Corporate Governance: Implications for Canadian Cross-Border Acquisitions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we raise the question of why bidders from high investor protection countries tend to make acquisitions in less protective countries. To answer this question, we use a sample of 462 cross-border and domestic acquisitions by Canadian bidders. Our results reveal that Canadian bidders making cross-border acquisitions outperform those making domestic acquisitions, which contrasts with the findings of studies conducted on US acquirers. This result is especially true when stock is involved in payment, and is robust to different target and deal characteristics. Another major result is that Canadian bidders exploit the high shareholder protection in Canada, to make the foreign target accept stock as a means of payment and avoid at the same time the signaling effect of stock as an overvaluation of the bidder, which is the usually observed effect in domestic acquisitions. This practice allows the bidder to enlarge its investors’ base and enhance the market and investors awareness without being considered as overvalued, which drives a positive effect on the bidder’s stock. Accordingly, we find that the probability of an all-stock payment is positively correlated with the difference in the shareholder protection between the bidder and target countries.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".