Skip to main content

Price run-ups and insider trading laws under different regulatory environments

Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting (2022)Cite this article

Abstract

We examine target firms’ price run-ups prior to takeovers in two different exchange regulatory environments within the same country. We show that target firms listed both in the secondary market of the UK, known as the Alternative Investment Market (AIM), and in the traditionally regulated Main Market, experience significant abnormal stock returns prior to takeover announcements. These results persist after controlling for market anticipation, indicating signs of information leakage. Contrary to the narrative that secondary markets may be more susceptible to market abusive behaviors, we find that the AIM targets experience significantly lower pre-announcement returns. In addition, we do not find support that the introduction of stricter laws reduces the price run-ups in any of the two markets. In sharp contrast, we find support that the enforcement of insider trading laws, through criminal convictions, reduces the pre-announcement abnormal stock returns but only in the market in which the enforcement focuses.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. John Thain, New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) executive was quoted at the World Economic Forum in Davos Switzerland in January 2007 referring to the AIM as it "did not have any standards at all and anyone could list" (https://www.ft.com/content/beb09508-ad27-11db-8709-0000779e2340). Moreover, Roel Campos, a Securities and Exchange Commission member was quoted on a Dow Jones newswire in March 2007 saying “I am concerned that 30% of issuers that list in AIM are gone in a year. That feels like a casino to me and I believe investors will treat it as such” (https://www.ft.com/content/cd0530e2-cdab-11db-839d-000b5df10621). Finally, Kate Burgess, a journalist of the FT wrote “AIM’s numerous corporate collapses and scandals have earned the market its label as a wild west exchange where cowboys are allowed to roam free” (https://www.ft.com/content/2cb37958-af6a-11e7-beba-5521c713abf4).

  2. Interview of Marcus Stuttard to Proactive Investors in 2015 on the market’s 20th anniversary (https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/108159/if-aim-was-just-a-casino-it-wouldnt-have-lasted-20-years-108159.html).

  3. Apart from the academic literature, the UK regulators also tend to focus on M&As when it comes to information leakage. For example, the FCA has introduced the “market cleanliness statistic”, a statistic which is included in the FCA’s annual reports and focuses mostly on price run-ups prior to the announcement of M&As (Dubow and Monteiro 2006). This measure is an indicator of insider trading in the UK markets and a reduction signifies that the UK markets are clearer from informed trading. Moreover, 70% of the criminal sanctions related to insider trading in the UK are due to insider trading prior to takeovers showcasing the importance of M&As in this set up (an example of a UK criminal sanction and links to other cases can be found at https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/three-charged-insider-dealing).

  4. The Euronext Growth (formerly known as Alternext) was formed in 2005 and operates in Belgium, France and Portugal; the Mercado Alternativo was formed in 2008 and operates in Spain; Nasdaq’s First North was introduced in 2008 and operates in the Nordic countries; the Tokyo Pro market (formerly known as Tokyo AIM) was formed in Japan in 2009.

  5. See for example the white paper from the CFA Institute in May 2016 (https://www.cfainstitute.org/-/media/documents/article/position-paper/united-states-venture-market.ashx).

  6. Formerly known as Financial Service Authority or FSA.

  7. In 2009, the FCA achieved its first successful criminal sentence for insider trading which was followed by a series of other convictions with regards to insider trading (Goldman et al. 2014).

  8. We thank an anonymous reviewer for these valuable insights. See for example:

    (https://www.marketwatch.com/story/expert-networks-key-to-sec-insider-trading-cases-2012-11-21) and (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-27/hedge-funds-track-j-j-private-jet-for-an-edge-on-actelion-score).

  9. We thank the FCA for providing us with information regarding criminal convictions for insider trading in the UK.

  10. As stated by Margaret Cole, FSA's former managing director of enforcement and financial crime, insider trading cases are always difficult, time-consuming and expensive (https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-operation-tabernula/).

  11. Some examples of the FCA criticism are the following articles titled: “FSA failed to issue specific warnings to Dunfermline” (https://www.ft.com/content/68492f9e-7c60-11de-a7bf-00144feabdc0), “FSA failed spectacularly over banks” (https://www.ft.com/content/d42a2a5c-7d31-11de-b8ee-00144feabdc0) and “Regulator’s light touch led to failure” (https://www.ft.com/content/2bf14c52-24ce-11e1-bfb3-00144feabdc0).

