Advertisement

Asia Pacific Journal of Management

, Volume 35, Issue 4, pp 919–942 | Cite as

Entry-timing, business groups and early-mover advantage within industry merger waves in emerging markets: A study of Indian firms

  • Mohammad FuadEmail author
  • Ashutosh Kumar Sinha
Article

Abstract

Merger waves are periods of intense and concentrated merger activity which exhibit a wave-like pattern. Drawing upon the resource-based view, we examine the timing of entry and early-mover advantage within merger waves. Following a robust simulation-based methodology of wave analysis, we identify merger waves in eight industries during the time period 2000–2014. Firms affiliated to business groups were found to be early movers. A higher degree of internationalization is also associated with early movement of a firm. Within business groups, their multi-entity character is positively associated with early entry whereas their board interlock was negatively related with entry-timing. Further, early moving acquirers reap superior post-acquisition performance, thereby suggesting that early-mover advantages exist within merger waves.

Keywords

Merger and acquisition waves Business groups Timing Resource-based view Early-mover advantage 

References

  1. Andonova, V., Rodriguez, Y., & Sanchez, I. D. 2013. When waiting is strategic: Evidence from Colombian M&As 1995–2008. Journal of Business Research, 66(10): 1736–1742.Google Scholar
  2. Andrade, G., Mitchell, M., & Stafford, E. 2001. New evidence and perspectives on mergers. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15(2): 103–120.Google Scholar
  3. Barkema, H. G., & Vermeulen, F. 1998. International expansion through start-up or acquisition: A learning perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1): 7–26.Google Scholar
  4. Barney, J. 1988. Returns to bidding firms in mergers and acquisitions, re-considering the relatedness hypothesis. Strategic Management Journal, 9: 71–78.Google Scholar
  5. Barney, J. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1): 99–120.Google Scholar
  6. Boulding, W., & Christen, M. 2008. Disentangling pioneering cost advantages and disadvantages. Marketing Science, 27(4): 699–716.Google Scholar
  7. Bourgeois, L. J. 1981. On the measurement of organizational slack. Academy of Management Review, 6(1): 29–39.Google Scholar
  8. Buckley, P. J., Clegg, L. J., Cross, A. R., Liu, X., Voss, H., & Zheng, P. 2007. The determinants of Chinese outward foreign direct investment. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(4): 499–518.Google Scholar
  9. Burt, R. S. 1980. Cooptive corporate actor networks: A reconsideration of interlocking directorates involving American manufacturing. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(4): 557–582.Google Scholar
  10. Carney, M., Gedajlovic, E. R., Heugens, P. P., van Essen, M., & van Oosterhout, J. H. 2011. Business group affiliation, performance, context, and strategy, a meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3): 437–460.Google Scholar
  11. Carow, K., Heron, R., & Saxton, T. 2004. Do early birds get the returns? An empirical investigation of early-mover advantages in acquisitions. Strategic Management Journal, 25(6): 563–585.Google Scholar
  12. Certo, S. T., Busenbark, J. R., Woo, H. S., & Semadeni, M. 2016. Sample selection bias and Heckman models in strategic management research. Strategic Management Journal, 37(13): 2639–2657.Google Scholar
  13. Chang, S. J., & Hong, J. 2000. Economic performance of group-affiliated companies in Korea, intragroup resource sharing and internal business transactions. Academy of Management Journal, 43(3): 429–448.Google Scholar
  14. Chari, M. D. 2013. Business groups and foreign direct investments by developing country firms: An empirical test in India. Journal of World Business, 48(3): 349–359.Google Scholar
  15. Chen, M.-J. 1996. Competitor analysis and inter-firm rivalry: Towards a theoretical integration. Academy of Management Review, 21(1): 100–134.Google Scholar
  16. Chittoor, R. R., & Aulakh, P. S. 2015. Organizational landscape in India, historical development, multiplicity of forms and implications for practice and research. Long Range Planning, 48(5): 291–300.Google Scholar
  17. Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. 1988. The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 13(3): 471–482.Google Scholar
  18. Delios, A., Gaur, A. S., & Makino, S. 2008. The timing of international expansion, information, rivalry and imitation among Japanese firms, 1980–2002. Journal of Management Studies, 45(1): 169–195.Google Scholar
