Collusive Bidding in Hostile Takeovers (original) (raw)
Related papers
Takeover Contests with Asymmetric Bidders
Review of Financial Studies, 2006
Target firms often face bidders that are not equally well informed, which reduces competition, because bidders with less information fear the winner's curse more. We analyze how targets should be sold in this situation. We show that a sequential procedure can extract the highest possible transaction price. The target first offers an exclusive deal to a better-informed bidder, without considering a less wellinformed bidder. If rejected, the target offers either an exclusive deal to the less well-informed bidder, or a modified first-price auction. Deal protection devices can be used to enhance a target's commitment to the procedure. (JEL G34, K22, D44)
Competition and dynamics of takeover contests
Journal of Corporate Finance, 2014
This paper investigates the e¤ect of potential competition on takeovers which we model as a bargaining game with alternating o¤ers where calling an auction represents an outside option for each bidder at each stage of the game. The model aims to answer three main questions: who wins the takeover? when? and how? Our results are able to explain why the takeover premium resulting from a negotiated deal is not signi…cantly di¤erent from that resulting from an auction, and why tender o¤ers are rarely observed in reality. Furthermore, the model allows us to draw conclusions on how other dimensions of the takeover process, such as termination fees, target resistance and tender o¤er costs, a¤ect its dynamics and outcome.
Conditional versus unconditional bidding in takeovers
Research in Economics, 2003
This paper explores the properties of multiple conditional takeover bids, and compares them with those of unconditional ones. If the initial takeover bid is unsuccessful, a raider is allowed to make a new tender offer to secure the required number of shares. Numerical analysis shows that the raider's expected profit from a conditional tender offer is higher than his expected profit from an unconditional bid, but still much lower than is predicted by static theories. However, the probability of a shareholder tendering his share is higher under the unconditional rather than conditional bidding. As the time between tender offers goes to zero, we show analytically that the expected profit from engaging in a conditional takeover bidding goes to zero similarly to the case of multiple unconditional offers.
Asymmetric Collusion and Merger Policy
2007
In their merger control, EU and the US have considered symmetric size distribution (cost structure) of …rms to be a factor potentially leading to collusion. We show that forbidding mergers leading to symmetric market structures can induce mergers leading to asymmetric market structures with higher risk of collusion, when …rms face indivisible costs of collusion. In particular, we show that if the rule determining the collusive outcome has the property that the large (ef-…cient) …rm bene…ts su¢ ciently more from collusion when industry asymmetries increase, collusion can become more likely when …rms are moderately asymmetric.
Conditional and unconditional bidding in takeovers: experimental evidence
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, 2015
The objective of this paper is to use laboratory experiments to test the dynamic theory of free riding among the target shareholders during a takeover attempt. We construct our experiments to reflect the dynamics of unconditional bidding suggested by Harrington and Prokop (1993) and the dynamics of conditional bidding analyzed by Prokop (2003). The experimental results show that the observed tendering probabilities are higher than the theoretically predicted values in the case of unconditional bidding. Thu s the actual behavior of shareholders is characterized by much less free riding than predicted by the theory of unconditional tender offers. In the case of conditional offers, the theoretical predictions for the tendering probabilities are confirmed by the laboratory behavior of shareholders in the case of multiple bidding. As suggested by the theory, the tendering probabilities are lower under multiple conditional bids than under unconditional offers.
Corporate Takeovers and Economic Efficiency
Annual review of financial economics, 2014
I review recent takeover research which advances our understanding of "who buys who" in the drive for productive efficiency. This research provides detailed information on textbased definitions of product market links between bidders and targets, the role of the supply chain and industrial networks in driving takeovers, target plant efficiency, and preand post-takeover investment in product innovation. Moreover, recent evidence adds to our understanding of "how firms are sold" (transaction efficiency). Almost half of takeovers involving public targets are initiated by the seller and not by the buyer. Targets are strongly averse to bidder toeholds, and the merger negotiation process strongly protects proprietary information. Takeover premiums leave traces of rational bidding strategies, including bid preemption and winner's curse avoidance. Recent tests employing exogenous instrumentation of bidder valuations reject that bidder shares are systematically overpriced in all-stock bids, and suggest that bidder synergy gains are much larger than previously thought.
Organizations & Markets eJournal, 2007
Most empirical studies that evaluate motives and gains in M&A conclude that acquirers at best do not lose from the deal while targets obtain positive gains. With a database containing merging firms’ characteristics and final bids, we propose a structural approach to infer acquirers’ gains from merging by interpreting a merger as an auction. Using nonparametric methods, we estimate bidders’ private values for targets and informational rents. We provide evidence of significant and positive merging gains. Moreover, investigating for the source of bidders’ private valuation and informational rents, our empirical analysis supports the synergy hypothesis as a motive in horizontal mergers.