[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/lvl/lacicr/1015.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Does Asymmetric Information Affect the Premium in Mergers and Acquisitions?

Author

Listed:
  • Georges Dionne
  • Mélissa La Haye
  • Anne-Sophie Bergères
Abstract
Our objective is to test the influence of information asymmetry between potential buyers on the premium paid for an acquisition. We analyze mergers and acquisitions as English auctions with asymmetric information. The theory of dynamic auctions with private values predicts that more informed bidders should pay a lower price for an acquisition. We test that prediction with a sample of 1,026 acquisitions in the United States between 1990 and 2007. We hypothesize that blockholders of the target’s shares are better informed than other bidders because they possess privileged information on the target. Information asymmetry between participants is shown to influence the premium paid. Blockholders pay a much lower conditional premium than do other buyers (around 70% lower). Tests also show that the characteristics of the target, specifically the runup, sales growth and size, affect the premium. The size of the target relative to the buyer, the choice of a public takeover bid and the hostility of the bid are also influential.

Suggested Citation

  • Georges Dionne & Mélissa La Haye & Anne-Sophie Bergères, 2010. "Does Asymmetric Information Affect the Premium in Mergers and Acquisitions?," Cahiers de recherche 1015, CIRPEE.
    • Handle: RePEc:lvl:lacicr:1015
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.cirpee.org/fileadmin/documents/Cahiers_2010/CIRPEE10-15.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joshua D. Angrist & Alan B. Krueger, 2001. "Instrumental Variables and the Search for Identification: From Supply and Demand to Natural Experiments," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 15(4), pages 69-85, Fall.
    2. Slusky, Alexander R & Caves, Richard E, 1991. "Synergy, Agency, and the Determinants of Premia Paid in Mergers," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(3), pages 277-296, March.
    3. Comment, Robert & Schwert, G. William, 1995. "Poison or placebo? Evidence on the deterrence and wealth effects of modern antitakeover measures," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 3-43, September.
    4. Hong, Han & Shum, Matthew, 2003. "Econometric models of asymmetric ascending auctions," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 112(2), pages 327-358, February.
    5. Singh, Rajdeep, 1998. "Takeover Bidding with Toeholds: The Case of the Owner's Curse," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 11(4), pages 679-704.
    6. Burkart, Mike, 1995. "Initial Shareholdings and Overbidding in Takeover Contests," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 50(5), pages 1491-1515, December.
    7. Mary M. Bange, 2004. "Board Composition, Board Effectiveness, and the Observed Form of Takeover Bids," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 17(4), pages 1185-1215.
    8. Jeremy Bulow & Ming Huang & Paul Klemperer, 1999. "Toeholds and Takeovers," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 107(3), pages 427-454, June.
    9. Schwert, G. William, 1996. "Markup pricing in mergers and acquisitions," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 153-192, June.
    10. Alex Edmans, 2009. "Blockholder Trading, Market Efficiency, and Managerial Myopia," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 64(6), pages 2481-2513, December.
    11. Morck, Randall & Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W., 1988. "Management ownership and market valuation," Scholarly Articles 29407535, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    12. David Ettinger, 2009. "Takeover Contests, Toeholds and Deterrence," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 111(1), pages 103-124, March.
    13. Heflin, Frank & Shaw, Kenneth W., 2000. "Blockholder Ownership and Market Liquidity," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 35(4), pages 621-633, December.
    14. Jensen, Michael C, 1986. "Agency Costs of Free Cash Flow, Corporate Finance, and Takeovers," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(2), pages 323-329, May.
    15. Ivaldi, Marc & Motis, Jrissy, 2007. "Mergers as Auctions," CEPR Discussion Papers 6434, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    16. G. William Schwert, 2000. "Hostility in Takeovers: In the Eyes of the Beholder?," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 55(6), pages 2599-2640, December.
    17. Robert Wilson, 1998. "Sequential equilibria of asymmetric ascending auctions: The case of log-normal distributions," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 12(2), pages 433-440.
