Valuation Effects of Short Sale Constraints: The Case of Corporate Takeovers

By G. Alexandridis, A. Antoniou, Huainan Zhao. 2006

474 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We examine the relation between the degree of short sale constraints for acquiring firms' equity and post takeover stock performance. We find that negative long-run abnormal returns appear to decline (in economic and statistical terms) as the extent and persistence of institutional block-holder ownership increase, after accounting for the size, book-to-market and method of payment effects. In the spirit of Miller (1977), such evidence implies that the degree of short sale constraints serves as an important determinant of acquiring firms' short-run overpricing. It appears that the presence of concentrated institutional presence mitigates and in most cases eliminates, through effective arbitrage, any short-run overpricing that may be responsible for the long-run underperformance of acquirers, preserving in this way efficiency in the takeover markets.

Subfields: Accounting, Finance

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/250f3b03e3578858fdf2604894a6adb632f607a6

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Accounting

In Finance

Citations in the corpus

What determines the speed of adjustment to the target capital structure? (2006, result): “These empirical results are supported by survey evidence in Graham and Harvey (2001) and Drobetz et al.”
Capital Structure Decisions During a Firm's Life Cycle (2011, background): “Moreover, the institutional environment also has a crucial influence on capital structure decisions, as recently documented by Titman et al. (2003) for large companies, and by Gaud et al. (2005) for small firms.”
The Determinants of Capital Structure: Evidence from the Turkish Manufacturing Sector (2014, methodology): “Some of the studies consisted with the view of trade-off theory (Fischer et al., 1989; Chang and Rhee, 1990; Chen et al., 1998; Banerjee et al., 2000; Bevan and Danbolt, 2001; Fattouh et al., 2002; Padron et al., 2005; Gaud et al., 2005; Tomak, 2013).”
Determinants of capital structure: evidence from Turkish lodging companies. (2009, result): “Empirical studies generally found a positive relationship between the two variables, and hence support for the trade-off theory (Dalbor and Upneja, 2002; Gaud et al., 2005; Huang and Song, 2006; Pandey, 2004; Qian et al., 2007; Sayılgan et al., 2006).”
Influence of bank concentration and institutions on capital structure: New international evidence (2008, methodology): “Following Rajan and Zingales (1995), Gaud et al. (2005), Flannery and Rangan (2006), growth opportunities (GROWTH) are measured as the market-to-book ratio.”
The Effect of Asset Structure and Firm Size on Firm Value with Capital Structure as Intervening Variable (2017, background): “[12] says that asset structure is a contributing factor on capital structure.”
Capital structure determinants: an empirical study of French companies in the wine industry (2008, background): “σ : Standard deviation Bradley et al., 1984; Lee & Kwok, 1988; Titman & Wessels, 1988; Homaifar et al., 1994; Michaleas et al., 1999; Ghosh et al., 2000; Booth et al., 2001; Miguel, & Pintado, 2001; Cassar & Holmes, 2003; Deesomsak, 2004; Gaud et al., 2005; Song, 2005”
Firm size and capital structure: evidence using dynamic panel data (2011, background): “Firm size, measured by ln(TA) and ln(EMP), has the traditional positive impact on leverage that has been documented in many empirical studies for other countries (Rajan and Zingales, 1995; Fama and French, 2002; Frank and Goyal, 2003; Gaud et al., 2005; Flannery and Rangan, 2006; López-Iturriaga and”
The Determinants of Capital Structure Choice: Evidence from Polish Companies (2007, unknown): “Gaud et al. (2005) find evidence for both theories.”