The Effects of the Method of Payment and the Type of Offer on Target Returns in Mergers and Tender Offers

This paper re-examines the effects of the method of payment and type of offer on target abnormal returns around the takeover announcement, controlling for the target firm's institutional ownership. Previous studies suggest the difference in announcement-period target returns between cash offers and stock exchange offers can be explained by the difference in capital gains tax liabilities of the target shareholders and/or the difference in the information effect of the method of payment. The empirical results indicate no relation between bid premiums (or target abnormal returns) and institutional ownership of the target firm in cash offers and a systematic difference in target returns between mergers and tender offers even after controlling for the method of payment. These results are inconsistent with both the tax hypothesis and the information effect hypothesis. The evidence suggests the likelihood of future competition might be higher in tender offers than in mergers.     

Failed takeovers, methods of payment, and bidder returns

This study documents bidding-firm stock returns upon the announcement of takeover terminations. On average, bidding firms that offer common stock experience a positive abnormal return, and firms that offer cash experience a negative abnormal return. The positive performance is primarily driven by bidders initiating the takeover termination. Commonstock-financed bidders earn a return not significantly different from that earned by cashfinanced bidders when terminations are initiated by the target firm. The results are consistent with the asymmetric information hypothesis, that the decision not to issue common stock conveys favorable information to the market. In addition, bidder returns at takeover termination are positively related to the amount of undistributed cash flow, supporting the free cash flow hypothesis.     

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.     

Target Firm Returns: Does the Form of Payment Affect Abnormal Returns?

Research indicates that at the time of a takeover announcement, target firm shareholders receiving cash earn larger abnormal returns than those receiving stock. Our work confirms that cash targets receive larger direct payments from bidders and that the size of target firm abnormal returns is related to the relative size of this direct payment. Once we control for the size of the payment, however, we find the target firm abnormal returns to be unrelated to the payment method. Thus the relationship between payment method and target firm abnormal returns is indirect. This finding is important because it casts doubt on the signaling (asymmetric information) hypothesis. That is, cash offers do not seem to be valued by the market as a means of reducing this uncertainty. Something else, such as the tax implication differences between cash and stock offers, drives cash target firms to demand larger payments from bidding firms.     

Target's organisational form and returns to Australian bidders in cross‐border acquisitions

We present large sample evidence on return performances of Australian acquirers who bid for public and private targets in cross‐border acquisitions. While placing a particular emphasis on the method of payment and the shareholder protection offered by the target country, we analyse the impact of various bid, firm and foreign‐acquisition‐specific characteristics on bidding firms' abnormal returns. We find that Australian investors perceive cross‐border acquisitions as value‐creating exercises regardless of the organisational form of the target acquired. However, bidders for private targets earn higher return when the method of payment is stock and the targets are located in high investor protection countries. We further find that the abnormal returns are conditional to the relative size of the target, bid frequency, target country destination and the preacquisition financial performance of bidding firms.     

Corporate Takeovers: Mode of Payment, Returns and Trading Activity

This paper examines the impact of takeover bids and, in particular, the method of payment to the shareholders of the target firms on the returns, trading activity and bid-ask spreads of target and bidding firms traded on the London Stock Exchange. It suggests that the shareholders of target firms benefit substantially from takeover activity while the shareholders of bidding firms do not suffer. The combined value of the firms engaged in takeover activity increases by a small percentage during the event period. However, the benefit from a takeover announcement to the shareholders of the target firm varies from year to year and has declined in the recent past. The magnitude of excess returns available to the shareholders is also dependent on the mode of payment. Prices of target (bidding) firms increase (decrease) most if the shareholders of the target firms are given an option to receive payment in shares or in cash. The findings also reveal that during the event period trading activity in target and bidding companies increases depending on the form in which payments to shareholders are made. In response to this increased liquidity, the bid-ask spreads of target and bidding firms decline during the event period.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Liquidity and Returns to Target Shareholders in the Market for Corporate Control: Evidence from the US Markets

