Do Takeover Targets Under-perform? Evidence from Operating and Stock Returns
Preprint
- 1 January 2001
- preprint
- Published by Elsevier in SSRN Electronic Journal
Abstract
Financial economists seem to believe that takeovers are partly motivated by the desire to improve poorly-performing firms. However, prior empirical evidence in support of this inefficient management hypothesis is rather weak. We provide a detailed reexamination of this hypothesis in a large-scale empirical study. We find little evidence that target firms were performing poorly before acquisition, using either operating or stock returns. This result holds both for the sample as a whole and for sub-samples of takeovers that are more likely to be disciplinary. We conclude that the conventional view that targets perform poorly is not supported by the data.Keywords
This publication has 22 references indexed in Scilit:
- Bustup Takeovers of Value‐Destroying Diversified FirmsThe Journal of Finance, 1996
- Firm Performance and Mechanisms to Control Agency Problems between Managers and ShareholdersJournal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 1996
- Detecting abnormal operating performance: The empirical power and specification of test statisticsJournal of Financial Economics, 1996
- Performance Changes Following Top Management DismissalsThe Journal of Finance, 1995
- Determinants of conglomerate and predatory acquisitions: evidence from the 1960sJournal of Corporate Finance, 1995
- Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bondsJournal of Financial Economics, 1993
- The Cross-Section of Expected Stock ReturnsThe Journal of Finance, 1992
- The rationale behind interfirm tender offers: Information or synergy?Journal of Financial Economics, 1983
- Merger bids, uncertainty, and stockholder returnsJournal of Financial Economics, 1983
- Tender offers and stockholder returnsJournal of Financial Economics, 1977