1992
DOI: 10.2307/3666018
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Wealth Reduction in White Knight Bids

Abstract: JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
16
0
3

Year Published

1993
1993
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 36 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
2
16
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Clearly the entry of a friendly bidder facilitates the auction process and benefits target stockholders. This finding also complements the recent results reported by Banerjee and Owers (1992), who show that white knight bidders on average experience negative returns. While a takeover contest is generally not a zero-sum game, we infer that a white knight strategy by target management is successful in bidding up the offer price.…”
Section: Tests Of Poisson Specification (Mean-variance Equality)supporting
confidence: 59%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Clearly the entry of a friendly bidder facilitates the auction process and benefits target stockholders. This finding also complements the recent results reported by Banerjee and Owers (1992), who show that white knight bidders on average experience negative returns. While a takeover contest is generally not a zero-sum game, we infer that a white knight strategy by target management is successful in bidding up the offer price.…”
Section: Tests Of Poisson Specification (Mean-variance Equality)supporting
confidence: 59%
“…White Knight takes value 1 if target management invites a friendly third party to enter the bidding; 0 otherwise? Our defmition of a white knight resembles that followed by Banerjee and Owers (1992). This type of management action differs substantially from the type of actions discussed above.…”
Section: Target Management Actionsmentioning
confidence: 60%
“…However, because targets generally sell at a significant premium, this runs the risk of making RATIO systematically larger for mergers where the target is publicly traded. 24 Studies that find negative average returns to acquiring firms include Asquith et al (1987), Banerjee and Owers (1992), Bradley et al (1988), Byrd and Hickman (1992), Jennings and Mazzeo (1991), Servaes (1991), Varaiya and Ferris (1987), and You et al (1986). See Table 8-6 in Gilson and Black (1995).…”
Section: Which Mergers Add Risk?mentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Several forces are believed to mitigate conflicts between managers and shareholders, including competitive labor and product markets, managerial compensation plans, the structure 1 Asquith et al (1987), Banerjee and Owers (1992), Bradley et al (1988), Byrd and Hickman (1993), Jennings and Mazzeo (1991), Servaes (1991), Varaiya and Ferris (1987), Gilson and Black (1995), Rau and Vermaelen (1998), Duggal and Millar (1999), Becher (2000), Ghosh (2001). for Ouaker's shareholders.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%