[This article demonstrates that a potential acquirer with a toehold bids aggressively and possibly overpays in equilibrium. The aggressiveness of a bidder with a toehold increases further if he is able to renege on his winning bid. A bidder without a toehold, however, responds by shading his bids. The target firm can increase competition and the expected sale price if it only entertains nonretractable bids. This article provides testable implications on the probability of bidder success, stock price reactions on bid revisions and on resolution of the contest, and expected gains to bidders and the target firm.]

Target firms often face bidders that are not equally well informed, which reduces competition, because bidders with less information fear the winner's curse more. We analyze how targets should be sold in this situation. We show that a sequential procedure can extract the highest possible transaction price. The target first offers an exclusive deal to a better-informed bidder, without considering a less well-informed bidder. If rejected, the target offers either an exclusive deal to the less well-informed bidder, or a modified first-price auction. Deal protection devices can be used to enhance a target's commitment to the procedure.

[Firms sometimes commit fraud by altering publicly reported information to be more favorable, and investors can monitor firms to obtain more accurate information. We study equilibrium fraud and monitoring decisions. Fraud is most likely to occur in relatively good times, and the link between fraud and good times becomes stronger as monitoring costs decrease. Nevertheless, improving business conditions may sometimes diminish fraud. We provide an explanation for why fraud peaks towards the end of a boom and is then revealed in the ensuing bust. We also show that fraud can increase if firms make more information available to the public.]

This article demonstrates that a potential acquirer with a toehold bids aggressively and possibly overpays in equilibrium. The aggressiveness of a bidder with a toehold increases further if he is able to renege on his winning bid. A bidder without a toehold, however, responds by shading his bids. The target firm can increase competition and the expected sale price if it only entertains nonretractable bids. This article provides testable implications on the probability of bidder success, stock price reactions on bid revisions and on resolution of the contest, and expected gains to bidders and the target firm.

Many acquisitions are conducted by clubs, i.e., coalitions of acquirers that submit a single bid. We present a novel analysis of club bidding where the club creates value by aggregating, at least partially, bidders' values. We show that club formation can lead to higher acquisition prices when the number of bidders is exogenously fixed and large. However, when entry costs require bidders to optimize their participation decisions, club formation acts as an endogenous limit on competition and reduces the target's premium. In contrast, social efficiency with club bidding is always higher. Our findings can reconcile the contradictory evidence on club bidding.

In this paper, we examine the value of the right to choose the method of sale of corporate assets. We show that this right is valuable, and that its value comes from recognizing conflicting incentives of claimants at the time of sale. As with risky projects, senior and junior claimants are shown to have distinct preferences on a set of common auction procedures. They also differ on the issue of allocation of resources towards attracting bidders for the auction. As a consequence, the optimal allocation of the design right must depend on circumstances prevailing at the time of the sale. While, in general, selling the firm by auction does not guarantee the use of optimal selling arrangements, a suitable allocation of design rights may help mitigate inefficiency problems significantly.

Previous empirical studies that decompose the bid-ask spread were done when securities traded in discrete price points equal to one-sixteenth or one-eighth of a dollar. These studies concluded that inventory and adverse-selection costs were economically insignificant compared to order-processing costs. Natural questions arise as to: (i) whether price discreteness allowed market makers to enjoy excess rents, thus reducing the significance of the inventory and adverse selection costs; (ii) whether discreteness decreased the traders' incentives to gather information; or (iii) whether methodologies previously employed mis-estimated the inventory and the adverse-selection costs. We show that the recent conversion to decimal pricing results in significantly tighter spreads. However, the dollar value of spreads attributed to adverse selection and inventory costs do not change significantly. Almost all of the reduction occurs in the order-processing component. As a result, inventory and adverse-selection costs now account for a significantly larger proportion of the traded spreads. A plausible explanation is that the minimum tick size constraint previously in place under fractional pricing allowed market makers to enjoy spreads that were larger than their actual costs.

We examine how an exogenous improvement in market efficiency, which allows the stock market to obtain more precise information about the firm's intrinsic value, affects the shareholder–manager contracting problem, managerial incentives, and shareholder value. A key assumption in the model is that stock market investors do not observe the manager's pay-performance sensitivity ex ante. We show that an increase in market efficiency weakens managerial incentives by making the firm's stock price less sensitive to the firm's current performance. The impact on real efficiency and shareholder value varies depending on the composition of the firm's intrinsic value.

Target firms often face bidders that are not equally well informed, which reduces competition, because bidders with less information fear the winner’s curse more. We analyze how targets should be sold in this situation. We show that a sequential procedure can extract the highest possible transaction price. The target first offers an exclusive deal to a better-informed bidder, without considering a less well-informed bidder. If rejected, the target offers either an exclusive deal to the less well-informed bidder, or a modified first-price auction. Deal protection devices can be used to enhance a target’s commitment to the procedure.