The Impact on UK Acquirers of Domestic, Cross‐border, Public and Private Acquisitions

365 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Target’s earnings quality and bidders’ takeover decisions (2013, neutral): “A merger could allow the bidder and target to extract full synergistic value from such assets, which may not be possible under arms’ length deals, owing to difficulties in transmitting tacit information (see also Conn et al. 2005).”
Do High Technology Acquirers Become More Innovative (2010, methodology): “Cassiman et al. (2005), using interviews with managers in 31 international 1 Approaches focusing on acquiring firms alone are frequent in the general literature on acquisition effects as are approaches using the combined effect approach (see e.g. Cosh et al., 2005; Mueller, 1980).”
A century of corporate takeovers: What have we learned and where do we stand? (2008, neutral): “…US 1990-00 MAM CAARs (+1, +24) 12476 1149 493 1854 4583 All deals Pub-Stock Pub-Cash Priv-Stock Priv-Cash -10.09a -6.35a -0.00 -14.00a -6.76a Conn et al. (2005), UK 1984-00 Size and B/M BHARs (+1, +36) CTARs (+1, +36) 576 2628 576 2628 75 501 1400 1172 Pub-All Priv-All Pub-All Priv-All…”
Mergers and Acquisitions in Europe (2006, background): “It follows that the share price of bidders acquiring foreign firms significantly underperforms that of bidders participating in domestic takeovers (Conn et al. 2005).”