  12. Sara George, a lawyer and partner at Allen & Overy who achieved a successful FCA criminal prosecution related to market abuse, shared her thoughts on the importance of prosecution penalties in the Financial Times “When the worst that can happen is that you might lose your job and be fined an amount, you can afford to lose. Prison—and you start off in a normal one, it’s not straight to Ford (open prison)—that really will make people think twice” (https://www.ft.com/content/7dc845ea-c9e6-11dc-b5dc-000077b07658).

  13. LBOs constitute approximately 2% of our sample. If we include LBOs, we obtain qualitatively similar results (unreported for brevity) on our empirical tests.

  14. Even though short-horizon abnormal returns are not sensitive to different event models (Armitage, 1995; Dionysiou, 2015), we have also estimated the abnormal returns using the market model and the Buy and Hold Abnormal Returns (BHARs) and find that the results are qualitatively similar.

  15. The statistical significance of CAARs is qualitatively similar when we test the significance levels using a) sign test, b) cross-sectional test, c) standardised cross-sectional test and, d) the method of moments estimation.

  16. To ensure that our results are not influenced by the announcement effect, we replicate our tests using the interval periods of (-40, -2 and -40, -3). The results are qualitatively similar.

  17. To split the sample into two groups, we compare the estimated takeover probability of each firm with the optimal cut-off probability (Palepu 1986). If a firm’s probability is higher (lower) than the cut-off probability, the firm is classified as a firm with high (low) probability of being taken over. For the calculation of the cut-off probability, we construct ten deciles sorted in descending order based on takeover probability following Powell (2004) and Brar et al. (2009). Each decile has the same number of firms. The optimal cut-off probability is then the first takeover probability in the portfolio with the highest concentration ratio (ratio of takeovers over the total number of firms in the portfolio). In untabulated results, we find that the highest concentration ratio is in the second to last decile for the AIM targets and the last decile for the MM targets. Specifically, the cut-off probability for the AIM targets is 0.30, and for the MM targets is 0.40. On average, the model predicts approximately 70% of target and non-target firms for both markets.

  18. It has been reported that market anticipation over acquisitions could stem from information provided in various press releases (Jensen and Ruback, 1983).

  19. Malatesta and Walkling (1988) and Comment and Schwert (1995) also report that firm with poison pill takeover defences tend to be less likely to become takeover targets. In our sample, there are no firms with poison pill defences in place and as such we do not include this variable.

  20. Once again, the results are qualitatively similar when we replicate the regressions using the interval periods of (-40, -2) and (-40, -3) to mitigate concerns of the announcement effect in our results.

  21. These are added interchangeably due to high correlation between them.

  22. The results are qualitatively similar when we use two alternative measurements for the calculation of Premium: 1) the ratio of the offer price to the target’s stock price four weeks before the acquisition announcement minus one (Levi et al., 2014) and 2) the difference between the offer price and the target’s total assets per share over the latter (Li et al., 2019). Furthermore, the results are qualitatively similar when we use one week premium (difference between offer price and the target firm's stock price, one week before the acquisition announcement divided by the latter).

  23. In particular, one concern could be that higher pre-announcement returns in one market may reflect higher deal quality (more valuable synergies, expectation of lower premium paid). With this measure, pre-announcement runups are normalized by deal quality, captured by (-40, 0) and hence these concerns are mitigated.

  24. The results are qualitatively similar when we estimate Eq. (3) for matched firms.

References

  • Admati AR, Pfleiderer P (1988) A theory of intraday patterns: volume and price variability. Rev Financ Stud 1:3–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal A, Nasser T (2012) Insider trading in takeover targets. J Corp Finan 18:598–625

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahern KR (2017) Information networks: evidence from illegal insider trading tips. J Financ Econ 125:26–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andriosopoulos D, Panetsidou S (2021) A global analysis of private investments in public equity. J Corp Finance 69:101832

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arcot S, Black J, Owen G (2007) From local to global: the rise of AIM as a stock market for growing companies: a comprehensive report analysing the growth of AIM. London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK

  • Armitage S (1995) Event study methods and evidence on their performance. J Econ Surv 9:25–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ball CA, Torous WN (1988) Investigating security-price performance in the presence of event-date uncertainty. J Financ Econ 22:123–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker GS (1968) Crime and punishment: an economic approach. The Economic Dimensions of Crime. Springer

  • Beny LN (2005) Do insider trading laws matter? Some preliminary comparative evidence. Am Law Econ Rev 7:144–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Betton S, Eckbo BE, Thompson R, Thorburn KS (2014) Merger negotiations with stock market feedback. J Financ 69:1705–1745

