MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889615093 · doi:10.1093/rfs/hhy102

Freeze-Out Mergers

2018· article· en· W2889615093 on OpenAlexaff
Elif Dalkır, Mehmet Dalkır, Doron Levit

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Financial Studies · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShareholderTender offerProfit (economics)MicroeconomicsBusinessMergers and acquisitionsEconomicsFinanceCorporate governance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Do freeze-out mergers mitigate the free-rider problem of corporate takeovers? We study this question in a tender offer model with finitely many shareholders. Under a freeze-out merger, minority shareholders expect to receive the original offer price whether or not they tender their shares. We show that the ability to freeze out shareholders increases the raider’s expected profit. However, as the number of shareholders gets arbitrarily large, the raider’s expected profit in equilibrium converges to zero for any freeze-out clause with an ownership threshold that is strictly above simple majority. In this sense, freeze-out mergers do not solve the free-rider problem. Received September 17, 2016; editorial decision June 3, 2018 by Editor Francesca Cornelli.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.358
Threshold uncertainty score0.772

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations12
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Financial StudiesSame topicCorporate Finance and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207