当收购和排斥策略是内生的时,私人和社会最优收购

P. Sercu, Tom Vinaimont
{"title":"当收购和排斥策略是内生的时,私人和社会最优收购","authors":"P. Sercu, Tom Vinaimont","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.967594","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The case for one share/one vote regulation is quite robust to the way the takeover game is played, provided one goes all the way and allows not just toeholds or multiple bids and revisions but also bargaining. But the alternative rule that exclusion should never harm the non-voting shares, or that these shares should be taken over at the pre-bid price, will do equally well, without so severely curtailing a firm's room for security design. Under either rule, all privately beneficial takeovers are socially desirable and vice versa, and the value gains are shared fairly between the current shareholders and the bidder.","PeriodicalId":117639,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Takeover Law (Topic)","volume":"39 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Privately and Socially Optimal Take-Overs when Acquisition and Exclusion Strategies are Endogenous\",\"authors\":\"P. Sercu, Tom Vinaimont\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.967594\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The case for one share/one vote regulation is quite robust to the way the takeover game is played, provided one goes all the way and allows not just toeholds or multiple bids and revisions but also bargaining. But the alternative rule that exclusion should never harm the non-voting shares, or that these shares should be taken over at the pre-bid price, will do equally well, without so severely curtailing a firm's room for security design. Under either rule, all privately beneficial takeovers are socially desirable and vice versa, and the value gains are shared fairly between the current shareholders and the bidder.\",\"PeriodicalId\":117639,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"LSN: Takeover Law (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"39 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2006-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"LSN: Takeover Law (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.967594\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Takeover Law (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.967594","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

一股一票的规定对收购游戏的运作方式来说是相当有力的,只要它能一直走下去,不仅允许立足点或多次出价和修改,还允许讨价还价。但另一种规则——排除不应损害无投票权的股份,或者这些股份应以出价前的价格被收购——也会同样奏效,而且不会严重限制公司的安全设计空间。在这两种规则下,所有对私人有利的收购都是社会期望的,反之亦然,价值收益在现有股东和竞购者之间公平分享。
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
Privately and Socially Optimal Take-Overs when Acquisition and Exclusion Strategies are Endogenous
The case for one share/one vote regulation is quite robust to the way the takeover game is played, provided one goes all the way and allows not just toeholds or multiple bids and revisions but also bargaining. But the alternative rule that exclusion should never harm the non-voting shares, or that these shares should be taken over at the pre-bid price, will do equally well, without so severely curtailing a firm's room for security design. Under either rule, all privately beneficial takeovers are socially desirable and vice versa, and the value gains are shared fairly between the current shareholders and the bidder.
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
Competition Laws and Earnings Management: International Evidence Deal Structure Takeover Bids’ Profile Under Mandatory Bid Rule: Evidence from an Emerging Market Speed in Decision-Making: An Assessment of the Australian Takeovers Panel Takeover Litigation in 2014
×
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