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacharya U, Daouk H (2002) The world price of insider trading. J Finance 57:75–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacharya U, Daouk H (2009) When no law is better than a good law. Rev Finance 13:577–627

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binder J (1998) The event study methodology since 1969. Rev Quant Finance Acc 11:111–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boehmer E, Masumeci J, Poulsen AB (1991) Event-study methodology under conditions of event-induced variance. J Finance Econ 30:253–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brar G, Giamouridis D, Liodakis M (2009) Predicting European takeover targets. Eur Finance Manage 15:430–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brigida M, Madura J (2012) Sources of target stock price run-up prior to acquisitions. J Econ Bus 64:185–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bris A (2005) Do insider trading laws work? Eur Finance Manage 11:267–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brockman P, Chung DY (2003) Investor protection and firm liquidity. J Finance 58:921–937

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brophy DJ, Ouimet PP, Sialm C (2009) Hedge funds as investors of last resort? Rev Financ Stud 22:541–574

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown KC, Harlow WV, Tinic SM (1988) Risk aversion, uncertain information, and market efficiency. J Finance Econ 22:355–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown S, Hillegeist SA (2007) How disclosure quality affects the level of information asymmetry. Rev Acc Stud 12:443–477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown SJ, Warner JB (1980) Measuring security price performance. J Finance Econ 8:205–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown SJ, Warner JB (1985) Using daily stock returns: the case of event studies. J Finance Econ 14:3–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell K, Tabner IT (2014) Bonding and the agency risk premium: an analysis of migrations between the AIM and the official list of the London stock exchange. J Int Finan Markets Inst Money 30:1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole M (2007) Insider dealing in the City. Law Financ Mark Rev 1:307–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Comment R, Schwert GW (1995) Poison or placebo? Evidence on the deterrence and wealth effects of modern antitakeover measures. J Finance Econ 39:3–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowan AR (1992) Nonparametric event study tests. Rev Quant Finance Acc 2:343–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cumming D, Johan S, Li D (2011) Exchange trading rules and stock market liquidity. J Finance Econ 99:651–671

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dai R, Massoud N, Nandy DK, Saunders A (2017) Hedge funds in M&A deals: is there exploitation of insider information? J Corp Finance 47:23–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Del Guercio D, Odders-White ER, Ready MJ (2017) The deterrent effect of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s enforcement intensity on illegal insider trading: evidence from run-up before news events. J Law Econ 60:269–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dimson E (1979) Risk measurement when shares are subject to infrequent trading. J Finance Econ 7:197–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dionysiou D (2015) Choosing among alternative long-run event-study techniques. J Econ Surv 29:158–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dissanaike G, Drobetz W, Momtaz PP (2020) Competition policy and the profitability of corporate acquisitions. J Corp Finance 62:101510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doukas JA, Hoque H (2016) Why firms favour the AIM when they can list on main market? J Int Money Finance 60:378–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubow B, Monteiro NB (2006) Measuring market cleanliness. Financial Conduct Authority, Occasional Paper Series, 23

  • Dutordoir M, Vagenas-nanos E, Verwijmeren P, Wu B (2020) A rundown of merger target run-ups. Financ Manage 50:1–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckbo BE (2009) Bidding strategies and takeover premiums: a review. J Corp Finance 15:149–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Espahbodi H, Espahbodi P (2003) Binary choice models and corporate takeover. J Bank Finance 27:549–574

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Espenlaub S, Khurshed A, Mohamed A (2012) IPO survival in a reputational market. J Bus Finance Acc 39:427–463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eyssell TH, Arshadi N (1993) Insiders, outsiders, or trend chasers? An investigation of pre-takeover transactions in the shares of target firms. J Financ Res 16:49–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falato A, Liang N (2016) Do creditor rights increase employment risk? Evidence from loan covenants. J Finance 71:2545–2590

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fama EF, Fisher L, Jensen M, Roll R (1969) The adjustment of stock prices to new information. International Economic Review, 10

  • Fernandes N, Ferreira MA (2009) Insider trading laws and stock price informativeness. Rev Financ Stud 22:1845–1887

