Narrow Results

Unlisted acquisitions differ from listed ones in three important aspects: the possibility of forming blockholders, which substitute debt as a monitoring mechanism; the liquidity discount, which mitigates managerial hubris; and the distinct deal process through which two-sided asymmetric information is revealed. Due to these differences, same firm and deal characteristics could induce heterogeneous market responses, depending on the target listing status. We find that such heterogeneous responses exist in usual characteristics such as method of payment, relative size, acquirer size, leverage, and market-to-book ratios. After these heterogeneous responses are incorporated, the puzzling "listing effect" disappears. Our results also indicate that the conventional approach used to investigate pooled samples of listed and unlisted acquisitions is effectively misspecified due to omitted variables.

The integration of two merging firms takes time to complete, and synergy gains from a merger can be captured only after the firms go through a costly and often lengthy post-merger integration period. This paper presents a dynamic model of capital structure for the target firm and the acquirer to examine the effects of the integration period on acquiring firms’ financing behavior around mergers. The model generates predictions that provide rational (non-behavioral) explanations for documented empirical evidence regarding leverage dynamics around mergers. When anticipating a longer and costlier integration period, acquiring firms strategically plan ahead by choosing a lower leverage prior to and at the time of the merger, and gradually lever up as the post-merger integration process nears completion. Deals with longer integration periods are financed with a larger fraction of equity. The model also implies that acquiring firms optimally time takeovers of underleveraged firms that experience negative shocks to their earnings.

This paper evaluates how the risks associated with mergers and acquisitions (M&As) affect Bank Holding Companies’ (BHCs) levels of insolvency risk. Bank insolvency is hypothesized to be affected by M&As directly and indirectly through banks’ market risk, geographical diversification, and activity diversification. The relationship between bank insolvency, diversification, and market risk is estimated as a system using the Generalized Method of Moments (GMM). The key finding is that M&As erode banks’ insolvency, both directly and indirectly through the effects associated with their geographical diversification.