Does corporate international diversification destroy value? Evidence from cross-border mergers and acquisitions

This paper investigates the valuation effects of corporate international diversification by examining cross-border mergers and acquisitions of US acquirers over the period 1990–2000. We find that, on average, acquisitions of “fairly valued” foreign business units do not lead to value discounts. In contrast, unrelated cross-border acquisitions result in a significant diversification discount of about 24% after accounting for the valuation of foreign targets. Furthermore, significant wealth gains accrue to foreign target shareholders regardless of the type of acquisition. Overall, our results suggest that international diversification does not destroy value while industrial diversification leads to discounts even after controlling for the pre-acquisition value of the target.     

HOW STOCK-SWAP MERGERS AFFECT SHAREHOLDER (AND BONDHOLDER) WEALTH: MORE EVIDENCE OF THE VALUE OF CORPORATE "FOCUS"

Alfred Chandler once described the U.S. conglomerate movement of the 1960s and '70s as an "historical aberration and a 'disaster." And the recent trend in corporate mergers and acquisitions away from "diversifying" acquisitions would seem to confirm Chandler's argument.
In what constitutes yet another piece of evidence in support of Chandler's argument, the authors of this article conducted a study of changes in debt and equity values in 260 stock-forstock mergers completed between 1963 and 1996. With a sample almost evenly divided between conglomerate and "related" mergers, the authors report significant net wealth gains for all securityholders as a group in "related" mergers, but generally insignificant net gains for securityholders in conglomerate mergers. Not surprisingly, target firm shareholders experienced net wealth gains in both kinds of acquisitions; but for acquiring company shareholders, there was a striking difference: economically and statistically significant gains for acquirers in related transactions, and significant losses for acquirers in conglomerate deals.
Perhaps the biggest surprise of the study, however, was that even the bondholders of acquirers in related mergers benefited more than bondholders in conglomerate deals. The result is surprising because, to the extent bondholders benefit from corporate diversification, one would expect the opposite result. That bondholders in related mergers experience larger wealth increases than those of conglomerate acquirers is just one more sign of the dramatic differences in total value created by the two kinds of mergers.     

Stockholder returns and international acquisitions of financial firms: An emphasis on banking

The wealth effects for shareholders of American financial firms involved in foreign acquisitions and also the wealth effects for shareholders of U.S. target firms acquired by foreign concerns are the topics of this study. The findings indicate that stockholders of U.S. bidding financial firms (and its subset of banks) earn neither abnormal gains nor suffer abnormal losses upon the announcement of an acquisition or regulatory approval. On the other hand, stockholders of U.S. target financial firms (and its subset of banks) earn significant abnormal profits at both the announcement of the proposed acquisition and the announcement of regulatory approval of the acquisition. The wealth effects for these two samples are also compared to samples in which both parties to the acquisition are U.S. firms. The research suggests that there is no significant difference in the size of the announcement gains or losses for either stockholders of the target or bidding firms based on whether the acquisition is foreign or domestic. These findings conflict with prior research which indicates that, for firms in general, stockholders of U.S. targets earn significantly greater wealth benefits when they are acquired by foreign firms than by domestic firms. Overall, these results are consistent with a competitive market for acquisitions of financial firms in which buyers do not earn or lose at the announcement of an acquisition, and in which abnormal gains are received only by the sellers.     

Should Shareholders Have a Say on Acquisitions?

Shareholders of U.S. corporations have lost billions of dollars in acquisitions they never approved. In the United Kingdom, the listing rules give shareholders a binding say when targets are large relative to their acquirers. A transatlantic comparison of M&A activity suggests that if U.S. shareholders had a say on acquisitions, U.S. acquirers would do fewer value‐destroying acquisitions and their own shareholders would experience smaller losses. The authors also report finding a significant difference in the performance of the large U.K. deals that are subject to a mandatory vote and those that are not. The United States has given shareholders a mandatory say on pay. Is it time for U.S. shareholders to have a binding say on corporate acquisitions?     

Abnormal Returns in the Acquisition Market: The Case of Bank Holding Companies, 1990–1993

Recent evidence suggests that announcements of bank holding company acquisitions result in wealth transfers from the bidding to target shareholders. Empirically, this is demonstrated through findings of negative average abnormal returns to bank holding company acquirers and positive average abnormal returns to targets on announcement. Using a sample of acquisitions from the early 1990s—a period marked by the removal of significant geographic entry barriers—this paper reexamines the issue by applying a general statistical model to the event study framework to more precisely measure abnormal returns. In particular, we model returns according to the GARCH process to control for time-varying volatility. With respect to the unconditional distributions of acquirer and target abnormal returns, our findings are consistent with prior research. Further investigation into the conditional distribution of acquirer returns finds that, on announcement, interstate acquisitions using the purchase method of accounting actually increased shareholder wealth for acquirers (on average) by 1.44%. However, over a longer event horizon, the most important determinants of acquirer abnormal returns appear to be the relative size of the transaction and the method of accounting.     

