Search results

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 aims to investigate the causes of mergers and acquisitions (M&A) deals that acquiring firms pay excess premium beyond the market-expected level and examine the relation between the announcement return and long-term performance of the acquiring firms.

Based on a sample of 1,767 US firms’ M&A deals from 2000 to 2014, the authors use the expectation model used by Ang and Ismail (2015) to measure normal offer premium in an M&A deal. They conduct the standard event study methodology to observe the market reaction for acquiring companies on the announcement day. Buy-and-hold abnormal returns are used for the main explanatory variable so as to find the impact of the premium paid on the long-term performance of the acquirer.

First, acquiring firms are faced with negative market returns when acquiring firms pay excess premiums. Second, poor long-term performance of the acquiring firms is observed if acquiring firms pay excess premium. Finally, the negative relation between excess premium and acquiring firms’ long-term performance weakens, as the sample period becomes longer.

The hypotheses and results of the empirical study are as follows. First, the acquirer’s market reaction on the announcement day is negative when it pays an excess offer premium. This is because the market perceives the premium to be greater than the value of the deal, which damages the value of the market, as it is not perceived as a proxy for future synergy. Second, the acquirer’s long-term performance is low when it pays the excess offer premium. It is the same result as the acquirer’s market reaction on the announcement day. This shows that the excess premium does not result in either a short-term positive reaction or a long-term profit for the acquiring shareholders. However, it is found that the relationship between the excess premium and the long-term performance of the acquirer decreases with time. This is because the long-term performance of the acquirer is more affected by management and other events after the deal.

The authors divide the total premium paid into the normal offer premium and the excess premium, and their focus is on the excess premium part. The main contribution of this paper is that it analyzes how the excess premium affects the market reaction on the announcement day and the long-term performance of acquiring firms.

The purpose of this paper is to empirically examine the relationships between acquirer size and performance outcomes of the different process of acquisition in the Chinese context and the moderating effect of political connections on the size-performance relationship.

Building upon agency theory, the paper examines the relationship between acquirer size and acquisition announcement returns to find whether the acquirer size effect exists in China. Moreover, the paper investigates whether large firms can perform better in the long run arising from scale economy. Finally, the paper examines the moderating effect of political connections on the size-performance relationship. Accounting for the complexity of political connections in China, the paper uses two methods to capture political connections.

The paper finds that acquirer size plays a significant negative role on announcement returns, suggesting that the acquirer size effect also exists in China. However, acquirer size has a significant positive impact on long-term performance, indicating that large acquirers perform better in the integration process. Although no evidence shows that political connections can bring some off-setting benefits to acquirer size effect argued by Humphery-Jenner and Powell (2014), political connections, indeed, have a positive effect on mergers and acquisitions (M&As) announcement returns.

The paper contributes to the corporate characteristic, political connections and M&A performance literature. Due to agency problem and scale economy, the effect of firm size on acquisition performance varies with the stage of M&A. Political connections can bring some benefits to M&A deals.

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?”

This paper investigates the Jensen's free cash flow (FCF) hypothesis in the context of UK cash acquisitions. Under this hypothesis, financial slack induces mangers to acquire targets for cash if such behaviour generates either pecuniary or non‐pecuniary rewards for them, giving rise to a potential agency problem around cash takeovers. We argue that the stronger position of shareholders, as opposed to firm managers, in the UK should help in constraining such potential agency problems around such mergers. Compared to the USA, position, this should make the FCF hypothesis less relevant in the UK.

This paper uses short‐run announcement period returns and long‐run calendar‐time returns in testing our hypotheses.

This paper shows that low leverage and high FCF may be advantageous provided shareholder monitoring is adequate. By analysing both announcement period and long‐term returns, we show that acquirers with high levels of FCF are superior performers, and that any long‐run under‐performance of cash acquirers appears to be associated with low cash resources and low institutional ownership.

Inevitably, long‐run returns measurement is contentious, although we present results from alternative models to mitigate this. Limitations are necessarily imposed by the sample size, meaning that multi‐way partitioning of the data is not feasible.

The practical implications are that the UK regulatory and institutional ownership regime may actually protect the interests of shareholders and mitigate agency problems.

As far as we are aware, this is the first paper to systematically test FCF, leverage and institutional ownership effects in the context of UK cash acquisitions.

Motivated by the findings of Bhabra and Hossain (2017) that highlight an improvement in US market performance in the post-Sarbanes–Oxley (SOX) period, this paper aims to investigate how this change varies with the methods of payment used for the deals.

Deductive in nature and using an event study approach, this paper uses a sample of 675 deals between 1999 and 2006 to test three research hypotheses in a pre-post setting.

Results show that at the aggregate level, there is a significant improvement in the market performance of US acquirers around the announcement day in the aftermath of the passage of SOX 2002. Considered separately, both US stock acquirers and cash acquirers did not experience any significant improvement in market performance in the post-Sarbanes–Oxley period. These results are robust to controlling for governance, firm and deal variables, as well as industry and year fixed effects.

Exploratory in nature, the results are to be interpreted in light of the sample size and the period under investigation.

The results provide evidence for regulators and legislators on the contribution of SOX 2002 to curbing managerial misconduct. Significant improvement in the market performance also signals more confidence in managerial decisions and a reduction in agency problems. The insignificant change in stock acquirers’ market performance can be an indication that policymakers should exert more efforts to improve shareholders' confidence in the quality of disclosure.

