Abnormal returns of Japanese acquisition bidders—impact of pro-M&A legislation in the 1990s

This paper examines the market's reaction to news of corporate mergers and acquisitions (M&A) by Japanese bidders during the 1990s. Domestic versus global bids and pro-M&A legislation are considered as determinants of bidders' abnormal returns. The results show that bidders for domestic targets earn significant abnormal returns after the institutions of pro-M&A legislation in Japan. These findings help determine gains from trading strategies for M&A deals in Japan, and provide insight into the current M&A environment in Japan as shaped by pro-M&A legislation.     

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.     

Revisiting the merger and acquisition performance of European banks

The study examines the value creation of Merger and Acquisition (M&A) deals in European banking from 1990 to 2004. This is performed, first, by examining the stock price reaction of banks to the announcement of M&A deals and, second, by analysing the determinants of this reaction. The findings provide evidence of value creation in European banks as the shareholders of the targets have benefited from positive and (statistically) significant abnormal returns while those of the acquirers earn small negative but non-significant abnormal returns. In the case of the shareholders of the acquirers, domestic M&As and especially those between banks with shares listed on the stock market, seem to be more beneficial compared to cross-border ones or those when the target is unlisted. Shareholders of the targets earn in all cases positive abnormal returns. Finally, although the link between abnormal returns and fundamental characteristics of the banks is rather weak, it appears that the acquisition of smaller, less efficient banks generating more diversified income is more value creating, while acquisition of less efficient, liquid and characterised by higher credit risk banks is not a value creating option.     

Uncertainty triggers overreaction: evidence from corporate takeovers

Behavioural finance models suggest that under uncertainty, investors overweight their private information and overreact to it. We test this theoretical prediction in an M&A framework. We find that under high information uncertainty, when investors are more likely to possess firm-specific information, acquiring firms generate highly positive and significant gains following the announcement of private stock and private cash acquisitions (positive news) while the market heavily punishes public stock (negative news) deals. On the other hand, under conditions of low information uncertainty, when investors do not possess private information, the market reaction is complete (i.e. zero abnormal returns) irrespective of the type of acquisition. Overall, we provide empirical evidence that shows that information uncertainty plays a significant role in explaining short-run acquirer abnormal returns.     

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.     

Revisiting acquirer returns: Evidence from unanticipated deals

This paper examines the implications of market anticipation of impending merger and acquisition (M&A) deals on the assessment of acquirer wealth effects through event study methods. We find evidence suggesting that prior studies have understated the gains to acquirers. The documented negative or near-zero abnormal returns to acquirers appears to be confined to sub-samples of highly-anticipated deals. By contrast, unanticipated acquirers gain significantly from M&As, achieving average cumulative abnormal returns of 5.4% to 7.5% in the seven days around the bid announcement. Empirically, we show that market anticipation partly explains (1) the documented low returns to acquirers, (2) the positive abnormal return spillover to close rivals of acquirers, and (3) the declining returns to serial acquirers across successive deals. Overall, our study provides evidence against several stylised facts and sheds light on the puzzle that M&A activity persists despite recurrent research findings that they do not create value for acquirers.     

Can Stock Markets Predict M&A Failure? A Study of European Transactions in the Fifth Takeover Wave

In this paper we develop various measures of M&A failure for an intra‐European sample during the fifth takeover wave: inferior long‐term stock performance, inferior operating performance, and target divestment. After documenting the extent of M&A failure, we test the relation between short‐term abnormal returns at deal announcement and M&A failure. We examine a sample where listed bidders acquire listed targets (267 deals) as well as privately‐held targets (336 deals). Our results indicate M&A failure rates up to 50% in both samples. When acquirers and targets are listed, lower M&A announcement returns are consistently and significantly associated with higher M&A failure probabilities and long‐term losses. In contrast, when targets are privately held, we find no evidence of such an association.     

Indexing mergers and acquisitions

We measure the efficiency of mergers and acquisitions by putting forward an index (the ‘M&A Index’) based on stochastic frontier analysis. The M&A Index is calculated for each takeover deal and is standardized between 0 and 1. An acquisition with a higher index encompasses higher efficiency. We find that takeover bids with higher M&A Indices are more likely to succeed. Moreover, the M&A Index shows a strong and positive relation with the acquirers’ post-acquisition stock performance in the short run and operating performance in the long run. After constructing three portfolios under a buy-and-hold strategy, we find that efficient portfolios with the highest indices earn higher equity returns and monthly alphas than inefficient portfolios with the lowest indices. Overall, our findings indicate that the M&A Index is positively associated with merger outcomes for acquirers.     

