Skip to main content
Log in

Potential targets: An analysis of stock price reactions to acquisition program announcements

  • Published:
Journal of Economics and Finance Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See Schipper and Thompson (1983), Asquith et al. (1983), Malatesta and Thompson (1985), Singh (1994). Asquith et al. (1983) report target stock price reaction at the bid but do not attempt to explain it.

  2. 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).

  3. Wealth redistribution from bondholders as a potential source of target price change is not considered.

  4. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asquith P, Bruner R, Mullins D (1983) The gains to bidding firms from mergers. J Financ Econ 11:121–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnes P (1998) Can takeover targets be identified by statistical techniques?: some UK evidence. The Statistician 47:573–591

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkovitch E, Narayan MP (1993) Motives for takeovers: an empirical investigation. J Financ Quant Anal 28:347–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Billet MT (1996) Targeting capital structure: the relationship between risky debt and the firm’s likelihood of being acquired. J Business 69:173–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradley M (1980) Inter-firm tender offers and the market for corporate control. J Bus 54:345–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradley M, Desai A, Kim EH (1983) The rationale behind inter-firm tender offers: information or synergy? J Financ Econ 11:183–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dodd P (1980) Merger proposals, management discretion and stockholder wealth. J Financ Econ 8:105–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dodd P, Ruback R (1977) Tender offers and stockholder returns: an empirical analysis. J Financ Econ 5:351–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eckbo E (1983) Horizontal mergers, collusion and stockholder wealth. J Financ Econ 11:241–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarrell GA, Bradley M (1980) The economic effects of federal and state regulations of cash tender offers. J Law Econ 23:371–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jayaraman N, Mandelker G, Shastri K (1991) Market anticipation of merger activities: an empirical test. Manage Decis Econ 12:439–448

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen M, Meckling WH (1976) Theory of the firm: managerial behaviour, agency costs and ownership structure. J Financ Econ 4:305–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen M, Ruback R (1983) The market for corporate control: the scientific evidence. J Financ Econ 11:5–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lang L, Stulz R, Walkling R (1991) A test of the free cash flow hypothesis. J Financ Econ 29:315–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malatesta P, Thompson R (1985) Partially anticipated events. J Financ Econ 14:237–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mikkelson WH, Partch MM (1989) Managers’ voting rights and corporate control. J Financ Econ 25:263–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers SC (1977) Determinants of corporate borrowing. J Financ Econ 5:147–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schipper K, Thompson R (1983) Evidence on the capitalized value of merger activity for acquiring firms. J Financ Econ 11:85–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stulz RM (1988) Managerial control of voting rights: financial policies, and the market for corporate control. J Financ Econ 20:25–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weston JF, Chung KS, Hoag SE (1990) Mergers, restructuring and corporate control. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gurmeet Singh Bhabra.

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

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12197-007-9009-z

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation