Search results

This paper aims to evaluate the robustness of the listing effect in Australia, that is whether acquisitions of private firms create more value to the bidding firm’s shareholders than acquisitions of publicly listed firms.

The authors analyze the market reaction to the announcement of takeover bids initiated by Australian public firms on private and public targets over the period 1990-2011. The analysis controls for a wide range of bidder, deal and target country characteristics that are likely to correlate with the target’s listing status and acquirer abnormal returns. The authors also use a selection model to address the endogenous choice of the target’s listing status.

The results indicate that bidders experience significantly higher abnormal returns of about 1.7 per cent in the 11-day event window when the target is a private firm. The authors show that this result is broad-based and persistent. It does not appear to depend on whether the target is small or large; whether it is related or unrelated to the bidder’s industry; whether it is in the resources sector; and whether the transaction is domestic or cross-border. They find some evidence that bidder returns might be stronger for larger acquisitions, for unrelated targets, and in poor market conditions such as in the wake of the recent global financial crisis.

The research would benefit from the inclusion of the bidding firm’s ownership and governance characteristics.

The results support the view that market frictions contribute to make private firms attractive targets.

The analysis confirms the pervasiveness of the listing effect in a market characterized by a lesser degree of competition, higher search costs and the significance of the natural resources sector.

The purpose of this study is to examine whether the acquirers of private targets outperform their peers that acquire public targets in the long run.

Using two samples of acquirers of private and public targets, this paper analyses their short-run market performance and long-run operating performance. Univariate analyses and multiple regressions are used to analyse abnormal stock returns and abnormal cash flow performances of bidders.

Acquirers of private targets earn significantly higher abnormal return than acquirers of public targets during the announcement period. Similarly, the long-run operating performance of acquirers of private targets is significantly higher than that of the acquirers of public targets. However, the performance difference between two groups is more pronounced when cash flows are scaled by the market value of acquirers.

This is the first Australian study to examine whether the long-run operating performance of acquirers depends on the organisational form of the target acquired.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the long‐term post‐acquisition share performance of Malaysian acquiring firms over the period 2000‐2004.

The authors use the event‐type methodology to analyse acquirer returns in relation to target status, method of payment and other firm characteristics, using both univariate and multivariate analyses. In total three performance measures are used to identify the long‐term share performance of acquiring firms: cumulative market‐adjusted abnormal returns, the buy‐and‐hold market‐adjusted and buy‐and‐hold matched‐sample abnormal returns.

The results show the existence of negative abnormal returns to acquirers over two‐ and three‐year periods after acquisition. The study also finds that acquirers of private targets earn negative returns, while acquirers of public targets earn insignificant returns. It is also found that under‐performance is limited to the small size acquirers and to large relative‐size acquisitions. Furthermore, the results indicate that acquirer's long‐term performance is not related to the method of payment and book‐to‐market ratio of the acquirer.

The Malaysian stock market is relatively small compared to the US and UK markets where most previous research has been carried out. The current study allows us to assess the robustness of the models and whether the findings in developed markets may be generalized to the smaller developing markets. This paper contributes to the present body of knowledge by offering evidence of acquirer's post‐acquisition performance from a developing market.

This paper focuses on the influence of overconfident managers on strategic investment acquisitions performance, by investigating the influence of key contextual factors on acquirers’ returns of UK domestic and cross-border acquisitions during the period 2000-2009. In this study, particular attention has been paid to management attributes (frequent acquirers vs non-frequent acquirers); method of payment (cash vs non-cash deals); the geographic scope (domestic vs cross-border deals); the type of the target (public vs private); the industry scope; and the relative size.

An event study is used to analyse domestic and cross-border acquisitions. The market model is used for estimating the acquirers’ abnormal returns of 1,133 domestic and cross-border acquisitions by UK firms between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2009.

The findings reveal that acquirers with domestic targets have higher returns than cross-border targets. Infrequent acquirers generate higher returns from domestic and cross-border acquisitions than frequent acquirers. Further, acquirers that acquire domestic targets from different industrial sectors produce higher returns than acquirers with targets from the same sector. Acquirers with cash deals, private targets and high book-to-market ratio generate significant returns compared to acquirers with non-cash deals, low book-to-market ratio and public targets and that for domestic and cross-border deals. These results suggest that UK domestic and cross-border acquisitions are partially shaped by overconfident managers.

The study has a number of limitations, including the use of the market model, the data-collection process and the limited number of contextual factors. Future research may examine a number of avenues related to the current study, including incorporating the acquiring firms’ financial characteristics.

