Search results

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.

Cross‐border mergers and acquisitions present significant opportunities for firms wishing to diversify their activities geographically, learn new knowledge, and gain access to valuable resources. Cross‐border mergers and acquisitions present multiple challenges as well. These include the difficulty of evaluating target firms, cultural and institutional differences, and the liabilities of foreignness among others. We compare acquisitions to enter new markets with other market entry mechanisms (strategic alliances and greenfield ventures), and conclude with suggestions for future research to advance our knowledge of this strategy of increasing importance globally.

Drawing attention to the significant number of unsuccessful (abandoned) cross-border merger and acquisition (M&A) transactions in recent years, the purpose of this paper is to analyze three litigated cross-border inbound acquisitions that associated with an emerging economy – India, such as Vodafone-Hutchison and Bharti Airtel-MTN deals in the telecommunications industry, and Vedanta-Cairn India deal in the oil and gas exploration industry. The study intends to explore how do institutional and political environments in the host country affect the completion likelihood of cross-border acquisition negotiations.

Nested within the interdisciplinary framework, the study adopts a legitimate method in qualitative research, that is, case study method, and performs a unit of analysis and cross-case analysis of sample cases.

The critical analysis suggests that government officials’ erratic nature and ruling political party intervention have detrimental effects on the success of Indian-hosted cross-border deals with higher bid value, listed target firm, cash payment, and stronger government control in the target industry. The findings emerge from the cross-case analysis of sample cases contribute to the Lucas paradox – why does not capital flow from rich to poor countries and interdisciplinary M&A literature on the completion likelihood of international takeovers.

The findings have several implications for multinational managers who typically involve in cross-border negotiations. The causes and consequences of sample cases would help develop economy firms who intend to invest in emerging economies. The study also offers some implications of M&A for telecommunications and extractive industries.

Although a huge amount of extant research investigates why M&A fail to create value to the shareholders during the public announcement and post-merger stages, there is a significant dearth of research on the causes and consequences of delayed or abandoned national and international deals. The paper fills this knowledge gap by discussing an in-depth cross-case analysis of Indian-hosted cross-border acquisitions.

The paper aims to reveal the attitude of the Russian competition authorities towards cross-border mergers involving foreign buyers. The study addresses the following question: Is the probability of Russian competition authorities' intervention significantly different when a foreign buyer takes part in the merger? This is the key test to reveal whether competition authorities gravitate towards “economic nationalism” or “promotion of foreign investments”.

The discrete choice model is applied to the dataset of 7,607 merger cases investigated by the Russian competition authorities between 2012 and 2017. The probability of competition authorities' intervention, such as merger correction by using remedies or deal rejection, is used as a measure of special attention.

The study finds out favoritism patterns of the regulator with regard to foreign companies. In particular, the deals involving a foreign buyer had less chance of intervention, i.e. imposition of remedies, from national competition authorities. The sanctions period does not moderate the probability of approval of a cross-border merger with foreign buyers by the Russian competition authorities.

The paper contributes to merger control literature by addressing the political economy issues. It discovers that, besides regulation by the law, there are hidden motives, such as protectionism or favoritism of foreign companies, which could drive the regulator's decision. Therefore, the studies of cross-border mergers provide an opportunity to investigate the political issues of merger control through the identification of a special attitude to foreign companies and analysis of regularities that might explain such a policy.

The purpose of this paper is to address two research questions. First: what causes an small and medium enterprises (SME) to engage in a merger with a multinational group and thereby change its relationships and to start functioning in a hierarchical structure which may be viewed as being the integration of a weaker entity by a stronger and bigger one? And second: what causes the successful continuation of a cross-border merger project from the perspective of an SME?

The concept of the network position is adopted to undertake a longitudinal study of an IT company from Poland.

From the perspective of the SME, its own perceived important network position resulting from the resources it possesses, the ability to decide how they are utilised, as well as relationships strongly supported by trust and a good atmosphere are key motives and success factors for the merger.

By adapting the IMP research perspective and the concept of network position to the analysis of mergers the additional aspects of the merger process which are usually not raised in relevant traditional mergers and acquisitions literature are revealed. A merger is not just the sourcing of resources, but also interdependencies and taking joint decisions with regard to them; not just economic aspects, but also social aspects of relationships (trust and atmosphere); not just the sharing of resources between merged entities, but also the constant influence of other relationships and interactions on these resources.

The aim of this research is to find out which mergers and acquisitions (M&A) market is better able to absorb all the shocks from legislations in securities and banking in Europe and the USA, 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks in the USA, and other global events. The most exogenous or self‐dependent market may be the mover and shaker in the M&A deals in the world. The sample period spans from October 1998 to September 2004.

