Comparing acquisitions and divestitures

Mulherin, J. Harold; Boone, Audra L.

doi:10.1016/s0929-1199(00)00010-9

Cited by 551 publications

(330 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

282

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Andrade and Stafford (2004) find a strong support for the existence of both expansionary and contractionary motivations for merger activity, and also find that relatedindustry mergers follow industry shocks and occur in times of excess capacity. Mulherin and Boone (2000) confirm the industry-level clustering of mergers by finding a significant variation in takeover activity as well as in divestiture. Andrade et al (2001) confirm the industry-level clustering of mergers by providing evidence that merger activity is strongly clustered by industry, and find deregulation as a key driver of merger activity.…”

Section: Merger Wavessupporting

confidence: 67%

“…Previous empirical research on mergers and acquisitions has concentrated on documenting trends and characteristics of mergers. Perhaps the most consistent empirical feature found in the literature is that merger activity is strongly clustered by time and industry (e.g., Andrade et al 2001;Harford 2005;Mitchell and Mulherin 1996;Mulherin and Boone 2000). Mitchell and Mulherin (1996) suggest that waves are driven by industry shocks that trigger restructuring and consolidation of industries.…”

Section: Merger Wavesmentioning

confidence: 92%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What Drives the Payment of Higher Merger Premiums?

Soegiharto

2009

GADJAH MADA INT. J. BUS.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Merger Wavessupporting

confidence: 67%

Section: Merger Wavesmentioning

confidence: 92%

What Drives the Payment of Higher Merger Premiums?

Soegiharto

2009

GADJAH MADA INT. J. BUS.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Large deals may also take longer than expected, which could result in negative market reactions (Mulherin & Boone, 2000). Empirically, the relative deal size is a significant factor for developedcountry acquirers (Moeller & Schlingemann, 2005;Slangen, 2006;von Eije & Wiegerinck, 2010) but not for EM multinationals (Aybar & Ficici, 2009).…”

Section: Relative Deal Sizementioning

confidence: 98%

The motives and performance of cross-border acquirers from emerging economies: Comparison between Chinese and Indian firms

Nicholson

Salaber

2013

International Business Review

168

155

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During the recent decade, the world has witnessed the rapid growth of MNEs from emerging economies. Their increasing participation in cross-border mergers and acquisitions has raised great attention in the extant literature. This study evaluates the value creation from these cross-border transactions from two representative emerging countries, namely China and India, and determines factors that result in the different performance of these international acquisition activities. Crossborder acquisitions conducted by these countries' companies indeed lead to significant shareholder wealth creation. Furthermore, Indian shareholders are more likely to benefit from deals in small cultural distance countries, while Chinese investors gain from the cross-border expansion of manufacturing companies. Location also affects the performance of cross-border acquisitions, with acquisitions into developed countries generating higher returns to shareholders. Our sample consists of 203 Indian and 63 Chinese cross-border deals over the period 2000-2010 and our results hold after controlling for various deal-level and firm-level characteristics.

show abstract

“…In general, the reasons behind the purchase or sale can be grouped under the so-called nonsynergetic and synergetic theories, respectively (see, for example, Mulherin and Boone, 2000). In the first group, restructuring is thought to be the undertaken for reasons other than wealth creation and stems from managerial motives such as, for example, empire building, entrenchment and hubris (see Roll, 1986;Jensen, 1986;Shleifer and Vishny, 1989).…”

Section: Causes and Effects Of Turnover In Human Resourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%