The study provides a better understanding of the influence of contextual factors on the success and failure of strategic investment projects such as acquisitions. Results of post-acquisitions performance in UK firms show how estimation of value can be distracted at the pre-acquisition stage because of overconfident managers.

Results of post-acquisitions performance in UK firms show how estimation of value can be distracted at the pre-acquisition stage because of overconfident managers.

Within the context of mergers and acquisitions, the purpose of this paper is to clarify the relationship between the deal initiator and various outcomes of the deal, particularly in consideration of the cash position of the acquiring firm.

Using hand-collected deal initiation data from various filings on the Securities Exchange Commission EDGAR online database, this paper performs a series of event study analyses, multivariate analyses, a Heckman two-step estimation procedure, and an instrumental variable approach to examine merger outcomes.

This paper finds that many merger and acquisition (M&A) outcomes (target and acquirer announcement returns, acquirer long-run returns, premiums, and the method of payment) are significantly related to deal initiation, particularly in consideration of the cash position of the acquiring firm. Overall, evidence is seen as consistent with the theory that “lemons” selectively approach cash-rich acquirers, often to the acquirers’ detriment.

This paper finds that target-initiated deals are not necessarily associated with poorer transaction outcomes for targets as contemporaneous studies suggest, and presents the first empirical evidence of M&A outcomes related to the deal initiator which are dependent on the cash position of the acquiring firm.

This paper aims to review the relevant literature on mergers and acquisitions in an attempt to provide a comprehensive account of what we know about mergers and which parts of the puzzle are still incomplete.

This literature review consists of three key sections. The first part of this paper summarises the literature on the cyclical nature of mergers referred to in the literature as merger waves. The second section reviews the causes and consequences of takeovers; it first reviews the causes, or drivers, of acquisitions, while focusing on the fact that acquisitions happen in waves and then reviews the consequences of takeovers, with a predominant focus on the impacts of mergers on the economic performance of acquirers. The third part of the review summarises the theories, as well as previous empirical studies, on determinants of announcement returns and post-acquisition performance of combined firms.

Merger activity demonstrates a wavy pattern, i.e. mergers are clustered in industries through time. The causes suggested for this fluctuating pattern include industry- and economy-level shocks, mis-valuation and managerial herding. Market reaction to announcement of acquisitions is, on average, slightly negative for acquirer stocks and significantly positive for target stocks. The combined abnormal return is positive. These findings have been consistent over several decades of investigation. Prior research also identifies a number of factors that are related to performance of acquisitions. These factors are categorised and reviewed in five different groups: acquirer characteristics, target characteristics, bid characteristics, industry characteristics and macro-environment characteristics.

This review illustrates a number of issues. Prior research is heavily biased towards gains to acquirers and factors that affect these gains. It is also biased towards finding sources of value creation through mergers despite the fact that several theories suggest that mergers can be value-destroying. In fact, value destruction is often attributed to managers’ self-interest (agency problem) and mistakes (hubris). However, the mechanisms through which mergers destroy value are rarely addressed. Aside from that, the possibility of simultaneous creation and destruction of value in acquisitions is not often considered. Finally, after several decades of investigation, a key question is not completely answered yet: “What are the sources of value in mergers and acquisitions?”

The international market entry strategy by acquisition is one of the critical options for success in international business. The decision to acquire a local firm is expected to impact the post-entry financial performance of the local firm as the acquirers come with proprietary advantages to improve the overall performance of the acquired company. The purpose of this paper is to empirically examine the post-acquisition financial performance of acquired foreign subsidiaries and comparable unacquired local firms in Ghana to determine the effect of foreign acquisition on the financial performance of the local subsidiaries.

A quantitative approach was adopted in this study. A sample of 100 locally acquired and non-acquired firms were studied using purposive and convenience sampling method. The research adopted the propensity score matching and the differences in difference methodologies to determine the returns on assets (ROA) of non-acquired local firms and acquired foreign subsidiaries are compared one year pre-acquisition t₁ to two years post-acquisition t₂.

