IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wpa/wuwpfi/0311011.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Bidder Asymmetry in Takeover Contests: The Role of Deal Protection Devices

Author

Listed:
  • Paul Povel

    (University of Minnesota)

  • Rajdeep Singh

    (University of Minnesota)

Abstract

We analyze how a takeover contest should optimally be designed. Our key assumption is that not all bidders are equally well informed about a target's value. We present a three-stage sequential procedure which is optimal in such a setting. In this procedure, the target first offers an exclusive deal to a better informed bidder, without considering a less well informed bidder. If rejected, the target may offer an exclusive deal to the less well informed bidder and ignore the better informed bidder; or it may encourage every bidder to participate in a modified first-price auction. If the sequential procedure is used, increased bidder asymmetry is beneficial for target shareholders. We also find that target shareholders benefit if bidders are trade buyers and not financial buyers.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul Povel & Rajdeep Singh, 2003. "Bidder Asymmetry in Takeover Contests: The Role of Deal Protection Devices," Finance 0311011, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpfi:0311011
    Note: Type of Document - pdf; prepared on WinXP; to print on any;
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de/econ-wp/fin/papers/0311/0311011.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:bla:jfinan:v:55:y:2000:i:4:p:1807-1854 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Jeremy Bulow & Paul Klemperer, 2002. "Prices and the Winner's Curse," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 33(1), pages 1-21, Spring.
    3. Roger B. Myerson, 1978. "Optimal Auction Design," Discussion Papers 362, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    4. Bulow, Jeremy & Klemperer, Paul, 1996. "Auctions versus Negotiations," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(1), pages 180-194, March.
    5. Singh, Rajdeep, 1998. "Takeover Bidding with Toeholds: The Case of the Owner's Curse," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 11(4), pages 679-704.
    6. Burkart, Mike, 1995. "Initial Shareholdings and Overbidding in Takeover Contests," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 50(5), pages 1491-1515, December.
    7. Jeremy Bulow & Ming Huang & Paul Klemperer, 1999. "Toeholds and Takeovers," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 107(3), pages 427-454, June.
    8. Eric Maskin & John Riley, 2000. "Asymmetric Auctions," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 67(3), pages 413-438.
    9. Bulow, Jeremy & Roberts, John, 1989. "The Simple Economics of Optimal Auctions," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 97(5), pages 1060-1090, October.
    10. Matthew Rhodes‐Kropf & S. Viswanathan, 2000. "Corporate Reorganizations and Non‐Cash Auctions," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 55(4), pages 1807-1849, August.
    11. Officer, Micah S., 2003. "Termination fees in mergers and acquisitions," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 431-467, September.
    12. Lee, D Scott, 1992. "Management Buyout Proposals and Inside Information," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 47(3), pages 1061-1079, July.
    13. Israel, Ronen, 1991. "Capital Structure and the Market for Corporate Control: The Defensive Role of Debt Financing," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 46(4), pages 1391-1409, September.
    14. Gregor Andrade & Mark Mitchell & Erik Stafford, 2001. "New Evidence and Perspectives on Mergers," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 15(2), pages 103-120, Spring.
    15. Kaplan, Steven, 1989. "The effects of management buyouts on operating performance and value," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 217-254.
    16. Cantillon, Estelle, 2008. "The effect of bidders' asymmetries on expected revenue in auctions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 1-25, January.
    17. Berkovitch, Elazar & Khanna, Naveen, 1990. "How Target Shareholders Benefit from Value-Reducing Defensive Strategies in Takeovers," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 45(1), pages 137-156, March.
    18. Ravid, S. Abraham & Spiegel, Matthew, 1999. "Toehold strategies, takeover laws and rival bidders," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 23(8), pages 1219-1242, August.
    19. Jennings, Robert H & Mazzeo, Michael A, 1993. "Competing Bids, Target Management Resistance, and the Structure of Takeover Bids," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 6(4), pages 883-909.
    20. Roger B. Myerson, 1981. "Optimal Auction Design," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 58-73, February.
    21. Fibich, Gadi & Gavious, Arieh & Sela, Aner, 2004. "Revenue equivalence in asymmetric auctions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 115(2), pages 309-321, April.
    22. Back, Kerry & Zender, Jaime F, 1993. "Auctions of Divisible Goods: On the Rationale for the Treasury Experiment," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 6(4), pages 733-764.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Loyola, Gino, 2012. "Optimal and efficient takeover contests with toeholds," Journal of Financial Intermediation, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 203-216.
    2. Goldman, Eitan & Qian, Jun, 2005. "Optimal toeholds in takeover contests," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(2), pages 321-346, August.
    3. Schneck, Colin & Bessler, Wolfgang & Zimmermann, Jan, 2014. "Bidder Contests in International Mergers and Acquisitions: The Impact of Toeholds, Preemptive Bidding, and Termination Fees," VfS Annual Conference 2014 (Hamburg): Evidence-based Economic Policy 100493, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    4. Bris, Arturo, 2002. "Toeholds, takeover premium, and the probability of being acquired," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 227-253, July.
    5. Paul Klemperer, 2007. "Bidding Markets," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 3(1), pages 1-47.
    6. Renée Birgit Adams & Francesca Cornelli & Leonardo Felli, 2012. "How to Sell a (Bankrupt) Company," International Review of Finance, International Review of Finance Ltd., vol. 12(2), pages 197-226, June.
    7. Roberto Burguet, 2000. "Auction theory: a guided tour," Investigaciones Economicas, Fundación SEPI, vol. 24(1), pages 3-50, January.
    8. Hongjun Zhong, 2002. "postbid market interaction and auction choice," Microeconomics 0210002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Betton, Sandra & Eckbo, B. Espen & Thorburn, Karin S., 2009. "Merger negotiations and the toehold puzzle," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 158-178, February.
    10. Eckbo, B. Espen, 2009. "Bidding strategies and takeover premiums: A review," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 149-178, February.
    11. Kent D Daniel & David Hirshleifer, 2018. "A Theory of Costly Sequential Bidding [Strategic jump bidding in English auctions]," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 22(5), pages 1631-1665.
    12. Corum, Adrian Aycan & Levit, Doron, 2019. "Corporate control activism," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(1), pages 1-17.
    13. Dasgupta, Sudipto & Tsui, Kevin, 2003. "A "matching auction" for targets with heterogeneous bidders," Journal of Financial Intermediation, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 331-364, October.
    14. Eckbo, B Espen & Thorburn, Karin S & ,, 2005. "The Toehold Puzzle," CEPR Discussion Papers 5084, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    15. Dai, Yun & Gryglewicz, Sebastian & Smit, Han T.J. & De Maeseneire, Wouter, 2013. "Similar bidders in takeover contests," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 544-561.
    16. Aktas, Nihat & de Bodt, Eric & Roll, Richard, 2009. "Learning, hubris and corporate serial acquisitions," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 15(5), pages 543-561, December.
    17. Gino Loyola, 2021. "Optimal selling mechanisms with crossholdings," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 25(1), pages 1-32, June.
    18. Jeremy Bulow & Ming Huang & Paul Klemperer, 1999. "Toeholds and Takeovers," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 107(3), pages 427-454, June.
    19. Quintero Jaramillo, Jose E., 2004. "Liquidity constraints and credit subsidies in auctions," DEE - Working Papers. Business Economics. WB wb040604, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía de la Empresa.
    20. Jeremy Bulow & Paul Klemperer, 2007. "When are Auctions Best?," Economics Papers 2007-W03, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Takeovers; asymmetric information; lock-ups; termination fees; poison pills; bidder exclusivity;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • G34 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Mergers; Acquisitions; Restructuring; Corporate Governance
    • D44 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Auctions

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpfi:0311011. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: EconWPA (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.