Governance mandates, outside directors, and acquirer performance.

We use hand-collected board data around the issuance of two distinct government-led board structure mandates in the U.K. to establish the effect of outside directors on acquirer performance. Increases in outside director representation are associated with better acquirer returns in deals involving listed targets, but not when the target is private. These results are consistent with greater outside director reputational exposure when publicity is high. While we do not advocate mandated board structures, our evidence suggests that the particular diktats we examine were associated with improved acquirer performance in public firm takeovers. We present corroborating evidence from the U.S. around a similar reform period

Credit ratings and the choice of payment method in mergers and acquisitions

This paper establishes that credit ratings affect the choice of payment method in mergers and acquisitions. We find that bidders holding a high rating level are more likely to use cash financing in a takeover. We attribute this finding to lower financial constraints and enhanced capability of highly rated firms to access public debt markets as implied by their higher credit quality. Our results are economically significant and robust to several firm- and deal-specific characteristics and are not sensitive to the method used to measure the likelihood of the payment choice or after controlling for potential endogeneity bias

When It Pays to Pay Your Investment Banker: New Evidence on the Role of Financial Advisors in M&As

We provide new evidence on the role of financial advisors in M&As. Contrary to prior studies, top-tier advisors deliver higher bidder returns than their non-top-tier counterparts but in public acquisitions only, where the advisor reputational exposure and required skills set are relatively larger. This translates into a $65.83 million shareholder gain for an average bidder. The improvement comes from top-tier advisors' ability to identify more synergistic combinations and to get a larger share of synergies to accrue to bidders. Consistent with the premium price–premium quality equilibrium, top-tier advisors charge premium fees in these transactions

Do Stock-Financed Acquisitions Destroy Value? New Methods and Evidence

We contribute to the debate on whether stock-financed acquisitions destroy value for shareholders. A stock-financed acquisition is a joint takeover/equity-issue event. Using seasoned equity offering announcement returns, we estimate through linear prediction and propensity-score matching the share price drop that stock acquirers experience due to the financing choice. Net of this effect, stock-financed acquisitions are not value destructive, and the method of payment generally has no further explanatory power in the cross-section of acquirer returns. Our evidence is largely inconsistent with the agency costs of overvalued equity hypothesis

Governance mandates, outside directors, and acquirer performance

We use hand-collected board data around the issuance of two distinct government-led board structure mandates in the U.K. to establish the effect of outside directors on acquirer performance. Increases in outside director representation are associated with better acquirer returns in deals involving listed targets, but not when the target is private. These results are consistent with greater outside director reputational exposure when publicity is high. While we do not advocate mandated board structures, our evidence suggests that the particular diktats we examine were associated with improved acquirer performance in public firm takeovers. We present corroborating evidence from the U.S. around a similar reform period