Directors' and officers' liability insurance and acquisition outcomes

We examine the effect of directors' and officers' liability insurance (D&O insurance) on the outcomes of merger and acquisition (M&A) decisions. We find that acquirers whose executives have a higher level of D&O insurance coverage experience significantly lower announcement-period abnormal stock returns. Further analyses suggest that acquirers with a higher level of D&O insurance protection tend to pay higher acquisition premiums and their acquisitions appear to exhibit lower synergies. The evidence provides support for the notion that the provision of D&O insurance can induce unintended moral hazard by shielding directors and officers from the discipline of shareholder litigation.     

Shareholder litigation in mergers and acquisitions

Using hand-collected data, we examine the targeting of shareholder class action lawsuits in merger and acquisition (M&A) transactions, and the associations of these lawsuits with offer completion rates and takeover premia. We find that M&A offers subject to shareholder lawsuits are completed at a significantly lower rate than offers not subject to litigation, after controlling for selection bias, different judicial standards, major offer characteristics, M&A financial and legal advisor reputations as well as industry and year fixed effects. M&A offers subject to shareholder lawsuits have significantly higher takeover premia in completed deals, after controlling for the same factors. Economically, the expected rise in takeover premia more than offsets the fall in the probability of deal completion, resulting in a positive expected gain to target shareholders. However, in general, target stock price reactions to bid announcements do not appear to fully anticipate the positive expected gain from potential litigation. We find that during a merger wave characterized by friendly single-bidder offers, shareholder litigation substitutes for the presence of a rival bidder by policing low-ball bids and forcing offer price improvement by the bidder.     

Dressed to merge — small fits fine: M&A success in the fashion and accessories industry

In this paper we examine the value implications of 192 M&A transactions in the fashion and leather accessories industry during the period from 1994 to 2009. Contrary to general cross-country evidence we find highly significant, positive abnormal returns to acquiring shareholders. Cross-sectional analysis further reveals that the key value drivers are diversifying fashion M&A transactions for smaller, profitable companies that reduce idiosyncratic risk whereas deals executed by large companies that act as frequent acquirers do not, on average, significantly enhance shareholder wealth.     

Mergers and acquisitions in Germany: 1981–2010

We examine the long-term performance of German acquiring firms for M&A transactions that took place between 1981 and 2010. Over this period, the German corporate governance system experienced substantial changes that led to the emergence of an active M&A market. In contrast to many U.S. studies, we do not find significant negative abnormal long-term performance for our full sample. However, the results support the method-of-payment hypothesis. For our first subsample, from 1981 to 1990, when M&A transactions were rather rare, acquirers exhibit positive abnormal long-term returns compared to their German industry peers. Our findings are robust for various firm and deal characteristics and consistent with our analysis of pre and postmerger operational performance and announcement returns.     

Do firms that wish to be acquired manage their earnings? Evidence from major European countries

In this paper, we examine whether findings on downward accrual-based earnings management for firms publicly ‘seeking a buyer’ from the US can be extrapolated outside of the US context, given that past research has indicated that the function of the Merger and Acquisition (M&A) markets is highly dependent on the degree of competition in a country. We test for the existence of earnings management (EM) around such events for firms listed in the largest European stock exchanges between 2000 and 2009, and get evidence that downward earnings management around ‘seeking buyer’ announcements more strongly holds for the country with the most competitive market for corporate control in our sample, that is the UK. We consider this finding indicative of the fact that a competitive M&A environment may induce earnings management-prone behavior. We further testify significantly positive abnormal returns around ‘seeking buyer’ announcements for firms from the UK, but limited such evidence for the other countries, a finding we also attribute to differences in competition and uneven split of benefits among bidders and targets in M&A markets. Finally, we find that EM positively affects abnormal returns around ‘seeking buyer’ announcements, indicating that market participants tend to compensate for upward EM, regardless of the degree of competition of the M&A market of a country.     

Synergy disclosures in mergers and acquisitions

We examine bidding firms' motives for disclosing a synergy forecast when announcing a merger or acquisition. Our sample consists of 1990 M&A deals, of which 345 announce synergy estimates. Our results suggest that synergy disclosures serve to obtain a more favorable market reception for deals that would otherwise induce highly negative bidder announcement returns. After controlling for the endogeneity of the disclosure decision, synergy forecast disclosures result in approximately 5% higher bidder stock returns. The main deterrents of disclosing synergy values are lack of precise information on synergy values available to bidding firm management, and shareholder litigation risk. Bidders do not seem to use synergy disclosures to strategically influence takeover premiums or competition for the target.     

Minority shareholders’ wealth effects and stock market development: Evidence from increase-in-ownership M&As

This paper examines, using a global M&A data set, the relationship between the target firm’s minority shareholders’ returns and a country’s stock market development in deals in which large shareholders increase their ownership stakes. For the purpose of this study, we use two measures of stock market development: (1) turnover over GDP, and (2) turnover over market capitalization. We provide evidence supporting the view that minority shareholders in target firms gain significantly more in countries with high stock market development than their counterparts in less-developed markets. Our results are robust to several firm and deal characteristics and provide evidence to policy makers that the degree of stock market development is a key determinant in improving minority shareholders’ welfare.     