The impact of country risk ratings on U.S. firms in large cross-border acquisitions

This study investigates the impact of country risk ratings on the wealth gains to large U.S. bidders involved in cross-border acquisitions. The findings indicate that U.S. bidders experience positive wealth gains during the merger announcements, though this is concentrated in transactions involving European targets. There are also differences in wealth gains to bidders with respect to industry classification and location of foreign targets. The country risk factors including economic, political, and financial risk ratings all play a significant role in explaining the wealth gains to bidders. Furthermore, the wealth gains are higher for the firms with acquisitions in developed countries and are significantly related to GNP growth rate.     

Wealth effects for acquirers and divestors related to foreign divested assets

This study examines acquisitions of foreign divested assets by U.S. firms. The results indicate that the excess returns to these acquisitions is a significant 0.48%, suggesting that capital markets perceive potential synergies from the effective utilization and strategic management of these assets by U.S. companies. The wealth effects to divestors of these foreign assets is 0.65%, significant at the 1% level, indicating that firms benefit from reducing their geographic scope of operations. We further examine excess returns to acquirers, and we find that several firm-specific characteristics foster anticipation of positive performance gains resulting from the acquisition of divested assets in foreign countries. Similar results are observed for the divesting firms also. Analysis of long horizon performance provides weak indication that performance of divesting firms improves subsequent to the divestment.     

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.     

The Role of Acquisitions in Foreign Direct Investment: Evidence from the U.S. Stock Market

This paper examines foreign direct investment by studying shareholder wealth gains for 1273 U.S. firms acquired during the period 1970-1987. Three findings stand out. First, cross-border takeovers are more frequent in research and development intensive industries than are domestic acquisitions; furthermore, in three-fourths of cross-border transactions the buyer and seller are in related industries. These industry patterns suggest that costs and imperfections in product markets play an important role in foreign direct investment. Second, targets of foreign buyers have significantly higher wealth gains than do targets of U.S. firms. This cross-border effect is comparable in size to the wealth effects of all-cash and multiple bids, two effects receiving substantial attention in the finance literature, and is robust to inclusion of these two variables. Third, while the cross-border effect on wealth gains is not well explained by industry and tax variables, it is positively related to the weakness of the U.S. dollar, indicating a significant role for exchange rate movements in foreign direct investment.     

The wealth effects of takeover bids regulation in the European Union

We investigate the wealth effects of the Takeover Bids Directive, enacted by the European Union (EU), on mergers and acquisitions. The directive aims at protecting target minority shareholders by restricting antitakeovers provisions and preventing managerial entrenchment. We test the regulation impact using a treatment sample of EU public acquisitions and a control sample from outside the EU. Our results suggest diverse effects of the regulation across treatment countries: acquirers from countries with better shareholder protection engage in more value-enhancing acquisitions postregulation that could otherwise be too costly. The regulation also increases the likelihood of firms becoming targets and raises market value.     

Does Mandatory Shareholder Voting Prevent Bad Acquisitions? The Case of the United Kingdom

