We provide the first evidence on the performance of private operating firms as acquirers. Private bidders experience greater post-acquisition operating performance improvements compared to public bidders. This effect is not due to differences in target types, merger accounting, financing constraints, private equity ownership or subsequent listing of some private bidders, and is robust to instrumentation. Further analysis of governance arrangements at least partially attributes the private bidder effect to lower agency costs in private firms. Not only do private firms pay lower prices for target firm assets, they also operate them more efficiently by containing overhead costs and capital expenditures.

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.

Existing measures of valuation uncertainty are indirect or available for limited samples. We use an accounting-based valuation model to estimate a set of hypothetical intrinsic equity values and measure uncertainty by their spread. We show that our measure reflects both cash flow and discount rate uncertainty, explains price ranges in IPO prospectuses and M&A fairness opinions, and incrementally predicts various future outcomes indicative of uncertainty. An application of our measure to a popular asset pricing context yields new insights into the properties of the value premium. Overall, our paper demonstrates how accounting information can be used to summarize uncertainty about intrinsic equity value. Data Availability: Data used in the article are available from public sources cited in the text.

We study the value premium using the multiples‐based market‐to‐book decomposition of Rhodes‐Kropf, Robinson, and Viswanathan (2005). The market‐to‐value component drives all of the value strategy return, while the value‐to‐book component exhibits no return predictability in either portfolio sorts or firm‐level regressions. Existing results linking market‐to‐book to operating leverage, duration, exposure to investment‐specific technology shocks, and analysts’ risk ratings derive from the unpriced value‐to‐book component. In contrast, results on expectation errors, limits to arbitrage, and certain types of cash flow risk and consumption risk exposure are due to the market‐to‐value component. Overall, our evidence casts doubt on several value premium theories.

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.

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.

We use merger-induced changes to shareholder structure to test for active catering to dividend clienteles. Following mergers, acquirers adjust their dividend payout toward that of the target, but only when they inherit target shareholders through stock swaps. This adjustment is stronger when legacy shareholders are more influential and reveal a greater preference for dividends through portfolio holdings and trading behavior. Country-level differences in dividend taxes, governance quality, and population age further shape the extent of adjustment in ways consistent with dividend preferences. Pre-closing, differences in dividend payout discourage the use of stock as a payment method.

Labor restructuring is a key driver of takeovers and the associated synergy gains worldwide. In a difference-in-differences research design, we show that major increases in employment protection reduce takeover activity by 14–27% and the combined firm gains (synergies) by over half. Consistent with the labor channel behind these effects, deals with greater potential for workforce restructuring show a greater reduction in volume, number, and synergies. Increases in employment protection impede layoffs, resulting in wage costs that match the magnitude of synergy losses. Offer prices are not fully adjusted, with both bidders and targets exhibiting lower returns following the reforms.

Firm fixed effects alone explain as much of the variation in acquirer returns as all the firm- and deal-specific characteristics combined. An interquartile range of acquirer fixed effects is over 6%, comparable to the interquartile range of acquirer returns. Acquirer returns persist over time, but mainly at the top end of the distribution. Persistence continues under different chief executive officers (CEOs), and attributes of the broader management team do not explain the fixed effect. Firm-specific heterogeneity in acquirer returns suggests that some organizations are extraordinary acquirers irrespective of the leadership at the top and the deal structures they choose. Implications for the M&A research are discussed.