  19. Denrell, J., Fang, C., & Winter, S. G. 2003. The economics of strategic opportunity. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10): 977–990.Google Scholar
  20. Dikova, D., Sahib, P. R., & Van Witteloostuijn, A. 2010. Cross-border acquisition abandonment and completion: The effect of institutional differences and organizational learning in the international business service industry, 1981–2001. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(2): 223–245.Google Scholar
  21. Gaur, A. S., Kumar, V., & Singh, D. 2014. Institutions, resources, and internationalization of emerging economy firms. Journal of World Business, 49(1): 12–20.Google Scholar
  22. George, G. 2005. Slack resources and the performance of privately held firms. Academy of Management Journal, 48(4): 661–676.Google Scholar
  23. George, R., & Kabir, R. 2008. Business groups and profit redistribution: A boon or bane for firms?. Journal of Business Research, 61(9): 1004–1014.Google Scholar
  24. Gort, M. 1969. An economic disturbance theory of mergers. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 83(4): 624–642.Google Scholar
  25. Greene, W. H. 1993. Econometric analysis, 2nd ed. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  26. Grossman, G. M., & Helpman, E. 1991. Trade, knowledge spillovers, and growth. European Economic Review, 35(2–3): 517–526.Google Scholar
  27. Gubbi, S. R., Aulakh, P. S., Ray, S., Sarkar, M. B., & Chittoor, R. 2010. Do international acquisitions by emerging-economy firms create shareholder value? The case of Indian firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(3): 397–418.Google Scholar
  28. Guillén, M. F. 2000. Business groups in emerging economies: A resource-based view. Academy of Management Journal, 43(3): 362–380.Google Scholar
  29. Guillén, M. F. 2003. Experience, imitation, and the sequence of foreign entry, wholly owned and joint-venture manufacturing by south Korean firms and business groups in China, 1987–1995. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(2): 185–198.Google Scholar
  30. Haleblian, J., McNamara, G., Kolev, K., & Dykes, B. J. 2012. Exploring firm characteristics that differentiate leaders from followers in industry merger waves, a competitive dynamics perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 33(9): 1037–1052.Google Scholar
  31. Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. 1984. Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49(2): 149–164.Google Scholar
  32. Harford, J. 2005. What drives merger waves?. Journal of Financial Economics, 77(3): 529–560.Google Scholar
  33. Haunschild, P. R. 1993. Interorganizational imitation: The impact of interlocks on corporate acquisition activity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(4): 564–592.Google Scholar
  34. Haunschild, P. R. 1994. How much is that company worth?: Interorganizational relationships, uncertainty, and acquisition premiums. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(3): 391–411.Google Scholar
  35. Haunschild, P. R., & Beckman, C. M. 1998. When do interlocks matter?: Alternate sources of information and interlock influence. Administrative science quarterly, 43(4): 815–844.Google Scholar
  36. Hawk, A., Pacheco-De-Almeida, G., & Yeung, B. 2013. Fast-mover advantages: Speed capabilities and entry into the emerging submarket of Atlantic basin LNG. Strategic Management Journal, 34(13): 1531–1550.Google Scholar
  37. Heckman, J. J. 1979. Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47(1): 153–161.Google Scholar
  38. Hillman, A. J., & Dalziel, T. 2003. Boards of directors and firm performance: Integrating agency and resource dependence perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 28(3): 383–396.Google Scholar
  39. Hoskisson, R. E., Hitt, M. A., & Hill, C. W. 1993. Managerial incentives and investment in R&D in large multiproduct firms. Organization Science, 4(2): 325–341.Google Scholar
  40. Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J. E. 1977. The internationalization process of the firm—A model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments. Journal of International Business Studies, 8(1): 23–32.Google Scholar
  41. Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J. E. 2009. The Uppsala internationalization process model revisited: From liability of foreignness to liability of outsidership. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(9): 1411–1431.Google Scholar
