Abstract
Stockholders of potential targets experience a statistically significant wealth gain of 0.59% over the 3-day window surrounding the acquisition program announcement. Potential targets are defined as those firms that subsequently receive bids. Using alternative definitions, such as a portfolio of all firms in the industry of the target or firms within the target industry with a higher probability of receiving a bid as predicted by a maximum likelihood logit model, yield qualitatively similar results. These findings suggest that events, such as program announcements, release significant merger related information well before a target is formally approached with implications for wealth effects at subsequent bids. As with normal targets, the likelihood of receiving a bid for targets that are part of a broad-based program of acquisitions increases in the level of agency problems, managerial inefficiency and in the proportion of tangible assets in the target.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
See Appendix for theories that are frequently used to explain target gains. Empirical support for many of these theories is provided in several papers such as Song and Walkling (2000), Jensen and Ruback (1983), Mandelker (1974), Bradley et al. (1988), Dodd and Ruback (1977), Jarrell and Bradley (1980), and Dodd (1980).
Wealth redistribution from bondholders as a potential source of target price change is not considered.
Negative correlation would mean increased agency conflict and a correlation of zero would indicate hubris of managers.
References
Ambrose BW, Megginson WL (1992) The role of asset structure, ownership structure and takeover defenses in determining takeover likelihood. J Financ Quant Anal 27:575–590
Asquith P, Bruner R, Mullins D (1983) The gains to bidding firms from mergers. J Financ Econ 11:121–139
Barnes P (1998) Can takeover targets be identified by statistical techniques?: some UK evidence. The Statistician 47:573–591
Berkovitch E, Narayan MP (1993) Motives for takeovers: an empirical investigation. J Financ Quant Anal 28:347–362
Billet MT (1996) Targeting capital structure: the relationship between risky debt and the firm’s likelihood of being acquired. J Business 69:173–192
Bradley M (1980) Inter-firm tender offers and the market for corporate control. J Bus 54:345–376
Bradley M, Desai A, Kim EH (1983) The rationale behind inter-firm tender offers: information or synergy? J Financ Econ 11:183–206
Bradley M, Desai A, Kim EH (1988) Synergistic gains from corporate acquisitions and their division between the stockholders of target and acquiring firms. J Financ Econ 21:3–40
Dodd P (1980) Merger proposals, management discretion and stockholder wealth. J Financ Econ 8:105–138
Dodd P, Ruback R (1977) Tender offers and stockholder returns: an empirical analysis. J Financ Econ 5:351–373
Eckbo E (1983) Horizontal mergers, collusion and stockholder wealth. J Financ Econ 11:241–273
Gaver J, Gaver K (1993) Additional evidence on the association between the investment opportunity set and corporate financing, dividend and compensation policies. J Account Econ 16:125–160
Jarrell GA, Bradley M (1980) The economic effects of federal and state regulations of cash tender offers. J Law Econ 23:371–408
Jayaraman N, Mandelker G, Shastri K (1991) Market anticipation of merger activities: an empirical test. Manage Decis Econ 12:439–448
Jensen M (1986) Agency costs of free cash flow, corporate finance and takeovers. Am Econ J 76:323–329
Jensen M, Meckling WH (1976) Theory of the firm: managerial behaviour, agency costs and ownership structure. J Financ Econ 4:305–360
Jensen M, Ruback R (1983) The market for corporate control: the scientific evidence. J Financ Econ 11:5–50
Lang L, Stulz R, Walkling R (1991) A test of the free cash flow hypothesis. J Financ Econ 29:315–336
Malatesta P, Thompson R (1985) Partially anticipated events. J Financ Econ 14:237–250
Mandelker G (1974) Risk and return: a case of merging firms. J Financ Econ 1:303–335
Mikkelson WH, Partch MM (1989) Managers’ voting rights and corporate control. J Financ Econ 25:263–290
Mitchell M, Mulherin H (1996) The impact of industry shocks on takeover and restructuring activity. J Financ Econ 41:193–229
Myers SC (1977) Determinants of corporate borrowing. J Financ Econ 5:147–175
Palepu K (1986) Predicting takeover targets: a methodological and empirical analysis. J Account Econ 8:3–35
Schipper K, Thompson R (1983) Evidence on the capitalized value of merger activity for acquiring firms. J Financ Econ 11:85–119