In this paper we analyze how stock market liquidity affects the abnormal return to target firms in mergers and tender offers. We predict that target firms with poorer stock market liquidity receive larger announcement day abnormal returns based on the following considerations. First, target firms with poorer stock market liquidity receive greater liquidity improvements after a merger or tender offer. Second, deals that involve less liquid targets are less anticipated and/or more likely to be completed. Third, less liquid stocks have more diverse reservation prices across shareholders and thus require a higher takeover return. Consistent with these expectations, we show that abnormal returns to target firms’ shareholders are significantly and positively related to the difference in liquidity (measured by the bid‐ask spread) between acquirers and targets as well as the magnitude of target firms’ liquidity improvement.     

Glamour Acquirers, Method of Payment and Post‐acquisition Performance: The UK Evidence

We study the effect of different acquirer types, defined by financial status and their payment methods, on their short and long‐term performance, in terms of abnormal returns using a variety of benchmark models. For a sample of 519 UK acquirers during 1983–95, we examine the abnormal return performance of acquirers based on their pre‐bid financial status as either glamour or value acquirers using both the price to earnings (PE) ratio and market to book value ratio (MTBV). Value acquirers outperform glamour acquirers in the three‐year post‐acquisition period. One interpretation is that glamour firms have overvalued equity and tend to exploit their status and use it more often than cash to finance their acquisitions. As we move from glamour to value acquirers, there is a greater use of cash. Our results are broadly consistent with those for the US reported by Rau and Vermaelen (1998). However, in contrast to their study, we find stronger support for the method of payment hypothesis than for extrapolation hypothesis. Cash acquirers generate higher returns than equity acquirers, irrespective of their glamour/ value status. Our conclusions, based on four benchmark models for abnormal returns, suggest that stock markets in both the US and the UK may share a similar proclivity for over‐extrapolation of past performance, at least in the bid period. They also tend to reassess acquirer performance in the post‐acquisition period and correct this overextrapolation. These results have implications for the behavioural aspects of capital markets in both countries.     

Takeover risk and the correlation between stocks and bonds

Existing research suggests that, for a given firm, stock returns and bond prices are positively related, and this implies a negative relation between stock returns and bond spreads. In this paper, we show how takeover risk influences this relation. Bondholders of high-rated firms can suffer losses in a takeover, particularly if the takeover is largely funded with debt, resulting in a more positive (or less negative) correlation between stock returns and bond spread changes. Consistent with this notion and based on a large sample of data covering the period from 1980 to 2000, we find that high-rated firms which are likely to be taken over have a more positive correlation between stock returns and bond spread changes, while target firms with a poison put or an indebtedness covenant have a more negative correlation. Overall, our findings have implications for the pricing and hedging of bonds and default risk based financial products such as credit default swaps.     

Board Share‐Ownership and Takeover Performance

Abstract:   We investigate the relation between takeover performance and board share‐ownership in the acquiring company for a sample of 363 UK takeovers completed in the period 1985–96. In investigating this relationship we pay particular attention to the composition of board shareholdings as well as their size. Thus, in addition to the analysis of total board holdings, we analyse the separate impact of CEO shareholdings and of the pattern of non‐executive and executive holdings within the board. In addition to our detailed examination of board holdings we assess the impact of non‐board holdings. Our analysis controls for a number of non‐shareholding constraints on discretionary director behaviour and for a variety of other influences on takeover outcomes including: the means of payment; acquirer size and market to book value; the relative size of the acquirer and the target; the nature of the bid in terms of hostility and industrial direction; and the pre‐takeover performance of the acquiring company. We assess performance in terms of announcement returns, long run share returns and a portfolio of accounting measures. We find evidence that overall board ownership has a strong positive impact on long run share returns and a weak positive impact on operating performance. However, much stronger effects are found when the overall board measure is split into CEO, executive, and non‐executive directors. We find strong evidence of a positive relation between takeover performance and CEO ownership, which holds for both long run returns and operating performance measures. This finding is robust to controlling for other factors that determine takeover performance and holds in a two stage least squares framework that controls for endogeneity effects. Shareholdings of other executive directors, non‐executive directors, and non‐board holdings are found to have no significant effect on takeover performance.     

