Is European M&A Regulation Protectionist?
46 Pages Posted: 22 Jul 2004
Date Written: February 2006
Abstract
Why do regulatory authorities scrutinize mergers and acquisitions? The authorities themselves claim to be combating monopoly power and protecting consumers. But the last two decades of empirical research has found little supporting evidence for such motives. An alternative is that M&A regulation is actually designed to protect privileged firms. We provide a test of protectionism by studying whether European regulatory intervention is more likely when European firms are harmed by increased competition. Our findings raise a suspicion of protectionist motivations by the European regulator during the nineties. The results are robust to many statistical difficulties, including endogeneity between investor valuations and regulatory actions.
Keywords: merger and acquisition regulation protectionism
JEL Classification: G34 G38
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?
Recommended Papers
-
New Evidence and Perspectives on Mergers
By Gregor Andrade, Mark L. Mitchell, ...
-
Do Managerial Objectives Drive Bad Acquisitions?
By Randall Morck, Andrei Shleifer, ...
-
Stock Market Driven Acquisitions
By Andrei Shleifer and Robert W. Vishny
-
Stock Market Driven Acquisitions
By Andrei Shleifer and Robert W. Vishny
-
Poison or Placebo? Evidence on the Deterrent and Wealth Effects of Modern Antitakeover Measures
By Robert Comment and G. William Schwert
-
Does Corporate Performance Improve after Mergers?
By Paul M. Healy, Krishna Palepu, ...
-
Managerial Performance, Tobin's Q, and the Gains from Successful Tender Offers
By Larry H.p. Lang, Ralph A. Walkling, ...