To make high-quality research more accessible and easier to explore.

Fields:
9 results

The impact of industry shocks on takeover and restructuring activity

Journal of Financial Economics 1996 41(2), 193-229
We study industry-level patterns in takeover and restructuring activity during the 1982–1989 period. Across 51 industries, we find significant differences in both the rate and time-series clustering of these activities. The interindustry patterns in the rate of takeovers and restructurings are directly related to the economic shocks borne by the sample industries. These results support the argument that much of the takeover activity during the 1980s was driven by broad fundamental factors and have general implications for the stock price spillover effects of takeover announcements, corporate performance following takeovers, and the timing of takeover waves.

Do Bad Bidders Become Good Targets?

Journal of Political Economy 1990 98(2), 372-398
This paper empirically examines one motive for takeovers: to change control of firms that make acquisitions that diminish the value of their equity. Firms that subsequently become takeover targets make acquisitions that significantly reduce their equity value, and firms that do not become takeover targets make acquisitions that raise their equity value. Within the sample of acquisition by targets, the acquisitions that reduce equity value the most are those that are later divested either in bust-up takeovers or restructuring programs to thwart the takeover. This evidence is consistent with theories advanced by Marris, Manne, and Jensen concerning the disciplinary role played by takeovers.

Do Bad Bidders Become Good Targets?

Journal of Political Economy 1990 98(2), 372-398
This paper empirically examines one motive for takeovers: to change control of firms that make acquisitions that diminish the value of their equity. Firms that subsequently become takeover targets make acquisitions that significantly reduce their equity value, and firms that do not become takeover targets make acquisitions that raise their equity value. Within the sample of acquisitions by targets, the acquisitions that reduce equity value the most are those that are later divested either in bust-up takeovers or restructuring programs to thwart the takeover. This evidence is consistent with theories advanced by Robin Marris (1963), Henry G. Manne (1965), and Michael C. Jensen (1986) concerning the disciplinary role played by takeovers. Copyright 1990 by University of Chicago Press.

The Impact of Public Information on the Stock Market

Journal of Finance 1994 49(3), 923-950
We study the relation between the number of news announcements reported daily by Dow Jones & Company and aggregate measures of securities market activity including trading volume and market returns. We find that the number of Dow Jones announcements and market activity are directly related and that the results are robust to the addition of factors previously found to influence financial markets such as day‐of‐the‐week dummy variables, news importance as proxied by large New York Times headlines and major macroeconomic announcements, and noninformation sources of market activity as measured by dividend capture and triple witching trading. However, the observed relation between news and market activity is not particularly strong and the patterns in news announcements do not explain the day‐of‐the‐week seasonalities in market activity. Our analysis of the Dow Jones database confirms the difficulty of linking volume and volatility to observed measures of information.

The Impact of Public Information on the Stock Market

Journal of Finance 1994 49(3), 923
We study the relation between the number of news announcements reported daily by Dow Jones & Company and aggregate measures of securities market activity including trading volume and market returns. We find that the number of Dow Jones announcements and market activity are directly related and that the results are robust to the addition of factors previously found to influence financial markets such as day-of-the-week dummy variables, news importance as proxied by large New York Times headlines and major macroeconomic announcements, and noninformation sources of market activity as measured by dividend capture and triple witching trading. However, the observed relation between news and market activity is not particularly strong and the patterns in news announcements do not explain the day-of-the-week seasonalities in market activity. Our analysis of the Dow Jones database confirms the difficulty of linking volume and volatility to observed measures of information.

The Impact of Public Information on the Stock Market.

Journal of Finance 1994 49(3), 923-50
We study the relation between the number of news announcements reported daily by Dow Jones & Company and aggregate measures of securities market activity including trading volume and market returns. We find that the number of Dow Jones announcements and market activity are directly related and that the results are robust to the addition of factors previously found to influence financial markets such as day-of-the-week dummy variables, news importance as proxies by large 'New York Times' headlines and major macroeconomic announcements, and non-information sources of market activity as measured by dividend capture and triple switching rating. However, the observed relation between news and market activity is not particularly strong and the patterns in news announcements do not explain the day-of-the-week seasonalities in market activity. Our analysis of the Dow Jones database confirms the difficulty of linking volume and volatility to observed measures of information.

Triggering the 1987 stock market crash

Journal of Financial Economics 1989 24(1), 37-68
We present evidence that a tax bill containing antitakeover provisions proposed by the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee on October 13, 1987 and approved by the Committee on October 15 was the fundamental economic event causing the greater than 10% decline in the stock market on October 14–16, which arguably triggered the October 19 crash. The bill, which eventually passed without most of the antitakeover provisions, would have limited the deductibility of interest on debt incurred to finance corporate takeovers, leveraged buyouts and recapitalizations, and imposed other restrictions on hostile takeovers.