2002
DOI: 10.1002/agr.10017
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Factors influencing probability and frequency of participation in merger and partnership activity in agricultural cooperatives

Abstract: Consolidation and concentration in agriculture continue to be important topics. This paper uses a binomial probit model to assess the motivations for opportunities and participation in mergers, acquisitions, joint ventures, and strategic alliances in agricultural cooperatives. A Poisson model is also used to investigate the frequency of participation in these activities. Results show that competition, patronage refunds, research and development, and market diversification all affect opportunities and participa… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In each case, the primary purpose is to determine whether solvency and liquidity indicators can explain mergers, acquisitions, partnerships, and other strategic interactions or transactions. For example, with 74 observations of US farmer cooperatives, Hudson and Herndon () reported a negative impact of cash patronage obligations on the probability of future strategic transactions. Richards and Manfredo () conducted a panel study of the largest 100 US cooperatives from 1980 to 1998 and observed a negative impact of the current ratio (−0.431) and the debt ratio (−1.306) on the likelihood of engaging in mergers.…”
Section: Financementioning
confidence: 99%
“…In each case, the primary purpose is to determine whether solvency and liquidity indicators can explain mergers, acquisitions, partnerships, and other strategic interactions or transactions. For example, with 74 observations of US farmer cooperatives, Hudson and Herndon () reported a negative impact of cash patronage obligations on the probability of future strategic transactions. Richards and Manfredo () conducted a panel study of the largest 100 US cooperatives from 1980 to 1998 and observed a negative impact of the current ratio (−0.431) and the debt ratio (−1.306) on the likelihood of engaging in mergers.…”
Section: Financementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The most frequently used have been turnover (Oustapassidis, 1992;Trechter, 1996;Oustapassidis et al, 1998;Vidal et al, 2000;Hudson and Herndon, 2002;Montegut et al, 2002;Arcas and Ruiz, 2003) and assets (Lerman and Parliament, 1991;Barton et al, 1993;Fulton et al, 1995;Trechter, 1996;Vidal et al, 2000). Other, less frequently used measures include the number of members (Trechter, 1996;Hudson and Herndon, 2002), employees (Moyano and Fidalgo, 2001;Arcas and Ruiz, 2003) and storage capacity (Fulton and King, 1993). In this study, the measures of size used are: sales, total assets, material fixed assets, permanent employment, temporary employment, handling surface and numbers of members.…”
Section: Min T Zmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Another motivation for mergers can be the company size and its position in the market (Hudson and Herndon 2002). Comparing Czech, Slovak and Polish agricultural companies, 93% of companies in the Czech Republic are owned by individuals and these have the production share of 24%, in Slovakia it is 99% of agricultural companies, but they have only 18% production share (Tamáš 2010).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%