MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2794655571 · doi:10.22215/etd/2017-11905

Three Essays on Mergers and Acquisitions: Negative Premium, Failed Mergers, and Deal Quality Implications of Medium of Exchange

2017· dissertation· en· W2794655571 on OpenAlexaff
Erin Oldford

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMergers and acquisitionsRestructuringMarket liquidityShareholderBusinessMonetary economicsTender offerCashStock exchangeFinancial economicsEconomicsFinanceCorporate governance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mergers and acquisitions (M&A) are important economic events.They not only transform firms and industries but also have significant wealth implications for shareholders.In the past decade, investment in merger and acquisition activity has reached unprecedented levels, and the increase in M&A activity and the economic significance of this form of corporate restructuring provide the fundamental motivation for the study of the antecedents and consequences of mergers and acquisitions.In particular, this thesis is motivated by three areas within the M&A literature that demand further research, and it intends to address these gaps in the literature in three separate but interrelated essays.The results from the first essay provides evidence that while target firm's financial distress and overvaluation permit the bidder to offer a negative acquisition premium, it is the combination of the negative market reaction to the negative premium bid (resulting in a convergence of the target's stock price to bid price) and high block ownership (resulting in lower share liquidity) that lead target shareholders to prefer the negative premium bid over selling at market prices.The second essay investigates the issue of long-run post-acquisition underperformance, and contributes evidence to the literature that target firms in terminated deals not only outperform their own pre-acquisition performance but also outperform financial and operating performance of targets in completed deals.The third essay investigates the issue medium of exchange choice (i.e., cash or stock) under conditions of asymmetric information.This third essay reports evidence that the information content of announcement returns of bidding firms in stock financed deals is associated with the bidder valuation and the quality of the combination, but only the quality of the combination for cash bidders.The three essays, though investigating different aspects of the construction of the acquisition bid, each identify that the deal construction (e.g., deal consideration, medium of exchange) and deal outcomes (e.g., failure or success) is a key determinant of post-combination outcomes, both in terms of financial and operating performance. CHAPTER 2 Essay 1: Leaving money on the table? Negative premia on public acquisition targets

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCorporate Finance and Governance→French-language works237,207→