A Critical Review of Performance Puzzle of M&As: British and Irish Results over Few Decades

The purpose of this dissertation is to critically review the performance puzzle of mergers and acquisitions over a past few decades, mostly on British results with minor results, covering Irish experience. It has been seen in the recent past that, with the progression of takeover activity, the debate over its advantageous aspects has considerably increased. However, past extensive research has revealed that, as far as the authenticity of the fact that the transactions of MA value creation process and the bid resistance relationship, size and growth, performance and profitability, and so on. For this reason, the literature review method is being employed in this paper, and ten academic research papers, related to this topic, are being used. After reviewing all the ten research papers, which are being selected in order to provide a comprehensive analysis over the issues under study, it is, thus, possible to draw a conclusion that over all impact of amalgamation activity has generated a mix results in respect to returns to the shareholders of both the target and bidder. Along with that, there are evidences of different results, generates from takeover activity, on the size and growth, performance and profitability, value creation and bid resistance relationship, under different environments. However, the results obtained after examining the different issues under observation can not be termed as a full and final verdict, since the different techniques, methods, data sample, assumptions, have been employed in the ten academic research papers under review.

[1]  Richard S. Ruback,et al.  Tender offers and stockholder returns: An empirical analysis , 1977 .

[2]  Ajit Singh Take-overs, Economic Natural Selection, and the Theory of The Firm: Evidence from the Postwar United Kingdom Experience , 1975 .

[3]  J. Hoffmeister,et al.  Valuation Consequences of Cash Tender Offers , 1978 .

[4]  J. Elliott,et al.  Post-takeover returns: The UK evidence , 1998 .

[5]  F. Scherer Corporate Takeovers: The Efficiency Arguments , 1988 .

[6]  R. Limmack,et al.  TAKEOVER ACTIVITY, CEO TURNOVER, AND THE MARKET FOR CORPORATE CONTROL , 1996 .

[7]  R. Kaplan,et al.  Investor Evaluation of Accounting Information: Some Empirical Evidence , 1972 .

[8]  René M. Stulz,et al.  Managerial control of voting rights: Financing policies and the market for corporate control , 1988 .

[9]  M. S. Kumar,et al.  GROWTH, ACQUISITION ACTIVITY AND FIRM SIZE: EVIDENCE FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM* , 1985 .

[10]  Ralph A. Walkling,et al.  Agency Theory, Managerial Welfare, and Takeover Bid Resistance , 1984 .

[11]  Ma. de la Natividad Jiménez Salas,et al.  The Conduct of Inquiry , 1967 .

[12]  A. Gregory An Examination of the Long Run Performance of UK Acquiring Firms , 1997 .

[13]  Richard S. Ruback,et al.  The Market for Corporate Control: The Scientific Evidence , 2002 .

[14]  E. Guba Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries , 1981 .

[15]  J. Franks,et al.  AN INDUSTRY STUDY OF THE PROFITABILITY OF MERGERS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM , 1977 .

[16]  P. Marsh Equity Rights Issues and the Efficiency of the UK Stock Market , 1979 .

[17]  Myron S. Scholes,et al.  Estimating betas from nonsynchronous data , 1977 .

[18]  M. Porter The Contributions of Industrial Organization To Strategic Management , 1981 .

[19]  D. Silverman Interpreting Qualitative Data , 1993 .

[20]  Michael Firth,et al.  Takeovers, Shareholder Returns, and the Theory of the Firm , 1980 .

[21]  L. Hannah,et al.  The Contribution of Mergers to Concentration Growth: A Reply to Professor Hart [On Bias and Concentration] , 1981 .

[22]  G. Meeks,et al.  Disappointing Marriage: A Study of the Gains from Merger , 1977 .

[23]  J. F. Pickering,et al.  The determinants and effects of actual, abandoned and contested mergers , 1988 .

[24]  G. Mandelker Risk and return: The case of merging firms , 1974 .

[25]  René M. Stulz,et al.  The Distribution of Target Ownership and the Division of Gains in Successful Takeovers , 1990 .

[26]  E. Penrose The theory of the growth of the firm twenty-five years after , 1960 .

[27]  A. Shleifer,et al.  Large Shareholders and Corporate Control , 1986, Journal of Political Economy.

[28]  Frederic M. Scherer,et al.  Life after Takeover , 1987 .

[29]  M. Weidenbaum,et al.  Takeovers and Stockholders: Winners and Losers , 1987 .

[30]  René M. Stulz,et al.  Managerial Performance, Tobin's Q, and the Gains from Successful Tender Offers , 1989 .

[31]  R. Dobbins,et al.  RETURNS TO SHAREHOLDERS IN SUCCESSFULLY DEFENDED TAKEOVER BIDS: UK EVIDENCE 1975–1984 , 1993 .

[32]  Deepak K. Datta,et al.  Factors influencing wealth creation from mergers and acquisitions: A meta‐analysis , 1992 .

[33]  J. Creswell Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five traditions. , 1998 .

[34]  E. J. Sabornie,et al.  Social-Affective Characteristics in Early Adolescents Identified as Learning Disabled and Nondisabled , 1994 .

[35]  Howard Thomas,et al.  Theories of the Firm - Implications for Strategy Research , 1994 .

[36]  T. C. Langetieg,et al.  An application of a three-factor performance index to measure stockholder gains from merger , 1978 .

[37]  Louis Murray A study on the wealth effects of irish takeovers and mergers , 1991 .

[38]  D. Teece,et al.  Strategic management and economics , 1991 .