1989
DOI: 10.1016/0304-405x(89)90057-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Shareholder wealth effects of corporate takeovers

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

17
205
1
17

Year Published

2010
2010
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 354 publications
(240 citation statements)
references
References 44 publications
17
205
1
17
Order By: Relevance
“…As a transaction-specific control variable, RELATIVE SIZE between bidder and target (Moeller et al 2004;Seth 1990) is defined as the index of bidder sales to target sales and deal value to market capitalization as a percentage. Other binary control dummy variables include (1) PUBLIC, for listed target companies (Chang 1998, Officer 2007; (2) CASH, for purchase price payments in cash (Faccio and Masulis 2005;Travlos 1987); (3) HOSTILE, for transactions with a hostile attitude (Franks and Mayer 1996;Loughran and Vijh 1997); (4) TOEHOLD, for previous minority shareholdings (Betton et al 2009;Franks and Harris 1989); (5) CROSSBORDER, for foreign targets (Goergen and Renneboog 2004;Rossi and Volpin 2004); and (f) CONGLOMERATE, for conglomerate acquisition direction (Healy et al 1992;Morck et al 1990). Regarding the latter control variable, CONGLOMERATE, it is important to highlight that this information is used in order to filter out the effect on each single transaction.…”
Section: Additional Control Variablesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As a transaction-specific control variable, RELATIVE SIZE between bidder and target (Moeller et al 2004;Seth 1990) is defined as the index of bidder sales to target sales and deal value to market capitalization as a percentage. Other binary control dummy variables include (1) PUBLIC, for listed target companies (Chang 1998, Officer 2007; (2) CASH, for purchase price payments in cash (Faccio and Masulis 2005;Travlos 1987); (3) HOSTILE, for transactions with a hostile attitude (Franks and Mayer 1996;Loughran and Vijh 1997); (4) TOEHOLD, for previous minority shareholdings (Betton et al 2009;Franks and Harris 1989); (5) CROSSBORDER, for foreign targets (Goergen and Renneboog 2004;Rossi and Volpin 2004); and (f) CONGLOMERATE, for conglomerate acquisition direction (Healy et al 1992;Morck et al 1990). Regarding the latter control variable, CONGLOMERATE, it is important to highlight that this information is used in order to filter out the effect on each single transaction.…”
Section: Additional Control Variablesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The results found do not allow to come to a clear conclusion 1 . For example Dodd and Ruback (1977), Kummer and Hoffmeister (1978), Bradley 2 (1980), Jarrell and Bradley (1980), Asquith, Bruner, and Mullins (1983), Bradley, Desai, and Kim (1988) and Franks and Harris (1989), found significantly positive values for both bidder and target companies. Smith and Kim (1994) confirmed negative values throughout the pre and post acquisition period.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…In the 12 months post-merger, considering the date of approval of the merger, the average abnormal returns were highly negative (-13.7%) and statistically significant. Franks and Harris (1989), on a sample of more than 1,800 mergers in the UK in the period 1955-1985, found that the acquiring companies registered significant and negative abnormal returns (-12.6) in the two years following the completion of the merger. Gregory (1997) observed a sample of 452 M&As in the UK during the period 1984-1992 using six different benchmarks and pointed out negative and statistically significant and variable CARs between -11.8% and -18%.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Grimm & Co, and later its legal successors (now it is Business Valuation Resources), have started to collect statistical data on publicly announced mergers and acquisitions and publish the Mergerstat Review bulletin, which contain the statistical data on M&As with the involvement of USA companies [3]. Starting from 1980s the activity of European M&A researchers [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11], and from 2000s the activity of the Asian ones [12][13][14][15][16][17], has increased. Nowadays there are a lot of scientific papers devoted to the research of global and several national M&A markets trends.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%