Private Versus State Ownership and Spillover of Investor Protection Standards in Interprovince Mergers: Evidence from China's Emerging Market

This paper examines the spillover effects of investor protection standards for interprovince mergers in China's emerging markets. Using a sample of 372 mergers, we find that if the provincial investor protection of the acquirer is better than that of the target, a privately owned acquirer will get significantly higher abnormal returns, whereas a local state-owned acquirer will not. Additional evidence indicates that in contrast to the crossborder acquirers or the private acquirers, the local state-owned acquirers in interprovince mergers come from provinces with worse fiscal conditions and prefer to acquire targets in provinces with better investor protection or fiscal conditions.     

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.     

The underpricing of private targets

We examine acquisitions of private firms with valuation histories and find a positive relation between acquirer announcement returns and target valuation revisions. Similar to other studies, acquirer announcement returns are positive, on average. However, positive acquirer announcement returns are mainly driven by targets that are acquired for more than their prior valuation. This relation is consistent with pricing effects associated with target valuation uncertainty and behavioral biases in negotiation outcomes.     

Investor protection and the value effects of bank merger announcements in Europe and the US

Investor protection regimes have been shown to partly explain why the same type of corporate event may attract different investor reactions across countries. We compare the value effects of large bank merger announcements in Europe and the US and find an inverse relationship between the level of investor protection prevalent in the target country and abnormal returns that bidders realize during the announcement period. Accordingly, bidding banks realize higher returns when targeting low protection economies (most European economies) than bidders targeting institutions which operate under a high investor protection regime (the US). We argue that bidding bank shareholders need to be compensated for an increased risk of expropriation by insiders which they face in a low protection environment where takeover markets are illiquid and there are high private benefits of control.     

An empirical investigation of mergers and acquisitions by Chinese listed companies, 1997–2007

We examine 136 M&A deals from 1997 to 2007 initiated by Chinese companies listed on the Shanghai and Shenzhen Stock Exchanges, where the acquirer gains complete control of the target. Our data shows that the Chinese M&A market is dominated by domestic deals with unlisted targets that are either stand-alone private firms or wholly owned subsidiaries. Acquirers experience significant positive abnormal stock returns around the announcement date and over the three years after the acquisition. These results are largely driven by state-owned firms, cash acquirers and firms that acquire related targets. Cross-sectional tests show that announcement period returns are related to the acquirer's ownership status, industry relatedness of the acquirer and target, capital structure changes of the acquirer and the nature of the unlisted target. We find no change in operating performance from the pre to the post acquisition period for the acquirers.     

What is the relationship between investor protection legislation and target takeover returns? Evidence from Europe

We show that investor protection legislation is an important determinant of the returns of target companies that are subject to takeovers within Europe. Announcement and post-announcement returns are higher in strong investor protection countries, which indicates that bidders are forced to offer larger premiums when the original offer is made, and are more likely to have to revise their offer higher before a takeover is successful. This is consistent with targets having relatively greater bargaining power in strong investor protection environments. Our findings are robust to the inclusion of common determinants of takeover returns.     

Cross-ownership,returns, and voting in mergers

We show that institutional shareholders of acquiring companies on average do not lose money around public merger announcements, because they hold substantial stakes in the targets and make up for the losses from the acquirers with the gains from the targets. Depending on their holdings in the target, acquirer shareholders generally realize different returns from the same merger, some losing money and others gaining. This conflict of interest is reflected in the mutual fund voting behavior: In mergers with negative acquirer announcement returns, cross-owners are significantly more likely to vote for the merger.     