    18. Georges Dionne & Christian Gourieroux & Charles Vanasse, 2001. "Testing for Evidence of Adverse Selection in the Automobile Insurance Market: A Comment," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 109(2), pages 444-473, April.
    19. Michael J. Fishman, 1988. "A Theory of Preemptive Takeover Bidding," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 19(1), pages 88-101, Spring.
    20. Robert B. Wilson, 1967. "Competitive Bidding with Asymmetric Information," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(11), pages 816-820, July.
    21. Hendricks, Kenneth & Porter, Robert H, 1988. "An Empirical Study of an Auction with Asymmetric Information," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 78(5), pages 865-883, December.
    22. Engelbrecht-Wiggans, Richard & Milgrom, Paul R. & Weber, Robert J., 1983. "Competitive bidding and proprietary information," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 161-169, April.
    23. Moeller, Thomas, 2005. "Let's make a deal! How shareholder control impacts merger payoffs," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 167-190, April.
    24. repec:fth:prinin:455 is not listed on IDEAS
    25. Roll, Richard, 1986. "The Hubris Hypothesis of Corporate Takeovers," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(2), pages 197-216, April.
    26. James J. Heckman, 2001. "Micro Data, Heterogeneity, and the Evaluation of Public Policy: Nobel Lecture," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 109(4), pages 673-748, August.
    27. Georges Dionne & Pascal St-Amour & Désiré Vencatachellum, 2009. "Asymmetric Information and Adverse Selection in Mauritian Slave Auctions," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 76(4), pages 1269-1295.
    28. Ravid, S. Abraham & Spiegel, Matthew, 1999. "Toehold strategies, takeover laws and rival bidders," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 23(8), pages 1219-1242, August.
    29. Brockman, Paul & Yan, Xuemin (Sterling), 2009. "Block ownership and firm-specific information," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 308-316, February.
    30. Milgrom, Paul R & Weber, Robert J, 1982. "A Theory of Auctions and Competitive Bidding," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(5), pages 1089-1122, September.
    31. M. Weverbergh, 1979. "Note--Competitive Bidding with Asymmetric Information Reanalyzed," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(3), pages 291-294, March.
    32. Lance Brannman & Luke M. Froeb, 2000. "Mergers, Cartels, Set-Asides, and Bidding Preferences in Asymmetric Oral Auctions," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 82(2), pages 283-290, May.
    33. Morck, Randall & Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W., 1988. "Management ownership and market valuation : An empirical analysis," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(1-2), pages 293-315, January.
    34. Chen, Xia & Harford, Jarrad & Li, Kai, 2007. "Monitoring: Which institutions matter?," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(2), pages 279-305, November.
    35. Richard W. Blundell & Richard J. Smith, 1989. "Estimation in a Class of Simultaneous Equation Limited Dependent Variable Models," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 56(1), pages 37-57.
    36. Joshua Angrist & Alan Krueger, 2001. "Instrumental Variables and the Search for Identification: From Supply and Demand to Natural Experiments," Working Papers 834, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
    37. Cudd, Mike & Duggal, Rakesh, 2000. "Industry Distributional Characteristics of Financial Ratios: An Acquisition Theory Application," The Financial Review, Eastern Finance Association, vol. 35(1), pages 105-120, February.
    38. Jun‐Koo Kang & Jin‐Mo Kim, 2008. "The Geography of Block Acquisitions," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 63(6), pages 2817-2858, December.
    39. Benoit, Jean-Pierre & Dubra, Juan, 2006. "Information revelation in auctions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 181-205, November.
    40. repec:dau:papers:123456789/5449 is not listed on IDEAS
    41. Vijay Gondhalekar & R. Raymond Sant & Stephen Ferris, 2004. "The price of corporate acquisition: determinants of cash takeover premia," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(12), pages 735-739.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mussa Hussaini & Ugo Rigoni & Paolo Perego, 2023. "The strategic choice of payment method in takeovers: The role of environmental, social and governance performance," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(1), pages 200-219, January.