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frijns B, Gilbert A, Tourani-Rad A (2013) Do criminal sanctions deter insider trading? Finance Rev 48:205–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frijns B, Gilbert A, Tourani-Rad A (2008) Insider trading, regulation, and the components of the bid–ask spread. J Financ Res 31:225–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Froot KA (1989) Consistent covariance matrix estimation with cross-sectional dependence and heteroskedasticity in financial data. J Financ Quant Anal 24:333–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gębka B, Korczak A, Korczak P, Traczykowski J (2017) Profitability of insider trading in Europe: a performance evaluation approach. J Empir Finance 44:66–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerakos J, Lang M, Maffett M (2013) Post-listing performance and private sector regulation: the experience of London’s alternative investment market. J Account Econ 56:189–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldman J, Hunt S, Minter P, Felix S, Zaman Q (2014) Why has the FCAs market cleanliness statistic for takeover announcements decreased since 2009? Financial Conduct Authority, Occasional Paper Series 4

  • Golubov A, Petmezas D, Travlos NG (2012) When it pays to pay your investment banker: new evidence on the role of financial advisors in M&As. J Finance 67:271–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hail L, Leuz C (2006) International differences in the cost of equity capital: do legal institutions and securities regulation matter? J Account Res 44:485–531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hasbrouck J (1985) The characteristics of takeover targets q and other measures. J Bank Finance 9:351–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Healy PM, Palepu KG (2001) Information asymmetry, corporate disclosure, and the capital markets: a review of the empirical disclosure literature. J Account Econ 31:405–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmström B, Tirole J (1993) Market liquidity and performance monitoring. J Polit Econ 101:678–709

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang Y-S, Walkling RA (1987) Target abnormal returns associated with acquisition announcements: payment, acquisition form, and managerial resistance. J Finance Econ 19:329–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jabbour AR, Jalilvand A, Switzer JA (2000) Pre-bid price run-ups and insider trading activity: evidence from Canadian acquisitions. Int Rev Finance Anal 9:21–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarrell GA, Poulsen AB (1989) Stock trading before the announcement of tender offers: insider trading or market anticipation? J Law Econ Organ 5:225–248

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkinson T, Ramadorai T (2013) Does one size fit all? The consequences of switching markets with different regulatory standards. Eur Finance Manag 19:852–886

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen MC (1986) Agency costs of free cash flow, corporate finance, and takeovers. Am Econ Rev 76:323–329

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen MC, Meckling WH (1976) Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. J Finance Econ 3:305–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen MC, Ruback RS (1983) The market for corporate control. J Finance Econ 11:5–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanagaretnam K, Lobo GJ, Whalen DJ (2007) Does good corporate governance reduce information asymmetry around quarterly earnings announcements? J Account Public Policy 26:497–522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan SN, Weisbach MS (1992) The success of acquisitions: evidence from divestitures. J Finance 47:107–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karamanou I, Vafeas N (2005) The association between corporate boards, audit committees, and management earnings forecasts: an empirical analysis. J Account Res 43:453–486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keown AJ, Pinkerton JM (1981) Merger announcements and insider trading activity: an empirical investigation. J Finance 36:855–869

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keown AJ, Pinkerton JM, Young L, Hansen RS (1985) Recent SEC prosecution and insider trading on forthcoming merger announcements. J Bus Res 13:329–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King MR (2009) Prebid run-ups ahead of Canadian takeovers: how big is the problem? Finance Manage 38:699–726

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kyle AS (1985) Continuous auctions and insider trading. Econom J Econom Soc 53:1315–1335

    Google Scholar 

  • Levi M, Li K, Zhang F (2014) Director gender and mergers and acquisitions. J Corp Finance 28:185–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li X (2020) The impact of economic policy uncertainty on insider trades: a cross-country analysis. J Bus Res 119:41–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li Y, Lu M, Lo YL (2019) The impact of analyst coverage on partial acquisitions: evidence from M&A premium and firm performance in China. Int Rev Econ Finance 63:37–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lins KV, Servaes H, Tamayo A (2017) Social capital, trust, and firm performance: the value of corporate social responsibility during the financial crisis. J Finance 72:1785–1824

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • London Stock Exchange 2010 A guide to listing on the London Stock Exchange. London Stock Exchange.

  • London Stock Exchange 2012 Corporate governance for Main Market and AIM companies. London Stock Exchange.

  • London Stock Exchange 2014 AIM rules for nominated advisers. London Stock Exchange.

