收购的自由现金流理论:并购与经济的金融视角

M. C. Jensen
{"title":"收购的自由现金流理论:并购与经济的金融视角","authors":"M. C. Jensen","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.350422","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Through dozens of studies, economists have accumulated considerable evidence and knowledge on the effects of the takeover market. Most of the earlier work is well summarized elsewhere (Jensen and Ruback (1983); Jensen (1984); Jarrell, Brickley and Netter (1988)). Here, I focus on current aspects of the controversy. In brief, the previous work tells us the following: • Takeovers benefit shareholders of target companies. Premiums in hostile offers historically exceed 30 percent on average, and in recent times have averaged about 50 percent. • Acquiring-firm shareholders on average earn about 4 percent in hostile takeovers and roughly zero in mergers, although these returns seem to have declined from past levels. • Takeovers do not waste credit or resources. Instead, they generate substantial gains: historically, 8 percent of the total value of both companies. • Actions by managers that eliminate or prevent offers or mergers are most suspect as harmful to shareholders. • Golden parachutes for top-level managers do not, on average, harm shareholders. • The activities of takeover specialists (such as Icahn, Posner, Steinberg, and Pickens) benefit shareholders on average. • Merger and acquisition activity has not increased industrial concentration. Over 1200 divestitures valued at $59.9 billion occurred in 1986, also a record level (Grimm, 1986). • Takeover gains do not come from the creation of monopoly power. Although measurement problems make it difficult to estimate the returns to bidders as precisely as the returns to targets, it appears the bargaining power of target managers, coupled with competition among potential acquirers, grants a large share of the acquisition benefits to selling shareholders. In addition, federal and state regulation of tender offers appears to have strengthened the hand of target firms; premiums received by target-firm shareholders increased substantially after introduction of such regulation.","PeriodicalId":375570,"journal":{"name":"Diversification Strategy & Policy eJournal","volume":"57 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1987-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"60","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Free Cash Flow Theory of Takeovers: A Financial Perspective on Mergers and Acquisitions and the Economy\",\"authors\":\"M. C. Jensen\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.350422\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Through dozens of studies, economists have accumulated considerable evidence and knowledge on the effects of the takeover market. Most of the earlier work is well summarized elsewhere (Jensen and Ruback (1983); Jensen (1984); Jarrell, Brickley and Netter (1988)). Here, I focus on current aspects of the controversy. In brief, the previous work tells us the following: • Takeovers benefit shareholders of target companies. Premiums in hostile offers historically exceed 30 percent on average, and in recent times have averaged about 50 percent. • Acquiring-firm shareholders on average earn about 4 percent in hostile takeovers and roughly zero in mergers, although these returns seem to have declined from past levels. • Takeovers do not waste credit or resources. Instead, they generate substantial gains: historically, 8 percent of the total value of both companies. • Actions by managers that eliminate or prevent offers or mergers are most suspect as harmful to shareholders. • Golden parachutes for top-level managers do not, on average, harm shareholders. • The activities of takeover specialists (such as Icahn, Posner, Steinberg, and Pickens) benefit shareholders on average. • Merger and acquisition activity has not increased industrial concentration. Over 1200 divestitures valued at $59.9 billion occurred in 1986, also a record level (Grimm, 1986). • Takeover gains do not come from the creation of monopoly power. Although measurement problems make it difficult to estimate the returns to bidders as precisely as the returns to targets, it appears the bargaining power of target managers, coupled with competition among potential acquirers, grants a large share of the acquisition benefits to selling shareholders. In addition, federal and state regulation of tender offers appears to have strengthened the hand of target firms; premiums received by target-firm shareholders increased substantially after introduction of such regulation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":375570,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Diversification Strategy & Policy eJournal\",\"volume\":\"57 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1987-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"60\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Diversification Strategy & Policy eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.350422\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diversification Strategy & Policy eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.350422","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 60

摘要

通过数十项研究,经济学家已经积累了大量关于收购市场影响的证据和知识。大多数早期的工作在其他地方得到了很好的总结(Jensen和Ruback (1983);詹森(1984);贾雷尔,布里克利和奈特(1988))。在这里,我主要关注争议的当前方面。简而言之,前面的工作告诉我们以下几点:·收购有利于目标公司的股东。敌意收购的溢价历来平均超过30%,最近的平均溢价约为50%。在恶意收购中,收购方股东的平均收益约为4%,在合并中则几乎为零,尽管这些回报似乎比过去的水平有所下降。收购不会浪费信用或资源。相反,它们产生了可观的收益:从历史上看,两家公司总价值的8%。管理者取消或阻止要约或合并的行为最容易被怀疑对股东有害。•高管的“黄金降落伞”一般不会损害股东利益。•收购专家(如伊坎、波斯纳、斯坦伯格和皮肯斯)的活动平均对股东有利。•并购活动并未提高产业集中度。1986年发生了超过1200次资产剥离,价值599亿美元,也是创纪录的水平(Grimm, 1986)。收购收益并非来自垄断力量的产生。尽管计量问题使得很难像估计目标公司的回报那样精确地估计竞标者的回报,但似乎目标公司管理者的议价能力,加上潜在收购者之间的竞争,使出售股东获得了很大一部分收购利益。此外,联邦和州对收购要约的监管似乎加强了目标公司的力量;在引入此类监管后,目标公司股东收到的溢价大幅增加。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The Free Cash Flow Theory of Takeovers: A Financial Perspective on Mergers and Acquisitions and the Economy
Through dozens of studies, economists have accumulated considerable evidence and knowledge on the effects of the takeover market. Most of the earlier work is well summarized elsewhere (Jensen and Ruback (1983); Jensen (1984); Jarrell, Brickley and Netter (1988)). Here, I focus on current aspects of the controversy. In brief, the previous work tells us the following: • Takeovers benefit shareholders of target companies. Premiums in hostile offers historically exceed 30 percent on average, and in recent times have averaged about 50 percent. • Acquiring-firm shareholders on average earn about 4 percent in hostile takeovers and roughly zero in mergers, although these returns seem to have declined from past levels. • Takeovers do not waste credit or resources. Instead, they generate substantial gains: historically, 8 percent of the total value of both companies. • Actions by managers that eliminate or prevent offers or mergers are most suspect as harmful to shareholders. • Golden parachutes for top-level managers do not, on average, harm shareholders. • The activities of takeover specialists (such as Icahn, Posner, Steinberg, and Pickens) benefit shareholders on average. • Merger and acquisition activity has not increased industrial concentration. Over 1200 divestitures valued at $59.9 billion occurred in 1986, also a record level (Grimm, 1986). • Takeover gains do not come from the creation of monopoly power. Although measurement problems make it difficult to estimate the returns to bidders as precisely as the returns to targets, it appears the bargaining power of target managers, coupled with competition among potential acquirers, grants a large share of the acquisition benefits to selling shareholders. In addition, federal and state regulation of tender offers appears to have strengthened the hand of target firms; premiums received by target-firm shareholders increased substantially after introduction of such regulation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Diversification as a Strategic Choice for Yangguang Takeaway Restaurant When Does Limited Commitment Matter in a Production Economy? Cross-Border Acquisitions and the Asymmetric Effect of Power Distance Value Difference on Long-Term Post-Acquisition Performance Collaboration between Competitors' NPD Teams: In Search of Effective Modes of Management Control Diversifying Risk Parity
×
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