Hostname: page-component-669899f699-2mbcq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-05T09:24:32.591Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bid Resistance by Takeover Targets: Managerial Bargaining or Bad Faith?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 June 2017

Thomas W. Bates  and
David A. Becher
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper examines management’s motives for rejecting takeover bids and the associated shareholder wealth effects. We develop measures of initial bid quality and find a significant negative correlation between the quality of a bid and rejection. The likelihood of higher follow-on offers decreases with bid quality and is greater when targets have classified boards and chief executive officers (CEOs) with significant personal wealth tied to the transaction. Target CEOs who fail to close high-quality offers experience a significant rate of forced turnover. Overall, the results support a price improvement motive for contested bids.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis , Volume 52 , Issue 3 , June 2017 , pp. 837 - 866
Copyright
Copyright © Michael G. Foster School of Business, University of Washington 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

1

We thank Vladimir Atanasov, Andriy Bodnaruk, Matt Cain, Shane Corwin, David Denis, Espen Eckbo (the referee), Scott Gibson, Katherine Guthrie, Michael Lemmon, Laura Lindsey, Paul Malatesta (the editor), Harold Mulherin, Michael Roberts, Harley (Chip) Ryan, Jan Sokolowsky, Denis Sosyura, Karin Thorburn, Ralph Walkling, and Mark Wolinsky as well as seminar participants at the College of William and Mary, Notre Dame University, Pennsylvania State University, the University of Kentucky, the University of Michigan, the 2012 American Finance Association meetings, the 2012 Finance Down Under meetings, and the 2011 American Law and Economics Association meetings for their comments and suggestions. Dane Kline and Zhichuan Li provided excellent research support.