  42. Keister, L. A. 1998. Engineering growth: Business group structure and firm performance in China’s transition economy. American Journal of Sociology, 104(2): 404–440.Google Scholar
  43. Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. 1997. Why focused strategies may be wrong for emerging markets. Harvard Business Review, 75(4): 41–51.Google Scholar
  44. Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. 2000. Is group affiliation profitable in emerging markets? An analysis of diversified Indian business groups. Journal of Finance, 55(2): 867–891.Google Scholar
  45. Khanna, T., & Rivkin, J. W. 2001. Estimating the performance effects of business groups in emerging markets. Strategic Management Journal, 22(1): 45–74.Google Scholar
  46. Kumar, V., Gaur, A. S., & Pattnaik, C. 2012. Product diversification and international expansion of business groups. Management International Review, 52(2): 175–192.Google Scholar
  47. Lall, S. 1983. The third world multinationals: The spread of third world enterprises. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  48. Lamin, A. 2013. Business groups as information resource: An investigation of business group affiliation in the Indian software services industry. Academy of Management Journal, 56(5): 1487–1509.Google Scholar
  49. Li, J., & Kozhikode, R. K. 2008. Knowledge management and innovation strategy: The challenge for latecomers in emerging economies. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 25(3): 429–450.Google Scholar
  50. Lieberman, M. B. 2005. Did first-mover advantage survive the dot-com crash. Unpublished working paper, UCLA.Google Scholar
  51. Lieberman, M. B., & Montgomery, D. B. 1988. First-mover advantages. Strategic Management Journal, 9: 41–58.Google Scholar
  52. Lieberman, M. B., & Montgomery, D. B. 2013. Conundra and progress, research on entry order and performance. Long Range Planning, 46(4): 312–324.Google Scholar
  53. Lubatkin, M. 1983. Mergers and the performance of the acquiring firm. Academy of Management Review, 8(2): 218–225.Google Scholar
  54. Luo, Y., & Tung, R. L. 2007. International expansion of emerging market enterprises, a springboard perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(4): 481–498.Google Scholar
  55. Maddala, G. S. 1983. Limited-dependent and qualitative variables in econometrics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Mahmood, I. P., & Mitchell, W. 2004. Two faces, effects of business groups on innovation in emerging economies. Management Science, 50(10): 1348–1365.Google Scholar
  57. Mahoney, J. M., & Mahoney, J. T. 1993. An empirical investigation of the effect of corporate charter antitakeover amendments on stockholder wealth. Strategic Management Journal, 14(1): 17–31.Google Scholar
  58. Makadok, R. 2001. Toward a synthesis of the resource-based and dynamic-capability views of rent creation. Strategic Management Journal, 22(5): 387–401.Google Scholar
  59. Manikandan, K. S., & Ramachandran, J. 2015. Beyond institutional voids, business groups, incomplete markets, and organizational form. Strategic Management Journal, 36(4): 598–617.Google Scholar
  60. Markman, G. D., & Waldron, T. L. 2014. Small entrants and large incumbents: A framework of micro entry. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(2): 179–198.Google Scholar
  61. Mathews, J. A. 2002. Competitive advantage of the latecomer firm: A resource-based account of industrial catch-up strategies. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19(4): 467–488.Google Scholar
  62. Mathews, J. A. 2006. Dragon multinationals: New players in 21st century globalization. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 23(1): 5–27.Google Scholar
  63. McDougall, P. P., & Oviatt, B. M. 2000. International entrepreneurship, the intersection of two research paths. Academy of Management Journal, 43(5): 902–906.Google Scholar
  64. McNamara, G. M., Haleblian, J., & Dykes, B. J. 2008. The performance implications of participating in an acquisition wave, early mover advantages, bandwagon effects, and the moderating influence of industry characteristics and acquirer tactics. Academy of Management Journal, 51(1): 113–130.Google Scholar
  65. Mitchell, M. L., & Mulherin, J. H. 1996. The impact of industry shocks on takeover and restructuring activity. Journal of Financial Economics, 41(2): 193–229.Google Scholar
  66. Mizruchi, M. S. 1996. What do interlocks do? An analysis, critique, and assessment of research on interlocking directorates. Annual Review of Sociology, 22(1): 271–298.Google Scholar
  67. Neter, J., Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., & Wasserman, W. 1996. Applied linear statistical models. Boston: McGraw.Google Scholar