Economic policy uncertainty and cross-border mergers and acquisitions

We examine the impact of policy uncertainty on cross-border mergers and acquisitions (M&As). Using a sample of 23 countries worldwide over the period from 2003 to 2016, we provide evidence that when a country has high policy uncertainty, the volume of inbound acquisition decreases whereas the total number of outbound deals increase significantly. Policy uncertainty also encourages acquirers to use stock as a method of payment and offer lower premium to targets. We also find that the percentage of full control cross-border M&A deals is negatively correlated to the level of policy uncertainty. Further evidence suggests that policy uncertainty complicates the takeover process by increasing the probability of withdrawn and pending deals as well as requiring longer time periods to complete deals.     

Powerful bidders and value creation in M&As

This paper explores the role of bargaining ability in corporate mergers and acquisitions (M&As) by focusing on acquiring firms with ex-ante market power—powerful bidders. Drawing from a bargaining power theoretical stance, we argue that powerful bidders create value from M&A activity by paying comparatively lower premiums. We test our empirical proposition using a sample of 9327 M&A deals announced between 2004 and 2016 by bidders across 30 countries. Contrary to the stylized fact that bidders do not gain from M&A activity, we uncover evidence suggesting that powerful bidders pay lower bid premiums and, consequently, earn positive (and relatively higher) cumulative announcement returns (CARs) from M&A deals. On average, the mean returns to powerful bidders (1.3%) are at least twice those of their less powerful counterparts (0.6%). We identify “low financial constraints” as a potential channel through which higher bidder power translates to improved deal performance. Overall, our results provide new evidence on how industry dynamics, notably bargaining power, influences M&A outcomes.     

Acquirers’ earnings management ahead of stock-for-stock bids in ‘hot’ and ‘cold’ markets

The accounting literature has found evidence that acquirers in stock-for-stock M&A have typically managed earnings upwards ahead of a bid. Other literatures have concluded that, when stock prices are high and rising, M&A is higher, more M&A is financed with stock, market sentiment and stockholders’ perceptions of information appear to change, and in these circumstances new (arbitrage) motivations for M&A emerge. This paper revisits earnings management ahead of M&A in the light of these findings, comparing experience in ‘hot’ and ‘cold’ markets. It finds that such earnings management is more pronounced in hot markets; that only in such markets are positive discretionary accruals commonly associated with positive abnormal returns on the announcement of earnings; and that in such markets – against the expectations from signalling theory – these positive returns are not reversed on announcement of a stock-for-stock bid. The results suggest that the economic benefits achieved by engaging in earnings management during hot markets are indeed significant: in hot markets, we estimate that on average share acquirers engage in working capital accrual management equivalent to over a third of the average acquirer’s return on total assets in that year; and that this earnings management is associated with increases in market value which are statistically and economically significant, enabling the bidder to secure control of the target with fewer shares.     

Liquidity and information asymmetry considerations in corporate takeovers

ABSTRACT

We examine how stock market liquidity and information asymmetry considerations influence the wealth effects of Mergers and Acquisitions (M&As). We present a simple model predicting that M&As of listed targets that have relatively illiquid stocks are profitable for acquirers due to (a) the weak bargaining power of the targets’ shareholders, and (b) the limited information asymmetry concerns when evaluating takeover synergies. Our results show that cash-financed M&As of listed targets that have relatively illiquid stocks are associated with an increase in acquirer risk-adjusted returns. These gains are equivalent to those realized from comparable private target M&As. When engaging in stock-financed listed-target M&As, acquirers with liquid stocks enjoy significant gains when the targets have relatively illiquid stocks. This result holds especially when the deal is announced during periods of deterioration in the overall stock market liquidity. Lastly, we find that liquidity considerations affect the acquirer’s choice of the target firm’s listing status, as well as the M&A method of payment.     

Are good financial advisors really good? The performance of investment banks in the M&;A market

The study examines whether prestigious investment banks deliver quality gains to their clients in a sample of 6,379 US M&A deals. It finds that acquirers advised by tier-one advisors lost more than $42 billion, whereas those advised by tier-two advisors gained $42 billion, whereas those advised by tier-two advisors gained 13.5 billion at the merger announcement. The results were mainly driven by the large loss deals advised by tier-one advisors. The evidence indicates that investment banks might have different incentives when they advise on large deals vs. small deals. The results imply that market share based reputation league tables, could be misleading and therefore, the selection of investment banks should be based on their track record in generating gains to their clients. The findings were consistent with the superior deal hypothesis as tier-one target advisors outperformed tier-two advisors and the existence of a prestigious advisor on at least one side of an M&A transaction resulted in higher wealth gains to the combined entity. Target advisors were able to extract more wealth gains for their clients, which led to higher combined gains at the expense of the acquirer.