Do Antitakeover Provisions Harm Shareholders?
33 Pages Posted: 6 Apr 2010 Last revised: 11 Apr 2010
Date Written: April 2, 2010
Abstract
We reexamine the negative relation between firm value and the number of antitakeover provisions a firm has in place. We document that firms with characteristics indicating low power to bargain for favorable terms in a takeover, but also indicating high potential agency costs, have more antitakeover provisions in place. We also find that for these firms, Tobin’s Q increases in the number of adopted provisions. These findings are robust to several methods that control for endogeneity. Our evidence suggests that adopting more antitakeover provisions is beneficial for certain firms and challenges the commonplace view that antitakeover provisions are universally harmful for shareholders.
Keywords: Corporate governance, Governance index, Antitakeover provisions, Tobin’s Q
JEL Classification: G30, G34, K22
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?
Recommended Papers
-
Corporate Governance and Equity Prices
By Paul A. Gompers, Joy L. Ishii, ...
-
What Matters in Corporate Governance?
By Lucian A. Bebchuk, Alma Cohen, ...
-
Governance Mechanisms and Equity Prices
By Martijn Cremers and Vinay B. Nair
-
Did New Regulations Target the Relevant Corporate Governance Attributes?
By Reena Aggarwal and Rohan Williamson
-
Governance Mechanisms and Bond Prices
By Martijn Cremers, Vinay B. Nair, ...
-
Corporate Governance and Merger Activity in the U.S.: Making Sense of the 1980s and 1990s
-
Corporate Governance and Merger Activity in the U.S.: Making Sense of the 1980s and 1990s
-
The Costs of Entrenched Boards
By Lucian A. Bebchuk and Alma Cohen