Global diversification and bidder gains: A comparison between cross-border and domestic acquisitions

We provide empirical evidence on how cross-border acquisitions from the perspective of an US acquirer differ from domestic transactions based on stock and operating performance measures. For a sample of 4430 acquisitions between 1985 and 1995 and controlling for various factors we find that US firms who acquire cross-border targets relative to those that acquire domestic targets experience significantly lower announcement stock returns of approximately 1% and significantly lower changes in operating performance. Stock returns are negatively associated with an increase in both global and industrial diversification. Cross-border takeover activity has increased during the past decade and the observed difference in bidder gains is more pronounced for the latter half of the sample period. We find that bidder returns are positively related to takeover activity in the target country and to a legal system offering better shareholder rights. With the exception of the UK, the target country's degree of economic restrictiveness is negatively related to bidder returns.     

Financial disclosure,investor protection and stock market behavior: an international comparison

The main purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between financial opacity, investor protection and stock market behavior for sixteen countries. We use the 1995 CIFAR corporate disclosure ratings and the 2006 World Bank investor protection index to measure a country’s relative level of financial transparency and legal protection for investors. The return behavior of each country is examined using numerous time series tests such as serial correlation, Markov chain, runs, duration dependence and variance ratio tests. We found that the results show no significant differences between high and low disclosure countries. However, high disclosure countries appear to be associated with a lower level of stock market volatility. Cox proportional hazard test results indicate that extreme returns (positive and negative) are more likely in low disclosure countries.     

Private acquisition gains: A contingent claims explanation

This paper studies announcement returns of Western European acquisitions of private and public targets. It uses a contingent claims perspective to offer a new explanation for the difference in abnormal returns between acquirers of private and public targets. In this context, an acquisition is analogous to buying a call option and the value of the acquirer increases with uncertainty about its growth prospects (options). We test this idea by studying the relation between announcement returns and acquirer's characteristics that proxy for the existence of growth options. Consistent with the contingent claims hypothesis, the private acquisition gains are associated with the combined effects of growth options (having higher runup before the acquisition announcement) with low level of leverage (near-all equity capital) and with uncertainty (measured by age and analyst coverage of acquirers).     

Political risk and the factors that affect international bids

This study examines the determinants of bidder returns, target premiums and the likelihood of winning a bid in cross-border acquisitions. We identify how risk associated with the target home country affects these outcomes. Expected improvement in efficiency is the more powerful factor explaining the variation in premiums, while returns to bidders reflect the information asymmetry. Foreign targets are more likely to accept first or lower bids if target countries are culturally close to the U.S. Targets in poor-governance nations are more likely to accept a lower bid, explained by the ability of a good-governance nation acquirer to create benefits for the target.     

The medium of exchange in acquisitions: Does the private information of both acquirer and target matter?

We present a direct test of the choice of the medium of exchange in acquisitions when both acquirers and targets possess private information about their own intrinsic values. We test three hypotheses: first, whether acquirers are more likely to choose a stock offer as their equity is more overvalued; second, whether acquirers facing a greater extent of information asymmetry in evaluating targets are more (or less) likely to use a stock versus a cash offer; and third, whether a cash offer deters competing bids. Our findings are as follows. First, acquirers choosing a stock offer are overvalued and those choosing a cash offer are correctly valued. Second, the greater the extent of acquirer overvaluation, the greater the likelihood of it using a stock offer; further, the greater the extent of information asymmetry faced by an acquirer in evaluating its target, the greater its likelihood of using a cash offer. Third, the extent of an acquirer's under- or overvaluation significantly affects the abnormal returns to its equity upon the acquisition announcement. Finally, the use of cash by an acquirer deters competing bids. We conclude that private information held by both acquirers and targets together determine the medium of exchange.     

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.     

Impact on Target Firm Risk-Return Characteristics of Domestic and Cross-Border Mergers and Acquisitions in Emerging Markets

Using a large sample of partial cross-border mergers and acquisitions from emerging countries, we show that these acquisitions significantly reduce the risk of the target firms and that the risk reduction is directly related to the changes in the international shareholder base and the strength of the investor right protection of the acquirer. We also find that these acquisitions are value creating because we see improvements in both the short-term and long-term risk-adjusted stock performance in target firms during the postacquisition period.     

Do Poorly Governed Acquirers Transfer Wealth to Targets in Cross‐Border Acquisitions?

