Do Takeover Targets Under-Perform? Evidence from Operating and Stock Returns

43 Pages Posted: 5 Jul 2001

See all articles by Anup Agrawal

Anup Agrawal

University of Alabama - Culverhouse College of Commerce & Business Administration

Jeffrey F. Jaffe

University of Pennsylvania - Finance Department

Multiple version iconThere are 2 versions of this paper

Date Written: October 2002

Abstract

Financial economists seem to believe that takeovers are partly motivated by the desire to improve poorly-performing firms. However, prior empirical evidence in support of this inefficient management hypothesis is rather weak. We provide a detailed reexamination of this hypothesis in a large-scale empirical study. We find little evidence that target firms were performing poorly before acquisition, using either operating or stock returns. This result holds both for the sample as a whole and for sub-samples of takeovers that are more likely to be disciplinary. We conclude that the conventional view that targets perform poorly is not supported by the data.

Keywords: Takeovers, Disciplinary takeovers, Takeover targets, Firm performance, Operating performance, Long-run performance

JEL Classification: G34

Suggested Citation

Agrawal, Anup and Jaffe, Jeffrey F., Do Takeover Targets Under-Perform? Evidence from Operating and Stock Returns (October 2002). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=272782 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.272782

Anup Agrawal (Contact Author)

University of Alabama - Culverhouse College of Commerce & Business Administration ( email )

Culverhouse College of Business
EFLS, Box 870224
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0224
United States
205-348-8970 (Phone)
205-348-0590 (Fax)

HOME PAGE: http://aagrawal.people.ua.edu/

Jeffrey F. Jaffe

University of Pennsylvania - Finance Department ( email )

The Wharton School
3620 Locust Walk
Philadelphia, PA 19104
United States
215-898-5615 (Phone)
215-898-6200 (Fax)

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
1,569
Abstract Views
4,256
Rank
21,950
PlumX Metrics