Advertisement

Analysis of the Merger Effect Using the Event Study Approach: Evidence from the Steel Industry in Japan

  • Yusuke Ikuta
Article

Abstract

Mergers can bring with them not only efficiency gains but also anticompetitive effects. Moreover, when firms announce mergers with limited lead time and information, it is crucial that regulatory bodies be able to judge them appropriately. This paper examines a merger between NKK and Kawasaki Steel that had a deep economic impact. I employ the conventional event study approach using abnormal stock returns. In addition to investigating these two firms and their rival firms, I examine customer firms in four steel-consuming industries in order to paint a broader picture of mergers. I consider the reactions of abnormal returns as measured by twelve patterns, and identify several merger effects. Firms in the steel industry anticipated a significant increase in their future profits as a result of this merger. Of the customer firms, some anticipated an increase in their profits, whereas others expected to suffer losses. However, the statistical significance of their reactions was weak, and, thus, the merger’s effects on customer firms could not be measured accurately. The results suggest that the primary intent of this merger was to improve efficiency. Future studies should investigate the results of the merger in real terms, including its effects on steel prices and steel production, for example, rather than merely in financial terms.

Key words

event study merger customer industries steel industry 

JEL Classification

D22 D43 G34 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ahern, K. R. 2012. Bargaining power and industry dependence in mergers, Journal of Financial Economics 103:530–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bhattacharya, S., and A. Nain. 2011. Horizontal acquisitions and buying power: A product market analysis, Journal of Financial Economics 99: 97–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Daihatsu Motor Co., Ltd. 2001. Annual Report, http://www.daihatsu.com/ir/library/pdf/ annual01.pdf [Accessed 12.15.2014]Google Scholar
  4. Davis, P., and E. Garcés. 2010. Quantitative Techniques for Competition and Antitrust Analysis, Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  5. Davis, S. W., and P. L. Ormosi. 2012. A comparative assessment of methodologies used to evaluate competition policy, Journal of Competition Law and Economics 8(4): 769–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Duso, T., Gugler, K., and B. B. Yurtoglu. 2011. How effective is European merger control? European Economic Review. 55: 980–1006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eckbo, B. E. 1983. Horizontal mergers, collusion, and stockholder wealth, Journal of Financial Economics 11(1-4):241–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fee, C. E., and S. Thomas. 2004. Sources of gains in horizontal mergers: Evidence from customer, supplier, and rival firms, Journal of Financial Economics 74(3):423–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fridolfsson, S. O., and J. Stennek. 2005. Why mergers reduce profits and raise share prices - A theory of preemptive mergers, Journal of the European Economic Association 3(5):1083–1104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fridolfsson, S. O., and J. Stennek. 2010, Industry concentration and welfare: On the use of stock market evidence from horizontal mergers, Economica 77, 308:734–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. JFE Holdings, Inc. 2001. Consolidation of entire business between Kawasaki Steel and NKK, News release, http://www.jfe-holdings.co.jp/en/release/2001/010413.html [Accessed 4.13.2013]Google Scholar
  12. Kawahama, N. 2008. Kigyo-Ketsugo-Guidelines-Gaisetsu (in: N. Kawahama -ed., Kigyo-Ketsugo- Guidelines-no-Kaisetsu-to-Bunseki, Merger and Acquisition Guidelines Examination and Analysis), Shouji-Houmu. Japan, pp 1–50.Google Scholar
  13. McKinlay, A. C. 1997. Event studies in economics and finance, Journal of Economic Literature 35, 1: 13–39.Google Scholar
  14. McAfee, R. P and M. A. Williams. 1988. Can event studies detect anticompetitive mergers? Economics Letters 28: 199–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. METI. 2001 and 2002. Yearbook of machinery statistics, http://www.meti.go.jp/statistics/tyo/seidou/archives/pdf/H13/kikai_H13.pdf, http://www.meti.go.jp/statistics/tyo/seidou/archives/pdf/H14/kikai_H14.pdf, [Accessed 12.15.2014]Google Scholar
  16. Mullin, G. L., Mullin, J. G., and W. P. Mullin. 1995. The competitive effects of mergers-Stock market evidence from the US Steel dissolution suit, Rand Journal of Economics 26(2): 314–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Shahrur, H. 2005. Industry structure and horizontal takeovers: Analysis of wealth effects on rivals, suppliers, and corporate customers, Journal of Financial Economics 71(1): 61–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Stillman, R. 1983. Examining antitrust policy towards horizontal mergers, Journal of Financial Economics 11: 225–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Toyota Motor Corporation. Global website. A wave of restructuring and a push for changes in awareness. 75 years of TOYOTAhttp://www.toyota-global.com/company/history_of_toyota/75years/text/leaping_forward_as_a_global_corporation/chapter4/section7/item1.html [Accessed 12.15.2014]
  20. Whinston, M. D. 2006. Lectures on Antitrust Economics, MIT Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Williamson, O. E. 1968. Economies as an antitrust defense — Welfare tradeoffs, American Economic Review 58: 18–36.Google Scholar
  22. Yanagida, C. 2011. Kabuka-Event-Bunseki (in: Kigyo-Ketsugo-no-Jigo-Hyoka:Keizai-Bunseki-no-Kyoso-Seisaku-heno-Katsuyo), Research report CR 04-11. Competition Policy Research Centre, Japan Fair Trade Commission, Tokyo, Japan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Economic Policy Association (JEPA) 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of EconomicsKobe UniversityNada-ku Kobe-city, Hyogo-kenJapan

Personalised recommendations