  • London Stock Exchange (2015a) AIM rules for companies. London Stock Exchange

  • London Stock Exchange (2015b) A guide to AIM. London Stock Exchange

  • London Stock Exchange (2016) Admission and disclosure standards. London Stock Exchange

  • Madura J, Ngo T, Susnjara J (2014) Information leakages and the costs of merging in Europe. Appl Financ Econom 24:515–532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malatesta PH, Walkling RA (1988) Poison pill securities: stockholder wealth, profitability, and ownership structure. J Finance Econ 20:347–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mandelker G (1974) Risk and return: the case of merging firms. J Finance Econ 1:303–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mendoza JM (2008) Securities regulation in low-tier listing venues: the rise of the Alternative Investment Market. Fordham J Corp Financ Law 13:257

    Google Scholar 

  • Meulbroek LK (1992) An empirical analysis of illegal insider trading. J Finance 47:1661–1699

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell ML, Mulherin JH (1996) The impact of industry shocks on takeover and restructuring activity. J Finance Econ 41:193–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell ML, Netter JM (1994) The role of financial economics in securities fraud cases: applications at the securities and exchange commission. Bus Lawyer 49:545–590

    Google Scholar 

  • Palepu KG (1986) Predicting takeover targets: a methodological and empirical analysis. J Account Econ 8:3–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penman SH (1982) Insider trading and the dissemination of firms’ forecast information. J Bus 55:479–503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Persons OS (1997) SEC’s insider trading enforcements and target firms’ stock values. J Bus Res 39:187–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell R (2004) Takeover prediction models and portfolio strategies: a multinomial approach. Multinatl Finance J 8:35–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenstein S, Wyatt JG (1990) Outside directors, board independence, and shareholder wealth. J Financ Econ 26:175–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholes M, Williams J (1977) Estimating betas from nonsynchronous data. J Finance Econ 5:309–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwert GW (1996) Markup pricing in mergers and acquisitions. J Finance Econ 41:153–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Servaes H (1991) Tobin’s Q and the gains from takeovers. J Finance 46:409–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siganos A, Papa M (2015) FT coverage and UK target price run-ups. Eur J Finance 21:1070–1089

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siganos A, Synapis A, Tsalavoutas I (2021) Information leakage prior to market switches and the importance of Nominated Advisors. Working Paper

  • Smith CW Jr, Watts RL (1992) The investment opportunity set and corporate financing, dividend, and compensation policies. J Finance Econ 32:263–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song MH, Walkling RA (1993) The impact of managerial ownership on acquisition attempts and target shareholder wealth. J Financ Quant Anal 28:439–457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song MH, Walkling RA (2000) Abnormal returns to rivals of acquisition targets: a test of theacquisition probability hypothesis’. J Finance Econ 55:143–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vismara S, Paleari S, Ritter JR (2012) Europe’s second markets for small companies. Eur Finance Manage 18:352–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu FF (2008) Analyst coverage and earnings management. J Finance Econ 88:245–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Cheng-Few Lee (the editor) and two anonymous referees for their insightful comments and suggestions. We thank Panos Andrikopoulos, Nathan Lael Joseph, Thang Nguyen, Ronan Powell, Daniel Santamaria, Umut Turksen and Tina Yang for their comments in prior versions of this study. We also thank the participants at the British Accounting and Finance Association (BAFA) conference (Northern Area Group, September 2019), the Financial Management Association (FMA) 2020 and the Centre for Financial and Corporate Integrity (CFCI) 2020 seminar series for their helpful comments. In addition, we are grateful to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) for providing us with information regarding criminal convictions for insider trading in the UK. This study has been partly funded by the Committee of Departments of Accounting and Finance (CDAF).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research Centre for Financial and Corporate Integrity, Coventry University, Coventry, UK

    Styliani Panetsidou & Angelos Synapis

  2. Adam Smith Business School, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

    Ioannis Tsalavoutas

Authors
  1. Styliani Panetsidou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Angelos Synapis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ioannis Tsalavoutas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Angelos Synapis.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix A: Historical total listing and market capitalization in secondary markets

Total listings

figure a

Market capitalization ($mil)

figure b

This appendix presents the total number of firms listed and the market capitalization of the largest secondary markets from 1995 to 2018. These secondary markets include: the AIM in the UK, the Bratislava MTF in Slovenia, the Euronext growth in Belgium, France and Portugal, the Mercado Alternativo in Spain, the Nasdaq’s First North in Nordic countries, the NewConnect in Poland and the Tokyo Pro market in Japan. The data are hand collected from the exchanges’ websites. The market capitalization is shown in 2015 US dollars.

