MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2344665193 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v8n5p1

Bidder’s Gain in Public M&A Transactions: Does Size Matter?

2016· article· en· W2344665193 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kenneth Högholm

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbnormal returnShareholderBiddingEvent studyDatabase transactionMergers and acquisitionsBusinessMonetary economicsEconomicsFinanceCorporate governanceMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we investigate the short term abnormal return to the bidding firm’s shareholders in takeovers made by a Finnish company during the time period from January 2000 to December 2013. Specifically, we study takeover transactions involving publicly traded target companies, and are particularly interested in the relationship between the abnormal return to bidder’s shareholders and the size of the transaction. Specific features of the market for corporate acquisitions in Finland are that almost all transactions are friendly acquisitions and usually aim for 100% of the target company. We estimate the abnormal return around 51 individual takeover announcements and investigate determinants of the abnormal returns. Our results show that the takeover announcement on average yields a positive, but insignificant abnormal return to the bidding firm’s shareholders. The announcement effect on the announcement day is 0.63%, while the cumulative average abnormal return for an eleven day event window is 1.39%. Both pre-event and post-event abnormal returns are statistically insignificant, although there is sign of a price run-up during the last week prior to the announcement. We document a significant negative relationship between the bidder’s abnormal return on the announcement day and the size of the deal, but a positive relationship between the announcement effect and the relative size of the deal. We also document a weak negative relationship between the abnormal returns and the relative size of the target to the bidder. Among the other takeover characteristics we do not find any statistically significant relationship to the announcement effect.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.190 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance→Same topicCorporate Finance and Governance→French-language works237,207→