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.     

An analysis of gains and losses to shareholders of foreign bidding companies engaged in cross-border acquisitions into the United Kingdom, 1986–1991

In this paper the gains and losses to shareholders of 71 foreign companies which made takeover bids for companies listed in the United Kingdom during the 1986–1991 period are analysed. The average abnormal return during the month of the bid announcement was positive, although not statistically significant. However, both prior to and sub-sequent to the bid announcement month, the overseas bidders earned highly significant negative abnormal returns. The cumulative abnormal returns over the five month period following the bid announcement were-4.77% with the index model and -9.79% with the market model. Further analysis established that Continental European companies performed significantly worse than American bidders. In addition, large companies and companies bidding for large targets, performed significantly better than the other bidders.     

Is the M&A announcement effect different across Europe? More evidences from continental Europe and the UK

The United Kingdom (UK) and Continental Europe are two of the most dynamic markets for mergers and acquisitions in the world. Using a sample of 2823 European acquisitions announced between 2002 and 2010, we investigate the effect of M&A announcements on stock returns of acquiring companies located in Continental Europe and the UK. The analysis is based on characteristics of takeover transactions such as method of payment, listing status of the target company, geographic scope (cross-border vs. domestic), industry relatedness of the bidding and the target company, amongst other factors. We find that European bidders earn positive abnormal returns both in cross-border and domestic acquisitions, and there is a significant difference between the abnormal returns of stock and cash deals, and between acquisitions of listed and unlisted target companies. However, the cross-border wealth effects are not significantly different between the UK and Continental Europe. We find that bidding firm’s shareholders gain more in equity than in cash offers if they are located in the UK and if they acquire unlisted targets. Cash bids for listed targets are associated with higher abnormal returns for bidders located in Continental Europe. We do not find supportive evidence that industry diversification destroys value for shareholders of both Continental European and the UK bidders.     

Corporate Takeover Bids,Methods of Payment,and Bidding Firms' Stock Returns

This study explores the role of the method of payment in explaining common stock returns of bidding firms at the announcement of takeover bids. The results reveal significant differences in the abnormal returns between common stock exchanges and cash offers. The results are independent of the type of takeover bid, i.e., merger or tender offer, and of bid outcomes. These findings, supported by analysis of nonconvertible bonds, are attributed mainly to signalling effects and imply that the inconclusive evidence of earlier studies on takeovers may be due to their failure to control for the method of payment.     

Australian evidence on the determinants and impact of takeover resistance

In the present paper, we examine the determinants and impact of target bid resistance on the wealth of target shareholders and the takeover process in Australia. We find that bid resistance increases target shareholder wealth in the post‐announcement period and that the probability of bid hostility increases with the target's size, decreases with the target's performance and is unrelated to the size of the premium offered by the bidder. We also find that bid hostility decreases the probability of bid success, increases the probability of bid revision and has no effect on the probability of competing bidders entering the market.     

Pre-deal differences in corporate social responsibility and acquisition performance

Drawing on the portability theory, we examine how the pre-deal gap in corporate social responsibility (CSR) between the bidder and target affects announcement returns in the international takeover market. We find that the higher the bidder's CSR scores relative to the target's, the higher is the synergy captured by combined cumulative abnormal returns of bidders and targets. It supports our hypothesis that synergistic gains are higher when the ex-ante bidder-target CSR gap is positive. The results also show that the synergy effect of CSR is not shared between bidder and target firms; thereby, bidders earn abnormal returns while targets lose. We further document that the acquirers with higher CSR practices before the acquisition are more likely to engage in related and non-cash-financed deals, and capital markets reward these acquisition choices. Finally, the results show that a positive CSR gap reduces the takeover premium and the time taken to complete the deal. Overall, the results suggest a positive valuation for the shareholders of the combined firm resulting from the portability of higher CSR practices from bidders to targets. Our results are subject to a battery of robustness tests, including alternative measures of combined returns and CSR, and tests for endogeneity.     

Preliminary Evidence on Takeover Target Returns in Spain: A Note

This paper measures the share price returns to Spanish takeover targets over the period 1990 to 1994. Using several estimation and testing methods, we show that target shareholders gain significant abnormal returns in the announcement period. In the first part of the year before the announcement period, firms that become targets do not show significant abnormal returns, though there is some significant upturn in the two months before the bid.     

Acquisitions: Private versus Public

Takeovers of privately held companies represent more than 80% of all takeovers. Despite their significance, studies of such takeovers and their impact on the wealth of shareholders are rare. Using a very large, near exhaustive, sample of listed and privately held UK targets we examine the impact of such takeovers on the risk adjusted return of listed UK acquirers over the period 1981 to 2001. Acquirers earn significant positive returns during the period surrounding the bid announcement although the gains are dependent on target status, mode of payment, and the relative size of those involved. The much quoted conclusion, derived from the experiences of listed firm bidders that the shareholders of acquiring firms fail to gain from takeovers, cannot be generalised. Acquiring a privately held company is an attractive option for maximising shareholder wealth.     

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.     

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.     

Conditional returns to shareholders of bidding firms: an Australian study

This study examines the importance of the self‐selection problem when evaluating returns to bidder firms around announcement events. Takeover announcements are not random because managers decide rationally whether to bid or not, which indicates announcements are timed; consequently, in the presence of the sample selection problem, standard ordinary least square estimates are biased. Using a conditional model, the results indicate that after controlling for the self‐selection bias effect, shareholders of bidder firms make normal returns. In sum, failing to account for sample selection bias may lead to erroneous conclusions about a bidder's true economic wealth effects around an announcement event.     

CEO Preferences and Acquisitions

This paper explores the impact of target CEOs’ retirement preferences on takeovers. Using retirement age as a proxy for CEOs’ private merger costs, we find strong evidence that target CEOs’ preferences affect merger activity. The likelihood of receiving a successful takeover bid is sharply higher when target CEOs are close to age 65. Takeover premiums and target announcement returns are similar for retirement‐age and younger CEOs, implying that retirement‐age CEOs increase firm sales without sacrificing premiums. Better corporate governance is associated with more acquisitions of firms led by young CEOs, and with a smaller increase in deals at retirement age.     

Productivity,restructuring, and the gains from takeovers

This paper investigates how takeovers create value. Using plant-level data, I show that acquirers increase targets' productivity through more efficient use of capital and labor. Acquirers reduce capital expenditures, wages, and employment in target plants, though output is unchanged. Acquirers improve targets' investment efficiency through reallocating capital to industries with better investment opportunities. Moreover, changes in productivity help explain the merging firms' announcement returns. The combined announcement returns are driven by improvements in target's productivity. Targets with greater productivity improvements receive higher premiums. These results provide some first empirical evidence on the relation between productivity and stock returns in takeovers.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

The Impact of Country Diversification on Wealth Effects in Cross-Border Mergers

We posit that country diversification via cross‐border mergers creates wealth by providing benefits for firms that are not available to their shareholders. We hypothesize that these benefits are inversely related to the extent of co‐movement in the economies of the bidder's and target's countries. We examine the wealth effects of U.S. targets and bidders involved in cross‐border mergers with firms in other countries during 1982–1991. We show that wealth effects vary, depending on country affiliations of two merging firms, and are inversely related to the degree of economic co‐movement between the two countries.