Appendix B: Variable definitions

Variable Definition
AIM An indicator variable that takes the value of one if the target firm was listed in the AIM and zero otherwise
CAAR A variable that represents the cumulative average abnormal stock returns for the period (−40, −1) following an OLS market model as in Brown and Warner (1985)
CAAR residual A variable that represents the residual from the regression in Eq. (3)
Cash offer An indicator variable that takes the value of one if the offer is cash only and zero otherwise (Thomson One item “Consideration structure”)
Conviction A variable that indicates the number of individuals imprisoned for insider trading. Data is provided by the FCA
Cross-border An indicator variable that takes the value of one if the deal is cross-border and zero otherwise (Thomson One item “Cross-border deal”)
Dividend yield Dividend per share as a percentage of the share price (DS item DY)
Enforcement An indicator variable that takes the value of one if the deal was announced between March 2009 and December 2018
FCF The ratio of free cash flow calculated as cash flow from operations (WS item WC04860) less cash flow from investing activities (WS item WC04870) scaled by the total assets (WS item WC02999)
FSMA An indicator variable that takes the value of one if the deal was announced between November 2001 and February 2009
Growth resource mismatch An indicator variable that takes the value of one if the target firm has a combination of (i) above average growth, below average liquidity and above average leverage; or (ii) below average growth, above average liquidity and below average leverage and zero otherwise
Historical stock return Average abnormal stock returns compared to the FTSE AIM All share for the AIM targets or compared to the FTSE All share for the MM targets over the three years prior to the deal (−750, −40)
Hostile An indicator variable that takes the value of one if the bid was hostile and zero otherwise (Thomson One item “Deal Started as Unsolicited Flag”)
Industry activity An indicator variable that takes the value of one if there was another takeover in the target firm industry (using ICB industry classification) in the previous year and zero otherwise
Leverage Average leverage ratio calculated as total debt (WS item WC032555) to total assets over the three years prior to the deal announcement. If there is no data for three consecutive years, we use the previous two years instead
Liquidity Average liquidity ratio calculated as cash (WS item WC02003) to total assets over the three years prior to the deal announcement. If there is no data for three consecutive years, we use the previous two years instead
M/B Market to book ratio of the target firm (DS item MVTB)
Number of bidders A variable that indicates the number of bidders interested in the target firm (Thomson One item “Number of Bidders”)
Number of target advisors A variable that indicates the number of advisors of the target firm involved in the deal (Thomson One item “Number of Target Advisors”)
Past acquisition An indicator variable that takes the value of one if the target is pursued by another firm in the previous year and zero otherwise
Premium The difference between the offer price and the target firm’s stock price, four weeks before the acquisition announcement divided by the latter (Thomson One item “Offer price to target stock price premium 4 weeks prior to announcement”)
Public bidder An indicator variable that takes the value of one if the bidder is a public firm and zero otherwise (Thomson One item “Acq Public Status”)
R&D The ratio of R&D expensed (WS item WC01201) over total assets (WS item WC02999)
Rumors An indicator variable that takes the value of one if the acquisition was rumored prior to the deal announcement and zero otherwise (Thomson One item “Deal Began as Rumor”)
Sales growth Average sales (WS item WC01001) percentage change over the three years prior to the takeover announcement. If there is no data for three consecutive years, we use the previous two years instead
Same industry An indicator variable that takes the value of one if both the target and bidder are in the same industry and zero otherwise
Severity A variable that indicates the severity of punishment calculated as the sum of imprisonment years over the number of individuals imprisoned. The years of imprisonment are hand-collected from FCA announcements and relevant newspapers such as the Financial Times
Size The natural logarithm of the total assets (WS item WC02999) of the target firm in thousand US dollars
Stock illiquidity Stock illiquidity is measured using the Amihud illiquidity ratio (Amihud 2002). This is calculated as the average absolute value of the daily stock return over the daily dollar volume (price multiplied by volume) over the period −250 to −101 days prior to the takeover announcement
Toehold An indicator variable that takes the value of one when the acquirer holds a toehold and zero otherwise (Thomson One item “Percent of Shares Held at Announcement”)

This appendix presents the variables used in the empirical analysis. All accounting data are measured at the fiscal year end prior to the announcement of the deal, unless stated otherwise.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Panetsidou, S., Synapis, A. & Tsalavoutas, I. Price run-ups and insider trading laws under different regulatory environments. Rev Quant Finan Acc (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11156-022-01052-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11156-022-01052-0

Keywords

  • Price run-ups
  • Takeovers
  • Insider trading laws
  • Alternative investment market (AIM)
  • Main market (MM)

JEL Classification

  • G10
  • G14