We compare acquisitions completed with and without investment bank advice over the 1981 to 1992 period. We find that the choice to use an investment bank depends on the complexity of the transaction, the type of transaction (takeovers versus acquisitions of assets), the acquiror’s prior acquisition experience, and the degree of diversification of the target firm. Although acquisition announcement returns are lower for firms using investment banks, this difference can be explained by differences in transaction characteristics. These results suggest that transaction costs are the main determinant of investment banking choice, followed by contracting costs and asymmetric information costs.

Abstract The positive market reaction associated with an ADR listing is frequently attributed to a reduction in market segmentation costs that improves access to capital. If so, the benefit should be greatest for ADR firms that face relatively high indirect barriers to capital access. Our paper directly tests this supposition. We document that, following a U.S. listing, the sensitivity of investment to free cash flow decreases significantly for firms from emerging capital markets, but does not change for developed market firms. Further, emerging market ADR firms mention the need for access to external capital markets in their filing documents more frequently than their developed market counterparts and, in the post-ADR period, tout their liquidity rather than a need for capital access. Finally, the increase in capital access following an ADR is more pronounced for firms from emerging markets. Our findings suggest that greater access to external capital markets is an important benefit of a U.S. stock market listing for emerging market firms and is less important for developed market firms.