The results demonstrate a higher post-acquisition financial performance of locally acquired foreign subsidiaries in relation to their local counterparts in Ghana. Firms with pre-acquisition modernized ownership structures performed better than state-owned firms and firms with high pre-acquisition absorptive capacity outperformed firms with lower pre-acquisition absorptive capacity. The results also indicate that ROA for acquired local firms in the year of acquisition drops in relation to the year prior to acquisition

A major limitation of this research is that the relative capability of the parent companies and experience in the transfer of knowledge to the acquired local subsidiaries was not considered. The real impact of the various multinationals would have revealed how the capability and competencies of the different parent companies whose subsidiaries this study considered in the paper make a difference in their performance. The study did not also consider the value of parent company participation in the local management of the acquired subsidiaries. Whereas some acquired firms had parent company staff participating in the local management, others did not have same, thus challenging the performance results without any control of this variable. The other limitation of this research is the fact that it did not also consider the experience of the parent company as a factor that can influence the performance of the subsidiary. The more experienced the parent company is in engaging foreign markets, the more likely the support for the subsidiary will result in higher performance as parent company brings previous learnings. Another limitation of this study is that it measures the financials only (ROA) and hence does not provide a 360° assessment of the subsidiary performance, which includes the operational and overall subsidiary effectiveness. This research has not empirically examined all aspects of foreign acquisitions in Ghana and thus has many aspects for future exploration that other researchers may focus on. The paper has not considered the experience and capability of the parent company to transfer technology, innovation and all the advantages of multinationals to the post-acquisition performance of subsidiaries. More experienced multinationals are most likely to transfer knowledge faster to subsidiaries than less experienced ones, thus likely to show better performance post-acquisition than the less experienced ones. The effect of this phenomenon has not been considered in this study. Parent company participation in the local management of the subsidiary can also make a difference in the post-acquisition performance equation but this has not been considered in this research. Some parent companies actively participate in the local subsidiary management as management support for the subsidiary. This might have some effect on the subsidiary post-acquisition performance but this study does consider this. Other researchers may want to look into this factor. Future researchers may also assess the differences in performance of subsidiaries that are wholly owned and partial owned in Ghana. The performance of Greenfield joint ventures and local firm acquisitions can also be studied.

Findings of this research has implications for firms using acquisition as foreign market entry strategy to inform the choice of local partners to select for acquisitions as pre-acquisition ownership structure and absorptive capacity of local Ghanaian firms impact post-acquisitions performance. Ghanaian firms also seeking to attract foreign investments into their businesses will also find the results useful as they organize to meet prospective acquirers’ expectations, for example, building their human capacity and ownership structures, developing export and ensuring debt rations to attract potential acquirers.

Acquisitions as an international market entry strategy continue to gain grounds with lots of research in the area. However, there is scanty research on post-acquisition financial performance, especially in the developing country context, and this paper fills that yawning knowledge gap by comparing acquired and non-acquired local firms in Ghana to determine if foreign acquisitions lead to better ROA.

We empirically investigate the hypothesis that the less transparent (more difficult to value) the target’s assets are the more likely it is that the acquiring firm can obtain higher short- and long-term returns. We analyze a sample of 1,538 friendly acquisitions partitioned in two separate dimensions: acquisitions of public versus private firms, and acquisitions of a firm’s assets versus acquisitions of a firm’s assets and its management. Using a sample of (nondiversifying) real estate transactions with a public REIT as the acquirer, we find that acquisitions of public firms have insignificant short-term abnormal returns. Acquisitions of private targets have positive and significant short-term abnormal returns. The acquirer’s abnormal returns are higher in both cases when the transactions involve acquisition of the target firm’s management. We find parallel results when analyzing the acquirer’s Q over the merger year and the three following years. Our conclusions are robust to the type of financing (cash, stock, or a combination) used in the acquisition.

This study uses cross-border mergers as a test of the ability of foreign directors to provide effective strategic advising. We find that firms with foreign directors on their boards are more likely to engage in cross-border mergers, pursue a higher number of cross-border mergers, and invest more in those mergers. We further determine that firms with foreign directors are more likely to undertake nondiversifying mergers, enjoy friendly mergers, and acquire privately held targets. Moreover, we find that firms with foreign directors have higher announcement period returns and pay less for their cross-border targets.

The volume of acquisitions involving privately held targets has far surpassed that of publicly traded firms in recent years; yet, surprisingly little research has examined private target acquisitions. By analyzing the unique features of the market for private targets, we compare the potential for value creation and value capture in private and public target acquisitions. We argue that the corporate context of private targets does not provide the same opportunities for curbing agency costs and sharing intangible resources than the context of public targets, which reduces the value creation potential for the buyer. On the other hand, private targets have lower bargaining power vis-à-vis acquirers because of higher failures in the market for corporate control of private firms and liquidity discount, which increases the value creation potential for the buyer. The net value creation potential of acquiring private targets, therefore, depends on the relative importance of their agency costs, resource sharing opportunities, and bargaining power.