This research uses cointegration and innovation accounting techniques (variance decomposition analysis and impulse response functions) to find out: if the two M&A markets are linked and explained each other in the long‐run; which of the two markets can able to withstand all the list shocks in the observed period; how long each of the market is about to deal with the shocks (are the shocks long‐lasting or short‐lasting?).

The major findings are: The cointegration results indicate that the M&A markets in Europe and the USA tend to move together in the long‐run, particularly, the European M&A deals (EUMA) and US cross‐border M&A deals in Europe (USCROSS). On one hand, the most consistent result from the variance decomposition analysis and impulse response functions is that the European M&A market is the most exogenous or self‐dependent market in the observed period. On the other hand, the most interactive market (less able to deal with the shocks) is the US M&A market (USMA) because it is significantly impacted by the legislations in securities and banking, 9/11 and other global events. US cross‐border M&A deals in Europe (USCROSS) and European cross‐border M&A deals in the USA (EUCROSS) are able to deal with the shocks when the order of VAR is 6. However, when the order of VAR is extended to 12 they are less able to absorb the shocks.

The limitation of the data at that time did not allow examination of US M&A deals with individual European countries, particularly, United Kingdom that has historically invested in the US more than any country in Europe.

The pivotal conclusion of this study suggests that EUMA and USCROOS move together in the long‐run and EUMA is the strongest market in dealing with shocks, the world business may be gradually shifting to Europe. Practically, most of the multinational corporations (MNCs), especially the US MNCs are craving for market niches in Europe.

The real value of this paper is that the changing financial landscape is the US implies that all the shake‐up may lead to Europe. Philosophically, “all roads lead to Rome” New trends in world business is that the center of gravity in business may be pointing to Europe.

Cross-border M&A has become one of the leading approaches for firms to gain access to global markets. Yet there has been little progress in the research literature exploring the role that culture may play in the success of these ventures. Poor culture-fit has often been cited as one reason why M&A has not produced the outcomes organizations hoped for (Cartwright & Schoenberg, 2006). Cross-border M&A has the added challenges of having to deal with both national and organizational culture differences. In this chapter we review the literature on cultural integration in cross-border M&A and provide a framework designed to help manage the integration process throughout the M&A lifecycle. This framework presents culture assessment and integration as a crucial component to reducing poor culture-fit as a barrier to M&A success.

Cross-border mergers and acquisitions are now the fundamental mechanisms of globalization and considered as prime vehicles for business engagement across the countries through the foreign direct investment route. Significant amounts of foreign funds are crossing the country borders for acquisitions with the objectives of earning super normal returns. But realizing super normal returns from foreign acquisitions are far more difficult than that of foreign greenfield projects or domestic M&As or greenfield projects. The super normal profit itself is “synergy” which is the main driving force for any M&A including the cross-border one. Even though foreign policies of individual countries affect cross-border M&A decisions, corporate and market-driven financial numbers significantly influence the synergy estimation. Synergy should bring in all round greater efficiency and value addition to all stakeholders. But if the cross-border deal is not financially crafted properly, it may fall flat causing more distress to the acquirer compared to domestic acquisition. The theory of synergy is well developed which mostly applies to the domestic M&As. But due to inherent differences between cross-border and domestic M&As, the same synergy theory may not apply equally to the cross-border ones. Therefore, a different connotation of synergy is propounded in this work for cross-border M&As, which can be a corollary to the conventional theory of synergy. This alternative theory of synergy aims at helping the companies in developing their own financial strategies before making their strategic decisions for cross-border M&A deals.

We examine the market valuation of targets with multiple large shareholders (MLS) and single large shareholder (SLS) structures, in an international sample of M&A announcement in 19 countries outside North America. We find that the presence and power of MLS in these firms are negatively associated with abnormal returns and first-bid-to-merger-completion returns, suggesting that MLS mitigate agency problems in the target, and hence their acquisition is perceived as “a loss of good governance.” The negative association between MLS targets and returns is stronger in widely held firms suggesting that MLS indeed curb expropriation of minority shareholders. By contrast, when the second largest shareholder in the MLS structure of the target is a family, we find positive cumulative abnormal returns at the merger announcement, suggesting exacerbated agency problems in these firms that should benefit from the “acquisition of good governance.” Our evidence is robust to a battery of tests and to addressing potential endogeneity.

Suggests that EU legislation has induced enormous changes in the structure of the European financial markets, and that financial institutions increasingly modify their strategies to cope with the new developments. Identifies which type of corporate strategy enhances organizational efficiency. The position developed is that, at the national level, a multipurpose institution (or “financial supermarket”, offering a range of financial services, such as banking, insurance, pensions, etc.), with quasiindependent entities, could serve this objective. At the European level, given the remaining obstacles to financial integration, the risks and the high costs of cross‐border mergers and acquisitions, alliances of financial institutions appear to be the appropriate response.