This investigation provides unique insights on whether SOX has been effective in mitigating mispricing concerns associated with stock-financed acquisitions and whether it was effective in moderating the governance mechanism associated with cash-financed acquisitions.

The purpose of this paper is to test whether bank mergers are driven by equity overvaluation and management compensation incentives.

To test whether equity mispricing drive bank mergers, the authors employ two alternative price-to-residual income valuation (P/V) measures for bidders and targets while the authors control for their growth prospects with the price-to-book (P/B) (two years before) ratio. The intrinsic value (V) is estimated using the three-period forecast horizon residual income model of Ohlson (1995) and perpetual residual income model that does not rely on analysts’ forecasts of future earnings prospects. The latter measure allows the authors to estimate V for a much larger sample of banks. The empirical analysis is supplemented with a standard event analysis and assessment of the long-term performance of bank mergers subsequent to the announcement date.

The evidence shows that bidders are overvalued relative to their targets, especially in equity offer deals. The authors also find that highly valued bidders: are more likely to use stock than cash; are willing to pay more relative to the target market price; are more likely to acquire private than public targets; earn lower announcement-period returns; fail to create synergy gains; experience long-term underperformance; and reward their top managers of with large compensation increases subsequent to mergers.

This study provides results consistent with the view that behavioral and managerial incentives play an important role in motivating bank mergers.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze mergers and acquisitions (M&A) focusing on the US pharmaceutical industry in the period 1981‐2004. This industry is chosen because it is global, it engages intensively in M&A which it uses to both complement and substitute for early stage research, and because the potential abnormal returns to blockbuster drugs are substantial. It is assumed that if abnormal returns to M&A exist in the short and long run, this is the industry to find them.

The study examines short‐term abnormal returns separating mergers from acquisitions and US‐based from foreign‐based M&A targets. It examined 405 mergers and acquisitions during 1981‐2004 to address the issues of our research.

Evidence of short and long‐term abnormal returns, as well as accounting and efficiency effects are found for acquisitions but not for mergers. However, the tests do suggest that mergers with US‐based targets are not value destroying. It is also found that there are differences as to the effects of acquisitions of foreign‐based, as opposed to US‐based targets.

Taken in total, the results provide support for the view that in the pharmaceutical industry, acquisitions of US‐based companies have a positive impact on wealth creation for company shareholders.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact of cross-border acquisitions (CBAs) on the financial and operating performance of acquiring firms from emerging economies in the long-term; the acquiring firms have been segregated into frequent (multiple) and first-time (single) acquirers based on their prior cross-border experience. The intent is to identify if overseas activities bring over and above advantage to multiple acquirers in terms of enhanced financial synergies and reduced costs, motivating them to engage in sequential international transactions.

The paper analyses the impact of CBAs announced and completed during 2004–2013 by Indian companies listed on the NIFTY 500 index. The post-acquisition financial and operating performance of Indian cross-border acquirers has been compared with their pre-acquisition performance. The average performance over three-years immediately preceding the acquisition year constitutes the benchmark for the post-acquisition performance. The post-acquisition period includes a year of integration followed by three successive post-integration years. Therefore, in operational terms, the research period extends from 2001–2017. The long-term performance of frequent (multiple) and first-time (single) Indian acquirers has been investigated comprehensively using a set of 16 financial ratios. The performance has been assessed using the secondary data collected from financial statements of acquiring companies; the financial statements and the list of CBAs by Indian companies have been obtained from Thomson Reuter’s EIKON database.

The financial and operating performance of frequent as well as first-time acquirers have depicted a similarly deteriorating trend during the post-acquisition period. These findings indicate that the international expansion of Indian companies is not guided by synergy creation potential and may be pushed by the overconfidence or over-optimism and agency conflicts of managers. This, perhaps, indicates that firms are being imprudent in investing free cash flows available with them.

The study is the first of its kind. No study, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, has analysed the performance of acquiring firms by segregating them into frequent and first-time acquirers using accounting measures of performance. More so, an extensive analysis of the long-term financial and operating performance of acquiring companies is rare to come across in the extant literature.

This paper aims to illuminate the issue of whether there is a significant difference between long-term abnormal return of acquirers across industries, and which industries achieve better returns.

This paper investigates whether there is a significant difference between abnormal return of acquirers across industries. The impact of timing of the deal on the acquirer returns is also studied in this paper. In the regression analysis, we control for acquirer’s size along with a number of deal characteristics, such as method of payment, the mode of the acquisition, the diversifying nature of the deal and value of the deal, to examine whether the differences in acquirer returns across industries persist when these factors are taken into account.

The results of the study propose discrepancy in acquirers’ long-term abnormal returns across industries. While a number of industries, such as petroleum and natural gas, insurance and machinery, experienced significantly positive abnormal performance, others like business services and medical equipment have demonstrated significantly negative long-term returns.

This paper investigates the industry impact on performance of acquirers. The results of this research provide more comprehensive evidence from all of the industries that have been involved in mergers and acquisition deals during the period 1981-2007 so that the returns of different industries can be compared. Most importantly, the evidence rejects the equality of mean abnormal returns across industries at significant levels.