A large number of studies have shown that many companies have made large acquisitions that their own shareholders probably would not have approved if given the opportunity to do so. In this article, which summarizes the findings of their study published recently in the Review of Financial Studies, the authors present evidence that suggests the effectiveness of shareholder voting as a corporate governance mechanism designed to prevent such value‐reducing acquisitions from taking place. The authors' study focused on acquisitions in the U.K. where proposed transactions that exceed a series of 25% relative size (target's as a percentage of the acquirer's) thresholds are defined as “Class 1” transactions and require shareholder approval. The authors found strikingly positive stock market reactions to the announcements of such Class 1 acquisitions—as compared to zero if not negative average announcement returns for Class 2 transactions that were not subject to a shareholder vote. And when the authors extended their analysis to U.S. M&A markets, they found that the larger (again, in relative size) U.S. deals—large enough that they would have required a shareholder vote in the U.K.—provided returns to their shareholders that were negative, and thus significantly lower than those of their U.K counterparts. In terms of the economic significance of their findings, the authors found that Class 1 transactions were associated with aggregate gains to acquirer shareholders of $13.6 billion. By contrast, U.S. transactions of similar size, which again were not subject to shareholder approval, were associated with aggregate losses of $210 billion for acquirer shareholders; and Class 2 U.K. transactions, also not subject to shareholder approval, were associated with aggregate losses of $3 billion. In a further series of tests designed to shed light on how mandatory shareholder voting generates such substantial value improvements for acquirer shareholders, the authors also found evidence suggesting that when faced with the requirement of a shareholder vote, CEOs and boards are more likely to resist the temptation to overpay to close a deal. And the fact that the shareholders of the Class 1 acquirers did not end up blocking a single transaction that was submitted to a vote suggests that this mechanism works without the need for shareholders to actually vote down a deal. In other words, mandatory shareholder voting on acquisitions is a powerful deterrent to “bad deals” because, first of all, the vote is triggered automatically by the relative size tests and, second, CEOs and boards, with the help of their bankers, have a pretty good idea well in advance of the vote whether their shareholders are going to vote “no”—and such a vote would be viewed by top management as a major rejection, a strong vote of no confidence.     

Relative equity market valuation conditions and acquirers’ gains

We examine whether the relative equity market valuation conditions (EMVCs) in the countries of merging firms help acquirers’ managers to time the announcements of both domestic and foreign targets. After controlling for several deal- and merging firm-specific features we find that the number of acquisitions and acquirers’ gains are higher during periods of high-EMVCs at home, irrespective of the domicile of the target. We also find that the higher gains of foreign target acquisitions realized during periods of high-EMVCs at home stem from acquiring targets based in the RoW (=World-G7), rather than the G6 (=G7-UK) group of countries. We argue that this is due to the low correlation of EMVCs between the UK (home) and the RoW group of countries. However, these gains disappear or even reverse during the post-announcement period. Moreover, acquisitions of targets domiciled in the RoW (G6) countries yield higher (lower) gains than acquisitions of domestic targets during periods of high-EMVCs at home. This suggests that the relative EMVCs between the merging firms’ countries allow acquirers’ managers to time the market and acquire targets at a discount, particularly in countries in which acquirers’ stocks are likely to be more overvalued than the targets’ stocks.     

Acquisitions driven by stock overvaluation: Are they good deals?

Theory and recent evidence suggest that overvalued firms can create value for shareholders if they exploit their overvaluation by using their stock as currency to purchase less overvalued firms. We challenge this idea and show that, in practice, overvalued acquirers significantly overpay for their targets. These acquisitions do not, in turn, lead to synergy gains. Moreover, these acquisitions seem to be concentrated among acquirers with the largest governance problems. CEO compensation, not shareholder value creation, appears to be the main motive behind acquisitions by overvalued acquirers.     

CREATING VALUE WITH MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS

This report addresses two key questions for today's top executives: Do acquisitions create value for acquirers? And under what circumstances have acquisitions created the most value for acquiring shareholders?
The authors' analysis of over 1,500 completed deals by non-financial companies in the United States over the past 12 years shows that, at announcement, acquirers' shareholders suffer small losses, on average, in the short term around the initial deal announcement. Over longer intervals, such as one or two years following the announcement of the transaction, acquirers tend to slightly outperform industry peers.
The average or median market response hides tremendous variability in how the market has reacted to individual deals, however. This article provides evidence that the "right" M&A transaction can create substantial value for acquirers. One-quarter of the transactions lead to market-adjusted gains in excess of 5% for the acquirer and oneeighth of the transactions lead to gains in excess of 10% in the short term. However, some deals have also destroyed substantial shareholder value.
Financing structure is a key driver of the stock market reaction. Stock-financed transactions, on average, have a negative stock market reaction, while cash-financed transactions have benefited acquirers in both the short term as well as the long term.
Acquisitions of private companies or assets and units of public companies have consistently generated higher returns for acquirers than purchases of public companies.
Moreover, EPS dilution is not a major driver of how the stock market reacts to a deal. Although "accretive" deals perform slightly better than "dilutive" ones in the short and long run, the difference is small and not statistically significant. Over the long run, acquiring shareholders have benefited the most from deals within the same industry and that avoid targets with relatively optimistic earnings growth projections.     

