Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T16:46:09.646Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Évaluations affiliées, dotations initiales et la surenchère dans les prises de contrôle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 January 2015

Hounwanou Dégnidé Didier
Get access

Résumé

Nous considérons une prise de contrôle dans laquelle les motivations des repreneurs potentiels sont multiples et étudions I’impact du degré d’affiliation de leurs évaluations sur la stratégie optimale. Nous montrons que cet impact dépend du rapport des dotations initiales. Nous trouvons que lorsque les dotations initiales sont symétriques, la stratégie optimale des enchérisseurs est indépendante du degré d’affiliation de leurs évaluations. En revanche, lorsque les dotations initiales sont asymétriques, cet impact dépend du niveau du signal privé de l’enchérisseur. Si les acqueréurs potentiels surenchérissent en présence de dotations initiales, l’étendue de la surenchére décroît avec l’augmentation du degré d’affiliation lorsque le signal privé est inférieur un certain seuil. L’agressivité des enchérisseurs profite à la firme cible dont le revenu espéré augmente avec le degré d’affiliation des évaluations.

Summary

Summary

This paper examines the optimal bidding strategy in takeover contests for a target firm, and the positive correlation between the bidders‘ valuation. We consider risk neutral bidders who compete for the control of a target firm in which they get initial shareholdings. The bidder's valuation for target firm is correlated with his motivations which determine bidder's strategy.

We study bidder's optimal strategy in mixed motivations setting. Since motivations are numerous, hypothesis of affiliated value in auctions allows to study bidder's strategy. The paper shows that the impact of affiliation degree on bidder's optimal strategy depends on their private signal and on the ratio between their initial shareholdings. Particularly, we found that if a potential bidder overbids when he gets toeholds in the target firm, the extent of overbidding is not monotonically increasing with the size of toeholds and the level of private signal. There is a threshold of private signal under which the bidder is more aggressive given the size of his toeholds and above which the bidder is less aggressive. Target firm's expected revenue increases with the degree of affiliation of bidder's valuation.

Keywords

MotivationsValuationsAffiliationToeholdsOverbiddingTakeoversAllocationD44D82évaluations affiliéesdotations initialessurenchèreprises de contrdleD44D82
Type
Research Article
Information
Recherches Économiques de Louvain/ Louvain Economic Review , Volume 79 , Issue 3 , September 2013 , pp. 91 - 123
Copyright
Copyright © Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de recherches économiques et sociales 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Université de Franche Comté, CRESE, (Centre de Recherche sur les Stratégies Economiques), 30, Avenue de l’Observatoire, BP 1559, 25009 Besançon Cedex, July 19, 2013

References

Asquith, D. and Kieschnick, R., (1999), “An Examination of Initial Shareholdings in Tender Offer Bids”, Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Vol. 12, pp. 171–188.Google Scholar
Berkovitch, E. and Narayanan, M. P. (1993) “Motives for takeovers : an empirical investigation”, The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. , pp. 347–362.Google Scholar
Betton, S. and Eckbo, B. E., (2000), “Toeholds, bids-jumps and expected payoffs in takeovers”, Review of financial studies, Vol. 13, pp 841–882.Google Scholar
Betton, S. and EckboB., E. B., E. and ThorburnK., S. K., S. (2009), “Merger negotiations and the toeholds puzzles”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 91, pp. 158–178.Google Scholar
Bradley, M., Desai, A. and Kim, H. E., (1988), “Synergistic gains from corporate acquisitions and their division between the stockholders of target and acquiring firms”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 21, pp. 3–40.Google Scholar
Bulow, J., Huang, M. and Klemperer, P., (1999), “Toeholds and Takeovers”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 107, pp. 427–454.Google Scholar
Bulow, J. and Klemperer, P. (1996), “Auctions versus Négociation”, American Economic Review, Vol. 86, pp. 180–94.Google Scholar
Burkart, M., (1995), “Initial shareholdings and overbidding in takeover contests”, The Journal of Finance, Vol. L, No. 5.Google Scholar
Burkart, M., Gromb, D. and Panunzi, F. (1998), “Why higher takeover premia protect minority shareholders?”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol 106, Issue 1, pp. 172–204.Google Scholar
Cantillon, E. (2008), “The Effect of Bidders Asymmetries on Expected Revenue in Auctions”, Games and Economic Behavior, Vol. 62, pp. 1–25.Google Scholar
Dewatripont, M. (1993), “The ‘Leading Shareholder' Strategy, Takeover Contests and Stock Price Dynamics”, European Economic Review, Vol. 37, Issue 5, pp. 983–1004.Google Scholar
Dionne, G., La Haye, M. and Bergères, A.-S. (2010), “Does Asymmetric Information Affect the Premium in Mergers and Acquisitions ? CIRRELT Working Paper N° 10.Google Scholar
Eso, P. (2005), “An optimal auction with correlated values and risk aversion”, Journal of Economic Theory, Vol. 125, pp. 78–89.Google Scholar
Ettinger, D. (2009), “Takeover contests, toeholds and deterrence”, Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Vol. 111, Issue 1, pp. 103–124.Google Scholar
Fishman, M. (1988), “A theory of preemptive takeover bidding”, Rand Journal of Economics, Vol. 19, pp. 88–101.Google Scholar
Goldman, E. and Qian, J. (2005), “Optimal toeholds in takeover contests”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 77, pp. 321–346.Google Scholar
GrossmanS., J. S., J. and Hart, O. D., (1980), “Takeover Bids, the Free-rider Problem and the Theory of the Corporate”, Bell Journal of Economics, Vol. 11, pp. 42–64.Google Scholar
Güth, W., Ivanova-Stenzelb, R. and Elmar Wolfstetter, E. (2005), “Bidding behavior in asymmetric auctions: An experimental study”, European Economic Review, Vol. 49, pp. 1891–1913.Google Scholar
Harris, M. and Raviv, A. (1981), “Allocation Mechanisms and the Design of Auctions”, Econometrica, Vol. 49, pp. 1477–1499.Google Scholar
Jennings and Mazzeo (1993), “Competing bids, target management resistance and the structure of takeover bids”, Review of Financial Studies, vol 6, N° 4, pp. 883–909.Google Scholar
Khoroshilov, Y. and Dodonova, A. (2007), “Takeover auctions with actively participating targets”, The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Vol. 47, pp. 293–311.Google Scholar
Milgrom, P., (2004), “Putting auction theory to work”, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Naegelen, F. (1988), “Les mécanismes d'enchères”, Económica.Google Scholar
Povel, P. and Singh, R. (2006), “Takeover Contests with Asymmetric Bidders” Review of Financial Studies, Vol. 19 (4), pp. 1399–1431.Google Scholar
Ravid, S. A. and Spiegel, M. (1999), “Toehold Strategies, Takeover Laws and Rival Bidders”, Journal of Banking and Finance, Vol. 23, Issue 8, pp. 1219–42.Google Scholar
Singh, R. (1998), “Takeover bidding with toeholds : The case of the owner's curse”, The Review of Financial Studies, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 679–704.Google Scholar