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.     

Limited attention,share repurchases,and takeover risk

We hypothesize that announcing open market share repurchases (OMRs) to counter negative valuation shocks reveals repurchasing firms’ lost growth opportunities or underperforming assets to potential bidders, making them more likely to become takeover targets. This also leads their investors to face higher takeover risk, a systematic risk associated with economic fundamentals that drive takeover waves, as proposed by Cremers et al. (2009). Indeed, we find that repurchasing firms tend to face higher takeover probability in the first few years following their OMR announcements, and that the increase in takeover risk can largely explain their post-announcement long-run abnormal returns documented in the literature. The increase in takeover risk is larger for smaller firms, firms with poorer pre-announcement stock performance, and those attracting more attention of market participants. Our results suggest that OMRs, which are used by many firms to counter undervaluation, could make the firms more sensitive to takeover waves and raise their cost of equity capital.     

Bidding strategies and takeover premiums: A review

I review recent empirical research documenting offer premiums and bidding strategies in corporate takeovers. The discussion ranges from optimal auction bidding to the choice of deal payment form and premium effects of poison pills. The evidence describes the takeover process at a detailed level, from initial premiums to bid jumps, entry of rival bidders, and toehold strategies. Cross-sectional tests illuminate whether bidders properly adjust for winner's curse, whether target stock price runups force offer price markups, and whether auctions of bankrupt firms result in fire-sale discounts. The evidence is suggestive of rational strategic bidding behavior in specific contexts.     

What Do Returns to Acquiring Firms Tell Us? Evidence from Firms That Make Many Acquisitions

We study shareholder returns for firms that acquired five or more public, private, and/or subsidiary targets within a short time period. Since the same bidder chooses different types of targets and methods of payment, any variation in returns must be due to the characteristics of the target and the bid. Results indicate bidder shareholders gain when buying a private firm or subsidiary but lose when purchasing a public firm. Further, the return is greater the larger the target and if the bidder offers stock. These results are consistent with a liquidity discount, and tax and control effects in this market.     

Determining returns to bidding firms’ shareholders using different benchmark methods: an Australian study

This article revisits the determinants of cumulative abnormal returns (CAR) for bidder firm shareholders around takeover bid announcements and in particular, if bidder CAR estimates differ significantly between conditional and unconditional models. The results indicate that CAR estimation is significantly different between the two models. The conditional model is theoretically superior to the traditional unconditional model due to the former controlling for unobservable factors surrounding the bid announcement. This study shows that it is important to account for unobservable factors in growth (organic versus takeover) strategies to infer the true effect of the bidder's characteristics on CAR.     

Abnormal Returns from Takeover Prediction Modelling: Challenges and Suggested Investment Strategies

While takeover targets earn significant abnormal returns, studies tend to find no abnormal returns from investing in predicted takeover targets. In this study, we show that the difficulty of correctly identifying targets ex ante does not fully explain the below‐expected returns to target portfolios. Target prediction models’ inability to optimally time impending takeovers, by taking account of pre‐bid target underperformance and the anticipation of potential targets by other market participants, diminishes but does not eliminate the potential profitability of investing in predicted targets. Importantly, we find that target portfolios are predisposed to underperform, as targets and distressed firms share common firm characteristics, resulting in the misclassification of a disproportionately high number of distressed firms as potential targets. We show that this problem can be mitigated, and significant risk‐adjusted returns can be earned, by screening firms in target portfolios for size, leverage and liquidity.     

The evidence of bidders' overpayment in takeovers: the valuation ratios approach

Empirically, bidder returns at the time of takeover announcements are negative. This paper investigates the relation between bidder returns and overpayment in mergers and tender offers while controlling for other potentially important factors. Unlike other studies, the paper measures overpayment using two valuation ratios: earnings-price ratio and book-to-market ratio. Results show these ratios are important in explaining negative bidder returns. The paper also finds that the payment method in mergers and tender offers produces an information effect.