Search results

Are divestitures really just the “flip side” of acquisitions? Both divestiture and acquisition are important processes for firm scope change. Frequently, these processes are considered to be “two sides of the same coin” wherein a divestiture is simply an acquisition performed “in reverse.” In contrast to this perspective, the authors submit that these two corporate strategic processes have fundamental differences in their motivations, implementation, and ramifications. Failure to recognize and address these differences could have serious consequences for firms, especially in the domains of capability development and deployment. In this chapter, the authors begin by recognizing the similarities between divestitures and acquisitions that have contributed to their “mirror image” reputations. The authors then identify and categorize the major differences between divestitures and acquisitions and explain how these distinctions can present significant challenges to firms when building and utilizing their corresponding divestiture and acquisition capabilities. Finally, the authors leverage these insights to develop not only suggestions for future research but also recommendations for firms to avoid succumbing to the fallacy of sameness between divestitures and acquisitions – and perhaps even successfully exploit it – when building, wielding, and honing the tools in their capability portfolios.

The paper aims at extending extant research on sources of divestiture gains by suggesting a novel program‐based perspective on divestitures and analyzing the performance of program divestitures in comparison to single “stand‐alone” divestitures.

Based on event study methodology, the authors analyze the abnormal returns of 160 divestiture announcements within the global insurance industry between 1998 and 2007. In contrast to prior research which relied on ex post statistical clustering to identify transaction programs, ad hoc corporate press releases issued with the divestiture announcements are used to categorize program divestitures.

Empirical results suggest that program divestitures generate higher abnormal returns than stand‐alone divestitures. Further analyses into the sources for these higher gains, however, do not provide support for experience effects as significant explanatory factors. Instead, results suggest that the scheduling of divestitures significantly impacts announcement returns.

The scope and single industry setting of the study suggest future cross‐industry research on the influence of divestiture program characteristics on divestiture performance and the conditions under which these programs improve divestiture performance.

Managers are advised to refrain from piecemeal divestiture behavior lacking clear strategic focus. Instead, they are encouraged to bundle their divestitures as part of a divestiture program with a clear strategic intent and shared business logic.

While prior research on divestitures has treated divestitures as isolated events, the paper directs attention towards the analysis of divestiture programs. Further, experience and timing effects, which have been widely absent from prior divestiture studies, are considered.

This paper investigates the relationship between divestiture activity and subsequent acquisition deal-making. We argue that the divestiture activity of firms influences their acquisition behavior through corporate restructuring learning effects and enhanced strategic flexibility. These organizational spillovers affect not only the degree of risk acquirers are ready to take but also their ability to effectively negotiate with the target firm. We test the existence of organizational spillovers for an international sample of 4,795 acquirers for the period 1990–2008 and get support for our theoretical predictions.

The purpose of this research is to study the impact of divestitures on shareholder wealth. This study covers selloffs of publicly traded companies in Germany, Austria and Switzerland (DACH region) during the period 2002–2018. It aims to understand the overall effect of selloffs on shareholder wealth as well as the impact of important influencing factors.

This study is part of capital market studies which investigate shareholder wealth effects (abnormal returns) using event study methodology. To determine the significance of abnormal returns, a standardized cross-sectional test as suggested by Boehmer et al. (1991) was applied. The sample consists of 393 selloffs of publicly traded companies with a deal value of at least EUR 10m.

The findings confirm the overall positive impact of selloffs on shareholder wealth. The average abnormal return on the announcement day of the sample companies amounts to 1.33%. The type of buyer, the relative size of the transaction as well as the financial situation of the seller in particular seem to influence abnormal returns positively.

This study investigates shareholder wealth creation through selloffs in the DACH region, a largely neglected region in divestiture research, but now very relevant due to increasing pressure of active foreign investors. Sophisticated statistical methods were used to generate robust findings, which are in line with the results of similar studies for the US and the UK.

The purpose of this paper is to examine two different choices of corporate divestiture for US firms: selling off assets to public firms or issuing stocks in equity carve-outs. The authors identify industry-related, firm-specific, deal-related and market-timing factors that influence the choice between the two methods of divestiture.

The authors use the univariate tests, logistic regressions and buy-and-hold excess return computations to identify industry-related, firm-specific, deal-related and market-timing factors that influence the choice between the two methods of divestiture.

The results show that industry concentration, relative “hotness” of the equity carve-out market, market values of divested units and firm’s growth opportunities are all positively related to the probability of an equity carve-out selection. In contrast, firms in financial service industry, firms that divest smaller units and firms with higher asymmetric information mainly choose to divest assets through asset sell-offs. The findings also indicate that firms with higher leverage and/or higher cash flow constraint show a stronger likelihood for choosing either the equity carve-out option or asset sell-off with cash payment over asset sell-off with stock payment. In the long run, firms that sell-off their assets experienced better performance relative to firms that choose to carve-out.

The authors recognize several limitations of this study. First, the findings use the data collected in the US market. These findings may not be necessarily true to non-US firms. Therefore, one possible extension of this paper is to further examine the determinants that drive the methods of divestiture for non-US firms. Second, the authors have not examined the association between the choices of divestiture and the subsequent long-term operating performance of the firms. This could be another interesting direction for research in the future.

The findings have some implication for the divestiture literature by providing a set of determinants which play important roles on firms’ choice between an asset sell-off and an equity carve-out. The findings also have important implications for a potential acquirer who is interested in buying a firm’s subsidiary. Specifically, by analyzing the aforementioned influencing factors, the acquirer might foresee the possibility of a carve-out method and plan its bidding offer accordingly. From investors’ perspective, knowing which factors affect firms’ divesting methods and their subsequent long-run stock performance is undoubtedly beneficial to their investment strategies.

