Search results

India’s efforts to achieve large-scale financial inclusion are challenged by growing concerns related to the stability and profitability of the overall banking system. Although a rising dependence on digital finance and the acceptability of wallet-based payments was also visible during the post-demonetisation era and the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic, issues related to bank stability and profitability could be addressed through the extension of digital financial services (DFS), making the system more transparent and resilient to internal as well as external perturbations.

The study provides empirical evidence to support the bank digitalisation and extension of DFS to achieve financial inclusion. The impact of digital finance, macroeconomic aspects and microprudential factors (bank specific) on stability is examined for selected Indian banks using quarterly observations spanning 2011Q1–2020Q4. The relationship between banking stability (measured through z-score and Sharpe ratio) is established with digitalisation factors using the instrumental variable regression two-stage least square -based panel regression. Robustness is tested using panel vector autoregression models.

Digital transactions including mobile banking, National Electronic Fund Transfer (NEFT) and Real Time Gross Settlement (RTGS) prove vital and significant in establishing stable banking activity in the Indian context across both public and private banking institutions. Access to broadband services provides a positive impetus in this direction. These issues could be addressed through the extension of DFS making the system more transparent and resilient to internal as well as external perturbations. As an implication, the adoption of innovative means of transaction could empower the financially excluded sections of society.

The novelty of this study is to bring the discussion of digitalisation and bank stability (riskiness) in the Indian context to light. As the first of its kind, this study paves the way for providing an empirical justification for promoting and achieving bank stability through digitalisation in the era of post-demonetisation and Covid-19.

When talking about mergers and acquisitions (M&As), few announcements clearly define if the operation will deal with a merger (where firms have an equal-to-equal relation) or acquisition (when one firm is in control of the operation and decides the integration process). Operations are commonly labeled M&A. Nevertheless, mergers remain rare, and the authors see that most of the time, operations designed and integrated with firms as equals end in the control of one of the entities over the other.

The authors investigate how two CEOs and their managers communicate during the due diligence period of a merger. The author describes the project merger of two French companies using longitudinal data.

This in-depth case study provides new insights into the due diligence period and the differences between M&As. The findings highlight how the decision to add an associate from a rival firm to the board ended the merger project as the situation evolved toward an acquisition in CEOs’ minds.

The limitations are those concerning a single case study.

The paper highlights the complexity of merger negotiations and the unexpected events faced by stakeholders. The analysis, thus, contributes to an inclusive and integrative view of the challenges in the due diligence process, whereas first defining the operation as a merger or an acquisition is a first step in identifying the degree to which autonomy and interdependence will be given across firms, and how some strategic decisions will be implemented. This case study highlights two specific items that can be understood by managers as key elements in deal success: defining operations as a merger or an acquisition help internal and external stakeholders in planning the operation; leaving space for adjustment among partners engaged in negotiations during the due diligence period is also useful.

Despite their frequency, merger and acquisition failures remain surprisingly high. This paper explores how stakeholders deal with merger negotiations.

The case provides insights into the due diligence period and the way minor events can impact the planned integration. Theoretical concepts and empirical findings from the literature are combined to present a single consistent picture. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, few studies address insights on strategic decisions made as the negotiation period remains a secret and sensitive stage, especially for a failed deal, but we were able to delve beneath the surface.