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

Fields:
45 results ✕ Clear filters

The market for corporate control

Journal of Financial Economics 1983 11(1-4), 5-50
This paper reviews much of the scientific literature on the market for corporate control. The evidence indicates that corporate takeovers generate positive gains, that target firm shareholders benefit, and that bidding firm shareholders do not lose. The gains created by corporate takeovers do not appear to come from the creation of market power. With the exception of actions that exclude potential bidders, it is difficult to find managerial actions related to corporate control that harm shareholders. Finally, we argue the market for corporate control is best viewed as an arena in which managerial teams compete for the rights to manage corporate resources

Banks, firms and the relative pricing of tax-exempt and taxable bonds

Journal of Financial Economics 1983 12(3), 343-355
The traditional analysis of the relative pricing of tax-exempt and taxable debt is a habitat theory of the term structure of interest rates. In the traditional analysis the preferences of investors for particular maturities of debt lead to unique pricing relations at every point on the yield curve which are indicative of investor marginal tax brackets. Recent work by Fama (1977) suggests that banks are potential arbitrageurs across tax-exempt and taxable bond markets which force a particular equilibrium on the pricing of short-term bonds. Miller (1977) suggests that the choice of debt or equity financing by firms in the aggregate forces a similar equilibrium on the pricing of all tax-exempt and taxable bonds. This paper exploits the institution of Regulation Q and its effects on the banking system to bring evidence to bear on the predictions of these three models

Assessing competition in the market for corporate acquisitions

Journal of Financial Economics 1983 11(1-4), 141-153 open access
Several studies of mergers and tender offers examine the changes in the value of ownership claims associated with corporate acquisitions and use the observed value changes to address the degree of competition in the market for corporate acquisitions. These studies conclude that the takeover market is competitive on the basis of the abnormal stock price changes of bidding firms, the time series behavior of the market value of target firms, and the proportion of gains that accrue to target and bidding firms. Unfortunately, none of these tests are sufficient to conclude that the takeover market is competitive. A competitive acquisition market implies that the potential gain to unsuccessful bidders at the successful offer price is nonpositive. This implication is tested using data on tender offers in which there are multiple bidders. The results appear to be consistent with competition in the market for corporate acquisitions.

Effects of recontracting on shareholder wealth

Journal of Financial Economics 1983 12(4), 437-467
This paper investigates the effect of voluntary corporate spin-off announcements on shareholder wealth. A significant positive share price reaction is documented for 93 voluntary spin-off announcements between 1963 and 1981. These shareholder gains do not appear to come wholly at the expense of bondholders. Evidence suggests the gains to shareholders may arise from tax and regulatory advantages and/or improved managerial efficiency resulting from the spin-off

The effect of pre-emptive right amendments on shareholder wealth

Journal of Financial Economics 1983 12(3), 289-310
Pre-emptive rights allow existing shareholders to purchase a new offering of shares before the general public. This paper investigates the effect on shareholder wealth of removing pre-emptive rights from corporate charters. Two hypotheses are constrasted: (1) Shareholder wealth maximization suggests that management uses this extra degree of freedom to pick the least cost method for raising new equity; hence, the amendment increases shareholder wealth. (2) Management welfare maximization holds that management will use the passage of the amendment to maximize their own welfare, sometimes to the detriment of shareholders; hence, the amendment decreases shareholder wealth. The evidence indicates that the amendment decreases shareholder wealth

Shareholder wealth, information signaling and the specially designated dividend

Journal of Financial Economics 1983 12(2), 187-209
This paper examines common stock returns and dividend and earnings patterns surrounding specially designated dividends labeled by management as ‘extra’, ‘special’ or ‘year-end’ and compares them to those surrounding regular (unlabeled) dividend increases. The results support the notion that management uses the labeling of dividend increases to convey information to the market about the future potential of the firm. Unlabeled increases appear to contain the most positive information. Contrary to the sometimes suggested view, specially designated dividends appear to convey positive information about future dividends and earnings beyond that relating to the current period

Warrant valuation and exercise strategy

Journal of Financial Economics 1983 12(2), 211-235
This paper demonstrates that warrant valuation and exercise strategy differ fundamentally from call option valuation. Simultaneous exercise of warrants is shown to be suboptimal and a monopolist owning all warrants can achieve a higher value. Unless warrants are perfectly divisible, no satisfactory equilibrium exists for the valuation and exercise of widely held warrants. The problems encountered appear to be quite general and stem from necessary assumptions about future corporate dividend policy and capital structure. Such assumptions are necessary for any model of corporate security valuation

A comparison of futures and forward prices

Journal of Financial Economics 1983 12(3), 311-342
This paper uses the pricing models of Cox, Ingersoll and Ross (1981), Richard and Sundaresan (1981), and French (1982) to examine the relation between futures and forward prices for copper and silver. There are significant differences between these prices. The average differences are generally consistent with the predictions of the futures and forward price models. However, these models are not helpful in describing intra-sample variations in the futures-forward price differences. This failure is apparently caused by measurement errors in both the price differences and in the explanatory variables

The wealth effects of targeted share repurchases

Journal of Financial Economics 1983 11(1-4), 301-328 open access
This paper examines the wealth impact of share repurchases that restrict participation to a particular sub-set of a firm's stockholders. Repurchases at a premium from insiders and small shareholders increase the wealth of non-participating stockholders and are therefore consistent with the shareholders' interest hypothesis. However, privately negotiated repurchases of single blocks from stockholders unaffiliated with the firm reduce the wealth of non-participating stockholders. In contrast to the evidence for general repurchases, no positive wealth effect offsets the significant repurchase premium paid to the selling stockholder. Indeed, the wealth loss to non-participating stockholders is significantly greater than the premium paid. This evidence is inconsistent with the shareholders' interest hypothesis and supports the hypothesis that managers in their self-interest use single block repurchases to eliminate threats to their control over the firm's resources

Risk measurement when shares are subject to infrequent trading

Journal of Financial Economics 1983 12(2), 279-283
When securities are thinly traded OLS techniques yield biased beta estimates. Procedures for calculating consistent estimates are proposed by Scholes and Williams (1977) and by Dimson (1979). This comment examines both procedures and concludes that the Dimson procedure is incorrect and cannot generally be expected to yield consistent beta estimates. However, a variant of this procedure can yield results which are identical to Scholes and Williams' and is, therefore, correct.