The Impact of Takeovers on Shareholder Wealth during the 1920s Merger Wave

Leeth, John D.; Borg, J. Rody

doi:10.2307/2676191

Cited by 55 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This finding suggests that, at the aggregate level, the market views M&A announcements as good news and reacts positively to them, as consistent with most prior studies (e.g. Malatesta, 1983;Sicherman and Pettway, 1987;Leeth and Borg, 2000;and Rosen, 2003). My results show that there is no significant cumulative abnormal return detected for the 41 day time window (-20, +20).…”

Section: Panel A: Deal Value and Market Value Of The Acquiring Firm Asupporting

confidence: 89%

CEO Narcissism in M&A Decision-Making and its Impact on Firm Performance

Liu

Taffler²

2009

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Panel A: Deal Value and Market Value Of The Acquiring Firm Asupporting

confidence: 89%

CEO Narcissism in M&A Decision-Making and its Impact on Firm Performance

Liu

Taffler²

2009

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Accordingly, as the means of payment in mergers is usually equity whereas cash bids prevail in tender offers, they also find that all-cash bids are more profitable for target shareholders than are all-equity 1910s-1929and 1950s-1973Leeth and Borg (2002 Line missing Loderer and Martin (1990) ones. However, even within each takeover type subsample (mergers, friendly acquisitions, and tender offers), Franks et al (1991), Andrade et al (2001), and Goergen and Renneboog (2004) show evidence that all-equity bids trigger lower target returns than all-cash bids.…”

Section: Target-firm Stockholder Returnmentioning

confidence: 95%

A century of corporate takeovers: What have we learned and where do we stand?

Мартынова

Renneboog

2008

Journal of Banking & Finance

428

308

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Norburn & Schoenberg, 1994), time (e.g. Leeth & Borg, 2000;Moeller, Schlingemann, & Stulz, 2005), type of acquisition (e.g. Kaplan & Weisbach, 1992), type of company (e.g.…”

Section: Supportivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Untangling micro-behavioral sources of failure in mergers and acquisitions: a theoretical integration and extension

Friedman

Carmeli

Tishler

et al. 2015

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research in the field of mergers and acquisitions (M&A) has extensively examined potential sources of failure and success. However, despite increasing attention from scholars, only a handful of studies have actually investigated M&A processes. Adopting a process perspective is crucial to unraveling the underlying microbehavioral foundations of M&A. This paper focuses on why M&As rarely reach their full potential. Specifically, we address these issues by providing an in-depth review of mechanisms contributing to M&A failure and developing a processual framework. We argue that behavioral factors at the individual and organizational levels impede rational and effective decision-making before, during and after an acquisition and suggest that communication climate plays a vital role in facilitating effective integration and may serve as a platform to improve M&A performance.

show abstract

The Impact of Takeovers on Shareholder Wealth during the 1920s Merger Wave

Cited by 55 publications

References 33 publications

CEO Narcissism in M&A Decision-Making and its Impact on Firm Performance

CEO Narcissism in M&A Decision-Making and its Impact on Firm Performance

A century of corporate takeovers: What have we learned and where do we stand?

Untangling micro-behavioral sources of failure in mergers and acquisitions: a theoretical integration and extension

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About