    2. Glenn Boyle & Gerald Ward, 2016. "Do Better Informed Investors Always Do Better?," Working Papers in Economics 16/29, University of Canterbury, Department of Economics and Finance.
    3. Patty Bick & Matthew D. Crook & Andrew A. Lynch & Brian R. Walkup, 2017. "Does Distance Matter In Mergers And Acquisitions?," Journal of Financial Research, Southern Finance Association;Southwestern Finance Association, vol. 40(1), pages 33-54, March.
    4. Rehman, Obaid Ur & Zhou, Zihan & Wu, Kai & Li, Wen, 2024. "From courtrooms to corporations: The effect of bankruptcy court establishment on firm acquisitions," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    5. Glenn Boyle & Gerald Ward, 2018. "Do Better Informed Investors Always Do Better? A Buyback Puzzle," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(4), pages 2137-2157, October.
    6. Pierre Picard & Jennifer Wang & Kili Wang, 2019. "Collusion between Retailers and Customers: The Case of Insurance Fraud in Taiwan," Working Papers hal-02045335, HAL.
    7. Jedidi, Helmi & Dionne, Georges, 2019. "Nonparametric testing for information asymmetry in the mortgage servicing market," Working Papers 19-1, HEC Montreal, Canada Research Chair in Risk Management, revised 28 Oct 2019.
    8. Dalkır, Elif, 2015. "Shareholder information and partial tender offers," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 64-66.
    9. Paul Borochin & Chinmoy Ghosh & Di Huang, 2019. "Target information asymmetry and takeover strategy: Insights from a new perspective," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 25(1), pages 38-79, January.
    10. Georges Dionne, 2012. "The Empirical Measure of Information Problems with Emphasis on Insurance Fraud and Dynamic Data," Cahiers de recherche 1233, CIRPEE.
    11. Dionne, Georges & Michaud, Pierre-Carl & Pinquet, Jean, 2013. "A review of recent theoretical and empirical analyses of asymmetric information in road safety and automobile insurance," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 85-97.
    12. Lacerda, José & Pereira, Paulo J. & Rodrigues, Artur, 2021. "Toehold acquisitions as option games," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    13. Mamun, Abdullah & Tannous, George & Zhang, Sicong, 2021. "Do regulatory bank mergers improve operating performance?," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 152-174.
    14. Pierre Picard & Kili Wang, 2015. "INSURANCE FRAUD THROUGH COLLUSION BETWEEN POLICYHOLDERS AND CAR DEALERS: THEORY AND EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE Pierre PICARD," Working Papers hal-01140590, HAL.
    15. Dionne, Georges & Fenou, Akouété & Mnasri, Mohamed, 2023. "Consolidation of the US property and casualty insurance industry: Is climate risk a causal factor for mergers and acquisitions?," Working Papers 23-1, HEC Montreal, Canada Research Chair in Risk Management.
    16. Gomes, Mathieu & Marsat, Sylvain, 2018. "Does CSR impact premiums in M&A transactions?," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 71-80.
    17. Suin Lee & Christos Pantzalis & Jung Chul Park, 2024. "Interstate migration‐based social networks and M&A decisions," The Financial Review, Eastern Finance Association, vol. 59(1), pages 113-153, February.
    18. Nikhil Ramkrishna Bandodkar & Renu Singh, 2022. "Small and Startup IT Firms, Information Chasms, and the Market for Acquisitions," Businesses, MDPI, vol. 2(3), pages 1-21, September.
    19. Hussaini, Mussa & Hussain, Nazim & Nguyen, Duc Khuong & Rigoni, Ugo, 2021. "Is corporate social responsibility an agency problem? An empirical note from takeovers," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    20. Dionne, Georges & Fenou, Akouété & Mnasri, Mohamed, 2024. "Insurers’ M&A in the United States during the 1990-2022 period: Is the Fed monetary policy a causal factor," Working Papers 24-2, HEC Montreal, Canada Research Chair in Risk Management, revised 16 Jul 2024.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Goldman, Eitan & Qian, Jun, 2005. "Optimal toeholds in takeover contests," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(2), pages 321-346, August.