Schwert W (1996) Markup pricing in mergers and acquisitions. J Financ Econ 41:153–192
Singh V (1994) Acquisition program announcements, managerial motives and the returns to stockholders. Working Paper, University of Pittsburgh
Smith R, Kim J (1994) The combined effects of free cash flow and financial slack on bidder and target stock returns. J Bus 67:281–310
Song M, Walkling R (2000) Abnormal returns to rivals of acquisition targets: a test of the acquisition probability hypothesis. J Financ Econ 55:143–171
Stulz RM (1988) Managerial control of voting rights: financial policies, and the market for corporate control. J Financ Econ 20:25–54
Weston JF, Chung KS, Hoag SE (1990) Mergers, restructuring and corporate control. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Comments and suggestions from Harjeet Bhabra, Glenn Boyle, Tim Brailsford, Craig Dunbar, Ken Lehn, Anil Makhija, Gershon Mandelker, Kuldeep Shastri, Vijay Singh, Manohar Sukhwani, seminar participants at the Australian National University, University of Melbourne, Monash University, University of Auckland, Nanyang Technological University and the University of Otago are gratefully acknowledged. The usual disclaimer applies.
Appendix
Appendix
1.1 Explanations for acquisition related gains
Agency cost
Conflict of interest between agents and principals, when ownership is separated from control, has been widely recognized as a drain on stockholder wealth. This divergence of interest can lead to managers taking actions which are not necessarily beneficial to stockholders (Jensen and Meckling 1976). Takeovers, as external control mechanisms could alleviate this conflict, thereby limiting major departures of managerial actions from shareholders’ wealth maximization (Jensen and Ruback 1983). Therefore, the extent of agency conflict is predicted to be positively related to the attractiveness of a potential target.
Information signaling
Alternative forms of the information hypothesis have been distinguished by Bradley et al. (1983). One such explanation associates positive target stock price reaction to revelation of new information about the target during the bidding process. Signaling vis-à-vis potential targets in acquisition programs refers to the revaluation of target shares resulting from the possibility of a takeover bid that is generated by the information contained in the announcement of the program.
Differential efficiency
In the market for corporate control view of merger activity, takeovers represent an external disciplining mechanism with a differentially more efficient management wresting control of corporate assets that are inefficiently managed by the incumbent management (see Jensen and Ruback 1983). A fundamental premise of this view is the existence of a high positive correlation between managerial efficiency and the company's stock returns. For example, an inefficiently managed company will result in its shares being undervalued relative to their potential value and this could encourage a takeover. The announcement of the program will therefore drive up the share price of probable targets with a greater degree of managerial inefficiency in anticipation of a takeover.
Market power
When the value of the firm resulting from the merger is larger than the sum of the component parts synergy is created. Berkovitch and Narayan (1993) empirically show that synergy is the biggest motivating factor behind most mergers by documenting a positive correlation between target gains and total gains.Footnote 4 Schipper and Thompson (1983) report negative stock price reactions to announcements of regulations that constrain merger activity. Bradley (1980) provides evidence consistent with synergistic gains to acquirers despite large premiums paid to the target share holders. Possible sources of synergy from mergers include, among others, the ability to limit competition, acquisition of complementary resources and economies of scale. Acquisition of a target can have a significant impact on the level of industry concentration with an increase in concentration being beneficial to both the target and the acquirer.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bhabra, G.S. Potential targets: An analysis of stock price reactions to acquisition program announcements. J Econ Finan 32, 158–175 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12197-007-9009-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12197-007-9009-z