Читать книгу Applied Mergers and Acquisitions - Robert F. Bruner - Страница 62

Several scholars have considered the findings of scientific studies over the years, conducting an exercise much as here. How have they viewed the data?

 Dennis Mueller (1979). In testimony before the U.S. Senate, Mueller said, “And the predominant conclusion, what it comes to, from looking at this literature, is that the firms themselves are performing no better on average than they would have been in the absence of the mergers, and the stockholders who hold shares in those firms are doing no better than if they had shares in a firm that wasn’t.”¹⁵

  Michael Jensen and Richard Ruback (1983). Based on an analysis of 16 studies, the authors concluded that the return to bidders in successful mergers was zero, and in successful takeovers was +4.0 percent. They wrote, “The evidence indicates that corporate takeovers generate positive gains, that target firm shareholders benefit, and that bidding firm shareholders do not lose.”¹⁶

 Murray Weidenbaum and Stephen Vogt (1987). Based on an analysis of 10 studies, the authors wrote, “We conclude that, based on historical data, negative returns to shareholders for acquisitions are more prevalent than the prevailing folklore on the subject admits. Clearly, there are winners and losers in the takeover game. Most studies confirm that, in general, target firm shareholders are winners. The evidence presented here indicates that, on average, acquiring firm shareholders are not as fortunate. At best, these shareholders are no worse off, but often they lose during acquisitions.”¹⁷

 Richard Caves (1989). The author referenced 69 studies and considered the market-based share returns at the announcement of the deals and the performance in the years following merger. He concluded, “We have a conundrum. Ex ante, mergers appear to create value for bidder and target together that is substantial relative to the premerger worth of the target firm. That is, the financial markets appear to believe that bidders can wring a lot more value from the typical target’s assets. Ex post, recent studies run exactly in the opposite direction, indicating that mergers not merely fail to warrant acquisition premia but actually reduce the real profitability of acquired business units, increase the intraindustry dispersion of plant productivity levels, and shrivel the acquiree’s market share.”¹⁸

 Deepak Datta, George Pinches, and V. K. Narayanan (1992). The authors considered 41 studies, and concluded that bidders earn a return of less than one-half of 1 percent. They wrote, “The synthesis of ex ante event studies presented in this paper provides robust evidence that, on average, shareholders of bidding or acquiring firms do not realize significant returns from mergers and acquisitions.”¹⁹