    2. Eckbo, B. Espen, 2009. "Bidding strategies and takeover premiums: A review," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 149-178, February.
    3. Schneck, Colin & Bessler, Wolfgang & Zimmermann, Jan, 2014. "Bidder Contests in International Mergers and Acquisitions: The Impact of Toeholds, Preemptive Bidding, and Termination Fees," VfS Annual Conference 2014 (Hamburg): Evidence-based Economic Policy 100493, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    4. Bauguess, Scott W. & Moeller, Sara B. & Schlingemann, Frederik P. & Zutter, Chad J., 2009. "Ownership structure and target returns," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 48-65, February.
    5. Bessler, Wolfgang & Schneck, Colin & Zimmermann, Jan, 2015. "Bidder contests in international mergers and acquisitions: The impact of toeholds, preemptive bidding, and termination fees," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 4-23.
    6. Aktas, Nihat & de Bodt, Eric & Roll, Richard, 2009. "Learning, hubris and corporate serial acquisitions," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 15(5), pages 543-561, December.
    7. Dai, Yun & Gryglewicz, Sebastian & Smit, Han T.J. & De Maeseneire, Wouter, 2013. "Similar bidders in takeover contests," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 544-561.
    8. Lorentziadis, Panos L., 2016. "Optimal bidding in auctions from a game theory perspective," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 248(2), pages 347-371.
    9. Edmans, Alex & Holderness, Clifford, 2016. "Blockholders: A Survey of Theory and Evidence," CEPR Discussion Papers 11442, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    10. Taher Hamza, 2011. "Determinants of short-term value creation for the bidder: evidence from France," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 15(2), pages 157-186, May.
    11. Patty Bick & Matthew D. Crook & Andrew A. Lynch & Brian R. Walkup, 2017. "Does Distance Matter In Mergers And Acquisitions?," Journal of Financial Research, Southern Finance Association;Southwestern Finance Association, vol. 40(1), pages 33-54, March.
    12. Loyola, Gino, 2012. "Optimal and efficient takeover contests with toeholds," Journal of Financial Intermediation, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 203-216.
    13. Shelton, Lois M., 2000. "Merger market dynamics: insights into the behavior of target and bidder firms," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 41(4), pages 363-383, April.
    14. Dimopoulos, Theodosios & Sacchetto, Stefano, 2014. "Preemptive bidding, target resistance, and takeover premiums," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(3), pages 444-470.
    15. Bhagat, Sanjai & Dong, Ming & Hirshleifer, David & Noah, Robert, 2005. "Do tender offers create value? New methods and evidence," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 3-60, April.
    16. Daniel Ferreira & Emanuel Ornelas & John L. Turner, 2015. "Unbundling Ownership and Control," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(1), pages 1-21, March.
    17. Khatami, Seyed Hossein & Marchica, Maria-Teresa & Mura, Roberto, 2015. "Corporate acquisitions and financial constraints," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 107-121.
    18. Dang, Man & Henry, Darren, 2016. "Partial-control versus full-control acquisitions: Does target corporate governance matter? Evidence from eight East and Southeast Asian countries," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 40(PB), pages 251-265.
    19. Jorge Farinha & Francisco Miranda, 2003. "Run-up, toeholds, and agency effects in mergers and acquisitions: evidence from an emerging market," CEF.UP Working Papers 0311, Universidade do Porto, Faculdade de Economia do Porto.
    20. Carline, Nicholas F. & Linn, Scott C. & Yadav, Pradeep K., 2014. "Corporate governance and the nature of takeover resistance," CFR Working Papers 14-01, University of Cologne, Centre for Financial Research (CFR).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Asymmetric information; merger and acquisition; blockholder; premium; English auction; test for over-identifying restriction (Sargan test); test for endogeneity (Durbin-Wu-Hausman test);
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C33 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Models with Panel Data; Spatio-temporal Models
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • G34 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Mergers; Acquisitions; Restructuring; Corporate Governance

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:lvl:lacicr:1015. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Manuel Paradis (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cirpeca.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.