possible informed trade. Sample selection bias due to differences in financial versus strategic takeover bid information environments is controlled for using Heckman's model. Results show that takeover announcements are not randomised, indicative of timed announcements, and further that private equity firms exhibit lower price impact post-announcement. We conclude that the long-term financial motive of private equity takeovers, coupled with higher private information pre-announcement, leads to lower abnormal returns post-announcement.     

Share Repurchases and Pay-Performance Sensitivity of Employee Compensation Contracts

I show that share repurchases increase pay-performance sensitivity of employee compensation and lead to greater employee effort and higher stock prices. Consistent with the model, I find that after repurchases, employees and managers receive fewer stock option and equity grants, and that the market reacts favorably to repurchase announcements when employees have many unvested stock options. Managers are more likely to initiate share repurchases when employees hold a large stake in the firm. Moreover, since employees are forced to bear more risk in firms that repurchase shares, they exercise their stock options earlier and receive higher compensation.     

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.     

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.     

Are investors compensated for their sophistication and informedness for company takeovers – An Australian study

I determine the sophistication and information level in takeovers for four investor classes which are individuals, nominees (fund managers), superannuation (pension) funds and incorporated companies. I also calculate their takeover returns. I find that the superannuation funds are informed and sophisticated; individuals are informed but unsophisticated; nominees are uninformed but sophisticated; and incorporated companies are uninformed and unsophisticated traders, and that the investors realise a return which is commensurate with their information and sophistication. This study improves on existing takeover return research which assumes, as a group, institutions are synonymously informed and sophisticated, and individuals are synonymously unsophisticated and uninformed.     

Capital Structure and Corporate Control: The Effect of Antitakeover Statutes on Firm Leverage

We find that firms protected by "second generation" state antitakeover laws substantially reduce their use of debt, and that unprotected firms do the reverse. This result supports recent models in which the threat of hostile takeover motivates managers to take on debt they would otherwise avoid. An implication is that legal barriers to takeovers may increase corporate slack.     

A THEORY OF UNWINDING OF CROSS‐SHAREHOLDING UNDER MANAGERIAL ENTRENCHMENT

In this article I examine corporate strategies regarding cross‐shareholding and the unwinding of cross‐shareholding, and I present a rationale for corporate managers to unwind cross‐shareholding from the perspective of managerial entrenchment. Although cross‐shareholding enhances managerial entrenchment, the increased agency costs associated with managerial opportunism increase the incentives for a hostile takeover. To avoid a takeover, managers have to unwind cross‐shareholdings. The unwinding of cross‐shareholdings implies that managers will relinquish their entrenchment and thus will act to increase shareholders' wealth in the future. The model proposed here explains why cross‐shareholdings among Japanese firms declined during the 1990s, a decade during which the cost of takeovers decreased because of financial market deregulation.     

UNIVERSAL BANKS ARE NOT THE ANSWER TO AMERICA'S CORPORATE GOVERNANCE "PROBLEM": A LOOK AT GERMANY, JAPAN, AND THE U.S.

This article objects to a recent tendency of legal and economic scholars to "romanticize" the corporate governance role of German universal banks and Japanese main banks. There are potential conflicts between banks' interests as lenders and as shareholders that are likely to make banks less-than-ideal monitors for outside shareholders. Citing evidence that Japanese corporate borrowers pay above-market interest rates for their bank financing, Macey and Miller interpret the high interest rates as "rents" earned by Japanese banks on their loan portfolios in exchange for (1) insulating incumbent management of borrower firms from hostile takeover and (2) accepting suboptimal returns on their equity holdings.
The main problems with the German and Japanese systems stem from their failure to produce well-developed capital markets. Concentrated and stable shareholdings reduce the order flow in the market, thereby depriving the market of liquidity. And the lack of capital market liquidity– combined with the intense loyalty of the banks towards incumbent management–removes the ability of outside shareholders to make a credible threat of takeover if managerial performance is substandard.
The problem with American corporate governance–if indeed there is one–is not that hostile takeovers are bad, but that there are not enough of them due to regulatory restrictions and misguided legal policies. While U.S. law should be amended to give banks and other debtholders more power over borrowers in the case of financial distress, encouraging U.S. banks to become large stockholders is not likely to improve corporate efficiency. Strengthening the "voice" of American equity holders by eliminating restrictions on the market for corporate control would be the most effective step in improving firm performance.