Why Fairness Opinions? Theoretical foundation and clinical study in Switzerland

Frank Borowicz
{"title":"Why Fairness Opinions? Theoretical foundation and clinical study in Switzerland","authors":"Frank Borowicz","doi":"10.5771/0042-059x-2023-1-67","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Fairness opinions are third-party opinions on the financial fairness of transactions for shareholders. They are primarily commissioned by management bodies of targets especially in the case of public takeover bids. The main objectives of this commissioning are said to be better information provision, independent certification, and documentation of the basis for management decisions and safeguarding. However, an empirical verification of these anecdotally mentioned objectives has not been performed so far. On the basis of a detailed, clinical study of 44 Swiss fairness opinions from the period 2010 to 2020, these objectives are reviewed. It is shown that many arguments speak against the hypotheses of information provision and certification, but that these are very much in line with the hypothesis of formal documentation and safeguarding of the boards of management.","PeriodicalId":424989,"journal":{"name":"Die Unternehmung","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Die Unternehmung","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5771/0042-059x-2023-1-67","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Fairness opinions are third-party opinions on the financial fairness of transactions for shareholders. They are primarily commissioned by management bodies of targets especially in the case of public takeover bids. The main objectives of this commissioning are said to be better information provision, independent certification, and documentation of the basis for management decisions and safeguarding. However, an empirical verification of these anecdotally mentioned objectives has not been performed so far. On the basis of a detailed, clinical study of 44 Swiss fairness opinions from the period 2010 to 2020, these objectives are reviewed. It is shown that many arguments speak against the hypotheses of information provision and certification, but that these are very much in line with the hypothesis of formal documentation and safeguarding of the boards of management.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
为什么是公平意见?瑞士的理论基础和临床研究
公允意见是第三方对股东交易财务公平性的意见。它们主要受目标公司的管理机构委托,特别是在公开收购投标的情况下。据称,此次委托的主要目标是更好地提供信息、独立认证以及为管理决策和保障提供基础文件。然而,到目前为止,还没有对这些传闻中提到的目标进行经验验证。在详细的临床研究的基础上,从2010年到2020年的44个瑞士公平意见,这些目标进行了回顾。它表明,许多论点反对提供信息和认证的假设,但这些非常符合正式文件和管理委员会保障的假设。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Machine Learning Methods as Components of Existing Business Models Advancements in ML-Enabled Intelligent Document Processing and How to Overcome Adoption Challenges in Enterprises Künstliche Intelligenz im Marketing: Möglichkeiten und Herausforderungen Predictive Modeling in Marketing: Ensemble Methods for Response Modeling 75 Jahre DIE UNTERNEHMUNG – Kontinuität im Wandel der BWL
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1