Prior research has attempted to address the reasons why firms divest or the outcomes of those actions. This paper focuses on the factors that influence the choice of sell-off versus carve-out once the decision to divest has been made. In addition, the authors look at a wide range of factors including industry-related, firm-specific, deal-related and market timing.

There are multiple perspectives of divestiture and its performance that require reconciliation. While research finds a positive market response to divestment announcement, divestiture of prior acquisitions are generally viewed negatively. The purpose of this paper is to develop and empirically test different explanations for the divestment of prior acquisitions.

This research employs event study to capture market reaction at acquisition announcement and subsequent divestments in a sample of 69 public US high-technology acquisitions between 2003 and 2008 that were divested by 2015. Only initial acquisitions involving public firms were included from the Thomson One Banker SDC database. Public press releases and companies’ SEC filings were reviewed to track divestitures back to prior acquisitions. Ordinary least squared regression was used to estimate coefficients.

Results indicate a positive relation between acquisition and divestiture performance around announcement dates. This finding rejects the correction of mistake explanation, suggesting that a negative stigma surrounding divestments is largely unwarranted and that investors reward capable acquirer’s divestiture decisions.

Investors do not treat all information signals at divestiture equally. For example, acquisitions made by larger and more profitable firms, or acquisitions paid for with stock, are associated with lower return upon divestiture announcement.

This study finds that investors view divestiture as a proactive strategy, suggesting firms can improve performance by actively managing acquisitions and divestments to optimize their portfolio of businesses.

To determine whether the abnormal returns accruing to UK companies undertaking a divestiture are different when the unit sold is in the UK or elsewhere and to specifically hypothesize that returns generated by a domestic sale will be higher than those resulting from an overseas sale.

Using a sample of 668 divestitures reported on securities data corporation (SDC) Platinum database, and share price data from DataStream, both abnormal returns and cumulative abnormal returns (CARs) are calculated around the announcement date using the market model.

That the announcement of a divestiture generates positive abnormal returns for shareholders. Further, that the announcement of a UK divestiture generates a significantly larger positive market reaction than the announcement of an overseas divestiture. For the divestiture of units located outside the UK it is found that the largest CARs are generated when the buying firm is based in the UK.

Here the existing work on divestiture announcement effects is extended by taking into account the location of the divested unit and the location of the buying firm. This allows one to investigate whether market reaction to an announcement of a divestiture is influenced by both the location of the unit sold and the location of the buying company.

The case was developed from secondary sources and interviews with a security analyst. The secondary sources include company annual reports, news reports, analyst reports, industry reports, company websites, stock exchange websites and databases such as Bloomberg and CMIE Prowess.

Increasing competition in product and capital markets has put tremendous pressure on managers to become more cost competitive. To address their firms' uncompetitive cost structures, managers may have to consider dramatic restructuring of their businesses. During 2014–2017, Tata Steel Ltd (TSL) UK considered a series of divestitures and a merger plan to nurse the company back to health. The case considers the economics of the restructuring plan. The case is designed to help students analyze a corporate downsizing program undertaken by a large Indian company in the UK and to highlight the dynamic role of the CFO and governance issues in family firms. It introduces students to issues surrounding a typical restructuring and provides students a platform to practice the estimation of value creation in a restructuring exercise. While some cases on corporate restructuring in the context of developed economies are available, there are very few cases written in an emerging market context. This case bridges that gap. TSL presents a unique opportunity to study corporate restructuring necessitated by a failed cross-border acquisition. It illustrates the potential for value loss in large, cross-border acquisitions. It shows how managerial hubris can prompt family firm owners to overbid in acquisitions and create legacy hot spots. In addition, the case can be used to discuss the causes of governance failures such as weak institutional monitoring and poor legal enforcement in emerging markets that could potentially harm minority shareholders.

The case was developed from secondary sources and interviews with a security analyst. The secondary sources include company annual reports, news reports, analyst reports, industry reports, company websites, stock exchange websites and databases such as Bloomberg and CMIE Prowess.

The purpose of this paper is to review the existing research on industrial divestment in order to identify the reasons for it, the process whereby it is achieved, and the outcomes of industrial sell-offs and closures. The study reports the main findings that have gained acceptance in the literature, gaps in the research and potential directions for future research.

A three stage systematic literature review protocol was used to conduct this review. The results are organized according to an “Antecedents – Process – Outcomes” framework.

The traditional accounts of industrial divestment have been framed in terms of firms’ weak performance and over-diversification as antecedents to divestment, leading to corporate governance issues. However, the list of antecedents of industrial divestment is more extensive. There is no consensus over the impact of some factors on divestments, as is the case of firm and unit size. The results are not conclusive as to whether firm performance improves after divesting.

Future research should analyze the relationship between the antecedents of investment and divestment. The divestment process is not well studied and more studies that engage in theory building are needed, namely, on primary data and examining the short-term and long-term impacts of divestment on performance.

This review offers a comprehensive synthesis of the antecedents, the process and outcomes of divestment through sell-offs and closures. Factors such as environmental conditions and the entry mode strategy are important in determining the divestment of subsidiaries. Divestments may be positively or negatively regarded by shareholders, depending on the context of the firm. Promoting managerial changes facilitates divestment.

This paper synthesizes knowledge of the main reasons as to why firms completely dispose of their assets, contributing to this under-researched field.