  68. Ong, C. H., Wan, D., & Ong, K. S. 2003. An exploratory study on interlocking directorates in listed firms in Singapore. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 11(4): 322–334.Google Scholar
  69. Peng, M. W. 2003. Institutional transitions and strategic choices. Academy of Management Review, 28(2): 275–296.Google Scholar
  70. Penrose, E. T. 1959. The theory of the growth of the firm. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  71. Peteraf, M. A. 1993. The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3): 179–191.Google Scholar
  72. Popli, M., & Sinha, A. K. 2014. Determinants of early movers in cross-border merger and acquisition wave in an emerging market: A study of Indian firms. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 31(4): 1075–1099.Google Scholar
  73. Purkayastha, S., Kumar, V., & Lu, J. W. 2017. Business group heterogeneity and the internationalization-performance relationship: Evidence from Indian business groups. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 34(2): 247–279.Google Scholar
  74. Ramamurti, R. 2012. What is really different about emerging market multinationals?. Global Strategy Journal, 2(1): 41–47.Google Scholar
  75. Rui, H., & Yip, G. S. 2008. Foreign acquisitions by Chinese firms: A strategic intent perspective. Journal of World Business, 43(2): 213–226.Google Scholar
  76. Saxton, T., & Dollinger, M. 2004. Target reputation and appropriability: Picking and deploying resources in acquisitions. Journal of Management, 30(1): 123–147.Google Scholar
  77. Salomon, R. M., & Jin, B. 2007. Does knowledge spill to leaders or laggards? Exploring industry heterogeneity in learning by exporting. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(1): 132–150.Google Scholar
  78. Salomon, R. M., & Shaver, J. M. 2005. Learning by exporting: New insights from examining firm innovation. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 14(2): 431–460.Google Scholar
  79. Shi, W. S., Sun, J., & Prescott, J. E. 2012. A temporal perspective of merger and acquisition and strategic alliance initiatives review and future direction. Journal of Management, 38(1): 164–209.Google Scholar
  80. Singh, J. V. 1986. Performance, slack, and risk taking in organizational decision making. Academy of management Journal, 29(3): 562–585.Google Scholar
  81. Song, M. H., & Walkling, R. A. 2000. Abnormal returns to rivals of acquisition targets: A test of the acquisition probability hypothesis. Journal of Financial Economics, 55(2): 143–171.Google Scholar
  82. UNCTAD. 2015. Development status groupings and composition. http://unctadstat.unctad.org/EN/Classifications.html, Accessed Nov. 10, 2015.
  83. Vaaler, P. M., & McNamara, G. 2004. Crisis and competition in expert organizational decision making: Credit-rating agencies and their response to turbulence in emerging economies. Organization Science, 15(6): 687–703.Google Scholar
  84. Wernerfelt, B. 1984. A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2): 171–180.Google Scholar
  85. World Economic Forum. 2015. Competitiveness dataset. http://reports.weforum.org/global-competitiveness-report-2015-2016/, Accessed Jan. 22, 2016.
  86. Yiu, D., Bruton, G. D., & Lu, Y. 2005. Understanding business group performance in an emerging economy, acquiring resources and capabilities in order to prosper. Journal of Management Studies, 42(1): 183–206.Google Scholar
  87. Yiu, D. W., Lu, Y., Bruton, G. D., & Hoskisson, R. E. 2007. Business groups: An integrated model to focus future research. Journal of Management Studies, 44(8): 1551–1579.Google Scholar
  88. Yoo, J. W., Reed, R., Shin, S. J., & Lemak, D. J. 2009. Strategic choice and performance in late movers, influence of the top management team’s external ties. Journal of Management Studies, 46(2): 308–335.Google Scholar
  89. Zachary, M., Gianiodis, P., Payne, G., & Markman, G. 2015. Entry timing, enduring lessions and future directions. Journal of Management, 41(5): 1388–1415.Google Scholar
  90. Zhu, H., & Zhu, Q. 2016. Mergers and acquisitions by Chinese firms: A review and comparison with other mergers and acquisitions research in the leading journals. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 33(4): 1107–1149.Google Scholar
  91. Zollo, M., & Meier, D. 2008. What is M&a performance?. Academy of Management Perspectives, 22(3): 55–77.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Strategic Management GroupIndian Institute of Management, LucknowLucknowIndia

Personalised recommendations