The long-run performance of cross-border mergers and acquisitions: Evidence to support the internalization theory
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our study contributes to improving the understanding of cross-border M&As in two domains: evaluation of the long-term financial performance of acquiring firms in cross-border M&As and detection of the determinants of their long-term success. Our results show no sustained gains or losses during the post-acquistion period for Canadian acquirers. In contrast to their performance in domestic M&As, Canadian firms carrying out crossborder M&As do generate enough value to keep up with stockmarket requirements, relative to their risk level as determined by the Fama & French three-factor model and the level of returns generated by peer firms in their main industrial sector. Our findings agree with the internalization theory and suggest that acquiring firms engaged in cross-border M&As can indeed realize efficiency gains and create long -term value for their shareholders, but only under certain conditions: namely, when they possess high levels of R&D and a strong combination of R&D and intangibles
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it