Protective governance structure is often viewed as costly to minority shareholders who bear the costs of opportunism by entrenched managers. A less common view is that protective governance encourages value-enhancing initiative, allowing risk-averse managers to pursue projects they would otherwise forgo. To assess these views we examine the acquisition decisions of S&P 500 firms between 1994 and 2005 and document two entrenching dimensions of governance: founding family presence and larger boards with more inside directors. We find that family firms destroy value when they acquire, consistent with an agency cost explanation for acquisitions. In contrast, firms with large boards and more insiders are more likely to acquire and to create value when they do acquire. These results are consistent with benefits to managerial initiative when managers are insulated from discipline. Finally, we find no systematic evidence that shareholder right limiting provisions either facilitate managerial entrenchment or lead to wealth losses through acquisition activity.

Privately held companies make-up the vast majority of targets in corporate takeovers. When disclosure is not required, acquiring firms usually provide little to no information about either the deal or the target in these transactions. The absence of such information may be innocuous if investors believe it to be unimportant. We examine whether investors respond to basic information disclosed by acquirers of private targets. Our evidence suggests investors respond to the disclosure of deal value whereas sales information of the target is unimportant compared to transactions where such information is not disclosed. Our results are robust to using a matched sample of deals with and without the disclosure of deal value and sales information. Using a subset of hand-collected data, our study also provides insight into the method and timing by which acquirers disclose information about private targets. Altogether, our evidence suggests regulatory policies surrounding seemingly insignificant, private acquisitions should consider the disclosure of deal value to be important to investors.

We examine the IPOs of and acquisitions made by special purpose acquisition corporations (SPACs). This unique sample provides a perspective on these two corporate events unencumbered by much of the typical confounding information. We find the IPO gross spreads of these simple firms similar to the spreads accompanying the IPOs of much more complex firms. This result is consistent with illogically sticky spreads. We find acquirer announcement returns roughly triple that of typical acquisitions. Since these returns disproportionately reflect the valuation split between acquirer and target, they suggest that the lower returns of typical acquisitions stem from overestimating synergies and/or new information regarding the bidder.

Although the SEC's main charge is to ensure the disclosure of material information, it has not always consistently defined materiality. We show that acquisitions of privately-held targets classified as “insignificant” by the SEC appreciably affect market prices, and therefore are material by the SEC's definition. We find significant returns in transactions with targets as small as 2% – compared with the SEC's disclosure threshold of 20% – of the acquirer. Further, an average of 19 undisclosed private acquisitions per year exceed the median IPO value in the same year for our sample period. However, because the SEC deems these transactions insignificant, information like target financial statements remains undisclosed to the market. Disclosure rules regarding target financial statements thus create a regulatory disconnect, in which information that is material is nevertheless deemed “insignificant” and therefore not disclosed.

This article has two related tasks. First, we review the articles published in this Special Issue on Corporate Control, Mergers, and Acquisitions. These articles provide new evidence on several aspects of corporate control and governance including the value and performance effects of various ownership groups, the impact of internal governance structures, the effects of regulatory changes on specific industries and evidence on bidding strategies in takeovers. This analysis leads us to our second task – to examine the evolution of corporate control research, broadly defined. Our analysis shows a movement in research from mergers and acquisitions to a broader analysis of corporate governance, especially internal governance features. We suggest that there is a trend toward an increase in the relative importance of internal governance compared to discipline from the market from corporate control. This trend reflects an important change over the past several decades in the means through which the market disciplines corporate behavior.