We use the number of antitakeover provisions (ATPs) as a proxy for corporate governance and examine its impact in US domestic and foreign acquisitions made by US acquirers. We find that the targets of poorly governed acquirers earn higher postannouncement premiums, despite controls for deal characteristics, macroeconomic conditions, and country‐level protections, suggesting that these acquirers overpay. Puzzlingly, in contrast with the domestic US findings of Masulis, Wang, and Xie, poorly governed acquirers in cross‐border deals experience higher announcement period returns. The relation between governance and target returns appears concave, but this nonlinearity disappears once differences in country‐level governance and deal characteristics are accounted for.     

Is the grass on the other side greener? Testing the cross-border effect for U.S. acquirers

Why do U.S. acquirers fare worse when acquiring targets in foreign countries than when acquiring domestic targets? This paper investigates reasons for the so called “cross-border effect” by examining the influence of target public status and competitiveness of the takeover market in the target country. Our findings show that the listing status of the target drives the cross-border effect in two opposite directions: acquirers of private targets fare worse in cross-border takeovers, while acquirers of public targets experience significantly higher gains in acquisitions of foreign targets. The positive cross-border benefit for acquirers of public targets is more pronounced if the target is from a country with a less competitive takeover market.     

LEGAL ENVIRONMENT,INTERNALIZATION, AND U.S. ACQUIRER GAINS IN FOREIGN TAKEOVERS

In examining takeovers of foreign targets by U.S. firms, we investigate the effect of the target country's legal environment on acquiring firm value. Our results indicate that acquirers of target firms located in civil law countries experience significant positive abnormal returns, especially when the acquirer possesses a high level of intangibles. Furthermore, we find that acquirers with high levels of intangibles are more likely to acquire target firms in civil law countries. These findings suggest that the transfer of intangibles overseas provides relatively larger efficiency benefits for multinational corporations in cases where the alternative, contracting in external markets, is more difficult.     

Geography and acquirer returns

We examine the impact of geographical proximity on the acquisition decisions of US public firms over the period 1990–2003. Transactions where the acquirer and target firms are located within 100 km of each other are classified as local transactions. We find that acquirer returns in local transactions are more than twice that in non-local transactions. The higher return to local acquirer is not explained by related, either horizontal or vertical, industry transactions, and appears to be related to information advantages arising from geographical proximity. These information advantages facilitate acquisition of targets that, on average, create higher overall return. The higher return to local acquirers is preserved by the use of target termination fee contracts.     

FOREIGN INVESTOR PARTICIPATION IN PRIVATIZATIONS: DOES THE INSTITUTIONAL ENVIRONMENT MATTER?

We examine the determinants of foreign investors' participation in the privatization process of developing countries. First, we estimate the probability that foreign investors target privatized firms in a given country. We show that a favorable legal environment where investor protection is higher enhances foreign investors' participation. Foreigners also prefer large, strategic firms from high‐growth economies and socially stable countries with low political risk. Second, we restrict our analysis to privatized firms that foreign investors actually choose and show that the stakes foreigners hold are larger if the firms are privatized by private sales as opposed to public offerings.     

Leverage,governance and wealth effects of asset purchasers

We examine a sample of 670 firms that announce asset purchases. We hypothesize that buyer announcement returns should be higher in the presence of better monitoring and better governance. Consistent with the monitoring hypothesis, we find that buyers with higher private debt make purchase decisions that increase shareholder value. Consistent with the governance hypothesis, we find that returns are higher for buyers that have lower antitakeover provisions in place. Consistent with the managerial discretion hypothesis, buyer announcement-period returns increase with buyer leverage. Consistent with the liquidity hypothesis, we find that announcement-period returns decrease with the seller's Z-score, suggesting that buyers benefit from the lower liquidity of assets sold by sellers with lower debt capacity and higher financial distress. We also find that buyer announcement-period returns are directly related to their operating performance in the post-purchase year.