Search results

In order to overcome potential limitations in their own experience with a strategic action, firms will often outsource to expert firms that have greater experience with such actions. In this study, the authors contribute to theory on organizational experience and learning by examining an important but understudied type of experience – outsourced experience. The authors show whether, and under what conditions, such experience may be beneficial for focal firms. In the context of acquisitions, the authors find that outsourced acquisition experience brought to acquisition deals by advisors is typically assessed by markets to be detrimental but may become beneficial if such experience is specific to the acquirer’s context. Further, the authors find that acquirers’ own knowledge can signal that they are less reliant on advisor experience, thus mitigating its potentially harmful effects. Theoretical and practical implications of the results are discussed.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the influence of the target firm’s high-tech status on the share of ownership decision in cross-border acquisitions (CBAs), which is an under-explored topic in cross-border M&A literature.

The authors used Tobit regression and tested the hypotheses using a sample of 7,011 CBA transactions between 1999 and 2014. Inverse Mills ratio was used to address selection bias, and various robustness tests were performed.

The authors found that acquirers seek greater ownership share when acquiring high-tech firms, and that this relationship is moderated by various firm and national level factors. Specifically, the positive relationship between the high-tech status of a target firm and ownership share acquired is stronger when the firms’ primary operations are highly related or there is high formal institutional distance between the firms’ home countries, but it is weaker when acquirers have more prior M&A experience or there is high cultural and geographic distance between the firms’ home countries.

While the topic of ownership strategy in CBAs is advancing, it is still limited, especially when examining acquisitions of high-tech target firms. The authors contribute to the research on CBAs and ownership strategy by focusing on the high-tech status of the target firm, and using a sample of both private and public target firms from 116 countries.

The purpose of this study is to examine the differential impact of qualitative and quantitative informational signals within the merger and acquisition (M&A) press releases on deal completion and duration. A significant percentage of deals by emerging market acquirers get abandoned before completion, and those that are completed have a longer duration. The limited information about the operations of acquirers from emerging markets creates suspicion among the stakeholders involved in deal resolution, hindering the completion of deals. Thus, using the signal-feedback paradigm, authors investigate how informational signals in the M&A press release impact the deal resolution.

The study employs content analysis on M&A press releases announced by firms from five emerging economies: Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. The technique is applied based on the exploration-exploitation framework developed by March (1991) to categorize the announced deal motives (qualitative information). Next, the authors identify the percentage of relevant quantitative information disclosed in the press release, following which results are obtained using logistic and ordinary least square regressions.

The study reports that deals with declared exploratory motives take longer to complete. Additionally, deals disclosing higher percentage of quantitative disclosure exhibit lower completion rate and increased deal duration.

This is the first study to provide evidence that familiarity bias impacts deal duration as relative to exploitation deals that are familiar to the stakeholders; exploratory deals take longer to conclude. Further, our analysis indicates that a greater percentage of quantitative disclosure may not always reduce information risk but rather be interpreted negatively in the form of the acquirer’s overconfidence in the deal’s potential.