Takeovers,market monitoring,and international corporate governance

We theoretically and empirically examine the role of international takeover markets in curtailing dominant shareholder moral hazard for firms with higher value‐added from acquisitions. In equilibrium, such firms strategically list shares in the markets of their targets and voluntarily dilute dominant shareholder control through capital‐raising events to lower their expected acquisition costs. Empirical tests, using a sample of foreign firms cross‐listing on U.S. stock exchanges during 1990–2003, support the framework. We find a strong influence of post‐listing dilution of dominant shareholder control through capital‐raising events on the likelihood of acquisitions and their cost to the acquirers, in both U.S. and non‐U.S. markets.     

Best Practices in Corporate Governance: What Two Decades of Research Reveals

This report addresses two key questions for today's top executives: Do acquisitions create value for acquirers? And under what circumstances have acquisitions created the most value for acquiring shareholders?
The authors' analysis of over 1,500 completed deals by non-financial companies in the United States over the past 12 years shows that, at announcement, acquirers' shareholders suffer small losses, on average, in the short term around the initial deal announcement. Over longer intervals, such as one or two years following the announcement of the transaction, acquirers tend to slightly outperform industry peers.
The average or median market response hides tremendous variability in how the market has reacted to individual deals, however. This article provides evidence that the "right" M&A transaction can create substantial value for acquirers. One-quarter of the transactions lead to market-adjusted gains in excess of 5% for the acquirer and oneeighth of the transactions lead to gains in excess of 10% in the short term. However, some deals have also destroyed substantial shareholder value.
Financing structure is a key driver of the stock market reaction. Stock-financed transactions, on average, have a negative stock market reaction, while cash-financed transactions have benefited acquirers in both the short term as well as the long term.
Acquisitions of private companies or assets and units of public companies have consistently generated higher returns for acquirers than purchases of public companies.
Moreover, EPS dilution is not a major driver of how the stock market reacts to a deal. Although "accretive" deals perform slightly better than "dilutive" ones in the short and long run, the difference is small and not statistically significant. Over the long run, acquiring shareholders have benefited the most from deals within the same industry and that avoid targets with relatively optimistic earnings growth projections.     

Investor Recognition and Post‐Acquisition Performance of Acquirers

The literature has documented a negative relation between investor recognition and expected returns. This negative relation is consistent with the prediction in Merton (1987, Journal of Finance 42, 483–510). This paper investigates whether the changes in investor recognition of acquirers around the time of the acquisitions can explain the post‐acquisition underperformance of acquirer stocks. Using a large sample of U.S. acquisitions from 1980 to 2010, this paper finds that investor recognition, proxied by the number of institutional investors and the number of common shareholders, increases significantly during acquisitions. Once the increases in investor recognition are controlled for, the “puzzling” long‐run underperformances of acquirers disappears.     

Exploring the Double‐Sided Effect of Information Asymmetry and Uncertainty in Mergers and Acquisitions

We examine the joint effect of bidder and target information asymmetry and uncertainty on the payment consideration and subsequent wealth effects in a large sample of acquisitions with both listed and private targets. In line with a risk‐sharing argument, we find that acquisitions of targets characterized by higher uncertainty are more likely to be settled with stock. In contrast, higher target information asymmetry increases the likelihood of a cash payment, consistent with bidders strategically exploiting superior information. Acquirers of more opaque targets obtain a larger fraction of total acquisition gains and avoid sharing these gains with target shareholders by offering cash.     

Wealth Destruction on a Massive Scale? A Study of Acquiring‐Firm Returns in the Recent Merger Wave

Acquiring‐firm shareholders lost 12 cents around acquisition announcements per dollar spent on acquisitions for a total loss of $240 billion from 1998 through 2001, whereas they lost $7 billion in all of the 1980s, or 1.6 cents per dollar spent. The 1998 to 2001 aggregate dollar loss of acquiring‐firm shareholders is so large because of a small number of acquisitions with negative synergy gains by firms with extremely high valuations. Without these acquisitions, the wealth of acquiring‐firm shareholders would have increased. Firms that make these acquisitions with large dollar losses perform poorly afterward.     

Do cross border and domestic acquisitions differ? Evidence from the acquisition of UK targets

We investigate the determinants of short term wealth effects for both public acquiring and target shareholders following the announcement of UK acquisitions over the period 1990–2005. Regardless of their nationality, overall acquirers incur losses, with domestic acquirers’ under-performing cross-border acquirers in general. For the latter no differences in returns between regions are found once the differences in corporate governance regimes are controlled for. Instead it is firm characteristics and in particular firm leverage that largely explain acquirers' returns. All targets gain significantly but the higher returns associated with international deals disappear once bid characteristics are controlled for.