Prior work has established that entrenched managers make value-decreasing acquisitions. In this study, we ask how exactly they destroy that value. Overall, we find that value destruction by entrenched managers comes from a combination of factors. First, they disproportionately avoid private targets, which have been shown to be generally associated with value creation. Second, when they do buy private targets or public targets with blockholders, they tend not to use all-equity offers, which has the effect of avoiding the transfer of a valuable blockholder to the bidder. We further test whether entrenched managers simply overpay for good targets or actually choose targets with lower synergies. We find that while they overpay, they also choose low-synergy targets in the first place, as shown by combined announcement returns and post-merger operating performance. JEL classification: G34; G32Keywords: Corporate governance; Mergers; Entrenchment; Blockholders; Overpayment Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1562247 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1562247 The Sources of Value Destruction in Acquisitions by Entrenched Managers AbstractPrior work has established that entrenched managers make value-decreasing acquisitions. In this study, we ask how exactly they destroy that value. Overall, we find that value destruction by entrenched managers comes from a combination of factors. First, they disproportionately avoid private targets, which have been shown to be generally associated with value creation. Second, when they do buy private targets or public targets with blockholders, they tend not to use all-equity offers, which has the effect of avoiding the transfer of a valuable blockholder to the bidder. We further test whether entrenched managers simply overpay for good targets or actually choose targets with lower synergies. We find that while they overpay, they also choose low-synergy targets in the first place, as shown by combined announcement returns and post-merger operating performance.JEL classification: G34; G32

Prior work has established that entrenched managers make value-decreasing acquisitions. In this study, we ask how exactly they destroy that value. Overall, we find that value destruction by entrenched managers comes from a combination of factors. First, they disproportionately avoid private targets, which have been shown to be generally associated with value creation. Second, when they do buy private targets or public targets with blockholders, they tend not to use all-equity offers, which has the effect of avoiding the transfer of a valuable blockholder to the bidder. We further test whether entrenched managers simply overpay for good targets or actually choose targets with lower synergies. We find that while they overpay, they also choose low-synergy targets in the first place, as shown by combined announcement returns and post-merger operating performance. JEL classification: G34; G32Keywords: Corporate governance; Mergers; Entrenchment; Blockholders; Overpayment Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1562247 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1562247 The Sources of Value Destruction in Acquisitions by Entrenched Managers AbstractPrior work has established that entrenched managers make value-decreasing acquisitions. In this study, we ask how exactly they destroy that value. Overall, we find that value destruction by entrenched managers comes from a combination of factors. First, they disproportionately avoid private targets, which have been shown to be generally associated with value creation. Second, when they do buy private targets or public targets with blockholders, they tend not to use all-equity offers, which has the effect of avoiding the transfer of a valuable blockholder to the bidder. We further test whether entrenched managers simply overpay for good targets or actually choose targets with lower synergies. We find that while they overpay, they also choose low-synergy targets in the first place, as shown by combined announcement returns and post-merger operating performance.JEL classification: G34; G32