References

Ai, C., and Norton, E.. “Interaction Terms in Logit and Probit Models.” Economic Letters, 80 (2003), 123–129.Google Scholar
Baker, M.; Pan, X.; and Wurgler, J.. “The Effect of Reference Point Prices on Mergers and Acquisitions.” Journal of Financial Economics, 106 (2012), 49–71.Google Scholar
Bargeron, L.; Schlingemann, F.; Stulz, R. M.; and Zutter, C.. “Does Target CEO Retention in Acquisitions Involving Private Equity Acquirers Harm Target Shareholders?” Working Paper, University of Pittsburgh (2013).Google Scholar
Baron, D. P.“Tender Offers and Managerial Resistance.” Journal of Finance, 38 (1983), 331–343.Google Scholar
Bates, T. W.; Becher, D. A.; and Lemmon, M. L.. “Board Classification and Managerial Entrenchment: Evidence from the Market for Corporate Control.” Journal of Financial Economics, 87 (2008), 656–677.Google Scholar
Bates, T. W., and Lemmon, M. L.. “Breaking Up Is Hard to Do? An Analysis of Termination Fee Provisions and Merger Outcomes.” Journal of Financial Economics, 69 (2003), 469–504.Google Scholar
Bates, T. W.; Lemmon, M. L.; and Linck, J. M.. “Shareholder Wealth Effects and Bid Negotiation in Freeze-Out Deals: Are Minority Shareholders Left out in the Cold?” Journal of Financial Economics, 81 (2006), 681–708.Google Scholar
Bebchuk, L.“The Case for Facilitating Competing Offers.” Harvard Business Review, 95 (1982), 1028–1056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bebchuk, L.; Coates, J. C.; and Subramanian, G.. “The Powerful Antitakeover Force of Staggered Boards: Theory, Evidence, and Policy.” Stanford Law Review, 54 (2002), 887–951.Google Scholar
Bebchuk, L., and Cohen, A.. “The Costs of Entrenched Boards.” Journal of Financial Economics, 78 (2005), 409–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bebchuk, L.; Cohen, A.; and Ferrell, A.. “What Matters in Corporate Governance?” Review of Financial Studies, 22 (2009), 783–827.Google Scholar
Betton, S., and Eckbo, B. E.. “Toeholds, Bid-Jumps and Expected Payoffs in Takeovers.” Review of Financial Studies, 13 (2000), 841–882.Google Scholar
Betton, S.; Eckbo, B. E.; Thompson, R.; and Thorburn, K. S.. “Merger Negotiations with Stock Market Feedback.” Journal of Finance, 69 (2014), 1705–1745.Google Scholar
Betton, S.; Eckbo, B. E.; and Thorburn, K. S.. “Corporate Takeovers.” In Handbook of Corporate Finance: Empirical Corporate Finance, Vol. II, Eckbo, B. E., ed. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier, North Holland (2008a), 291–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Betton, S.; Eckbo, B. E.; and Thorburn, K. S.. “Markup Pricing Revisited.” Working Paper, Dartmouth College (2008b).Google Scholar
Betton, S.; Eckbo, B. E.; and Thorburn, K. S.. “Merger Negotiations and the Toehold Puzzle.” Journal of Financial Economics, 91 (2009), 158–178.Google Scholar
Brickley, J. A.; Coles, J. L.; and Terry, R. L.. “Outside Directors and the Adoption of Poison Pills.” Journal of Financial Economics, 35 (1994), 371–390.Google Scholar
Brudney, V., and Chirelstein, M. A.. “Fair Shares in Corporate Mergers and Takeovers.” Harvard Law Review, 88 (1974), 297–337.Google Scholar
Coates, J. C.“Takeover Defenses in the Shadow of the Pill: A Critique of the Scientific Evidence.” Texas Law Review, 79 (2000), 271–382.Google Scholar
Comment, R., and Schwert, G. W.. “Poison or Placebo? Evidence on the Deterrence and Wealth Effects of Modern Antitakeover Measures.” Journal of Financial Economics, 39 (1995), 3–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cotter, J., and Zenner, M.. “How Managerial Wealth Affects the Tender Offer Process.” Journal of Financial Economics, 35 (1994), 63–97.Google Scholar
Cremers, M., and Nair, V.. “Governance Mechanisms and Equity Prices.” Journal of Finance, 60 (2005), 2859–2894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cremers, M.; Nair, V.; and John, K.. “Takeovers and the Cross-Section of Returns.” Review of Financial Studies, 22 (2009), 1409–1445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeAngelo, H., and Rice, E.. “Anti-Takeover Charter Amendments and Stockholder Wealth.” Journal of Financial Economics, 11 (1983), 329–360.Google Scholar
Denis, D. J., and Serrano, J. M.. “Active Investors and Management Turnover Following Unsuccessful Control Contests.” Journal of Financial Economics, 40 (1996), 239–266.Google Scholar
Easterbrook, F. H., and Fischel, D. R.. “The Proper Role of a Target’s Management in Responding to a Tender Offer.” Harvard Law Review, 94 (1981), 1161–1204.Google Scholar
Eckbo, B. E.“Bidding Strategies and Takeover Premiums: A Review.” Journal of Corporate Finance, 15 (2009), 149–178.Google Scholar
Fama, E.“Agency Problems and the Theory of the Firm.” Journal of Political Economy, 88 (1980), 288–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fama, E., and French, K.. “Industry Costs of Equity.” Journal of Financial Economics, 43 (1997), 153–193.Google Scholar
Fich, E. M.; Cai, J.; and Tran, A.. “Stock Option Grants to Target CEOs during Private Merger Negotiations.” Journal of Financial Economics, 101 (2011), 413–430.Google Scholar
Giammarino, R. M., and Heinkel, R. L.. “A Model of Dynamic Takeover Behavior.” Journal of Finance, 41 (1986), 465–480.Google Scholar
Gompers, P.; Ishii, J.; and Metrick, A.. “Corporate Governance and Equity Prices.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118 (2003), 107–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harford, J., and Schonlau, R.. “Does the Director Labor Market Offer Ex Post Settling-Up for CEOs? The Case of Acquisitions.” Journal of Financial Economics, 110 (2013), 18–36.Google Scholar
Hartzell, J.; Ofek, E.; and Yermack, D.. “What’s in It for Me? Personal Benefits Obtained by CEOs Whose Firms Are Acquired.” Review of Financial Studies, 17 (2004), 37–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heitzman, S.“Equity Grants to Target CEOs during Deal Negotiations.” Journal of Financial Economics, 102 (2011), 251–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hermalin, B. E., and Weisbach, M. S.. “Endogenously Chosen Boards of Directors and Their Monitoring of the CEO.” American Economic Review, 88 (1998), 96–118.Google Scholar
Heron, R. A., and Lie, E.. “On the Use of Poison Pills and Defensive Payouts by Takeover Targets.” Journal of Business, 79 (2006), 1783–1807.Google Scholar
Hirshleifer, D., and Png, I. P. L.. “Facilitation of Competing Bids and the Price of a Takeover Target.” Review of Financial Studies, 2 (1989), 587–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirshleifer, D., and Thakor, A. V.. “Managerial Performance, Boards of Directors and Takeover Bidding.” Journal of Corporate Finance, 1 (1994), 63–90.Google Scholar
Jensen, M.“The Takeover Controversy: Analysis and Evidence.” In Knights, Raiders, and Targets: The Impact of the Hostile Takeover, Coffee, J. C., Lowenstein, L., and Rose-Ackerman, S., eds. New York: Oxford University Press (1988).Google Scholar
Manne, H. G.“Mergers and the Market for Corporate Control.” Journal of Political Economy, 73 (1965), 110–120.Google Scholar
Officer, M.“The Price of Corporate Liquidity: Acquisition Discounts for Unlisted Targets.” Journal of Financial Economics, 83 (2007), 571–598.Google Scholar
Parrino, R.“CEO Turnover and Outside Succession: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.” Journal of Financial Economics, 46 (1997), 165–197.Google Scholar
Safieddine, A., and Titman, S.. “Leverage and Corporate Performance: Evidence from Unsuccessful Takeovers.” Journal of Finance, 54 (1999), 547–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwert, G. W.“Markup Pricing in Mergers and Acquisitions.” Journal of Financial Economics, 41 (1996), 153–192.Google Scholar
Schwert, G. W.“Hostility of Takeovers: In the Eyes of the Beholder.” Journal of Finance, 55 (2000), 2599–2640.Google Scholar
Shleifer, A., and Vishny, R. W.. “Large Shareholders and Corporate Control.” Journal of Political Economy, 94 (1986), 461–488.Google Scholar
Stein, J. C.“Takeover Threats and Managerial Myopia.” Journal of Political Economy, 96 (1988), 61–80.Google Scholar
Stulz, R.“Managerial Control of Voting Rights: Financing Policies and the Market for Corporate Control.” Journal of Financial Economics, 20 (1988), 25–54.Google Scholar
Walkling, R. A.“Predicting Tender Offer Success: A Logistic Analysis.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 20 (1985), 461–478.Google Scholar