Firm Size and the Effectiveness of the Market for Corporate Control
41 Pages Posted: 27 Jul 2008 Last revised: 16 Mar 2010
Date Written: September 2, 2008
Abstract
Recent research has shown evidence that larger firms are more likely to destroy shareholder wealth through acquisitions. Those findings suggest that managers of larger firms are less likely to be disciplined by the market for corporate control than managers of smaller firms. With a sample of nearly 8,000 acquisitions over the period from 1980-1999, this paper offers evidence to the contrary. The results suggest that larger firms are more likely to be the target of a disciplinary takeover than smaller firms. Further tests indicate that CEOs of larger firms are significantly more likely to be replaced following a series of poor acquisitions than CEOs of smaller firms. In total, managers of the largest firms continue to make the worst acquisitions despite the evidence that they are more likely to be punished for doing so.
Keywords: mergers and acquisitions, market for corporate control, firm size, agency theory, CEO turnover
JEL Classification: G00, G3, G30, G34, L00, L11, L2, L20
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?
Recommended Papers
-
New Evidence and Perspectives on Mergers
By Gregor Andrade, Mark L. Mitchell, ...
-
Do Managerial Objectives Drive Bad Acquisitions?
By Randall Morck, Andrei Shleifer, ...
-
Stock Market Driven Acquisitions
By Andrei Shleifer and Robert W. Vishny
-
Stock Market Driven Acquisitions
By Andrei Shleifer and Robert W. Vishny
-
Poison or Placebo? Evidence on the Deterrent and Wealth Effects of Modern Antitakeover Measures
By Robert Comment and G. William Schwert
-
Does Corporate Performance Improve after Mergers?
By Paul M. Healy, Krishna Palepu, ...
-
Managerial Performance, Tobin's Q, and the Gains from Successful Tender Offers
By Larry H.p. Lang, Ralph A. Walkling, ...