Firm size and the gains from acquisitions

By Sara B. Moeller, Frederik Schlingemann, René M. Stulz. 2004

2,458 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b80937822f8d2d7f064ade31e9e977286a8e1ae3

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

Anticipation, Acquisitions and Bidder Returns: Industry Shocks and the Transfer of Information Across Rivals (2011, neutral): “The results (regressions (3) to (6)) 11 See, for example, Fuller, Netter, and Stegemoller (2002) and Moeller, Schlingemann, and Stulz (2004).”
Financial Statement Comparability and the Efficiency of Acquisition Decisions (2018, positive): “…acquisitions with deal value less than $1 million and acquisition that are less than 1% of the acquirer’s pre-acquisition market value (e.g., Moeller et al., 2004; McNichols and Stubben, 2012).21 Finally, we exclude observations that lack the data required to calculate the comparability…”
Returns to Acquirers of Listed and Unlisted Targets (2006, positive): “…cumulative abnormal returns (CARs) when acquiring listed targets and positive average CARs when acquiring unlisted targets (Chang (1998), Fuller, Netter, and Stegemoller (2002) (FNS hereafter), Hansen and Lott (1996) (HL hereafter), and Moeller, Schlingemann, and Stulz (2004) (MSS hereafter)).”
Cross-Ownership, Returns and Voting in Mergers (2008, background): “…while average returns to target-firm shareholders are positive and high, when both companies are publicly traded (Jensen and Ruback, 1983; Jarrell, Brickley, and Netter, 1988; Morck, Shleifer, and Vishny, 1990; Andrade, Mitchell, and Stafford, 2001; Moeller, Schlingemann, and Stulz, 2004, 2005).”
Deal Size, Acquisition Premia and Shareholder Gains (2013, positive): “Given the importance of acquirer size in explaining both premiums and acquirer returns (Moeller et al., 2004) as well as the fact that it tends to increase with the size of the target, it is important to examine the relative effect of both the acquirer and target size.”
The Sources of Value Destruction in Acquisitions by Entrenched Managers (2012, neutral): “We also include a number of control variables that are standard to the literature (see, e.g., Fuller et al., 2002; Humphery-Jenner and Powell, 2011; Moeller et al., 2004; Moeller and Schlingemann, 2005; Moeller et al., 2005; Masulis et al., 2007; and Travlos, 1987).”
Negotiations Under the Threat of an Auction (2010, neutral): “08 average value reported by Moeller et al. (2007). The average size of acquirers in their sample of 1,533 transactions (period 1980-2002) is $5.”
Employee Rights and Acquisitions (2015, positive): “Relative deal size, defined as deal value divided by acquirer market value of equity, enters with a negative sign, consistent with the finding in Moeller et al. (2004) for large acquirers.6 Diversifying deals are associated with significantly less favorable market reaction, consistent with Morck,…”
Bond market access and investment (2014, methodology): “We also follow Moeller et al. (2004) and drop acquisitions if the ratio of transaction value to total assets of the acquirer is less than 1 percent.”
Market Valuation and Acquisition Quality: Empirical Evidence (2009, background): “Previous research has demonstrated that the size of an acquisition relative to the acquirer has an impact on the abnormal returns to the acquiring firm (see, e.g., Asquith, Bruner, and Mullins, 1983; Eckbo, Giammarino, and Heinkel, 1990; Moeller, Schlingemann, and Stulz, 2004 ).”
What drives merger waves (2005, result): “This is consistent with the findings of Moeller, Schlingemann, and Stulz (2004) , who, in a comprehensive look at the 1980–2001 period find that large acquirers destroy billions in value while small acquirers actually create value in mergers.”
The danger of misinterpreting short-window event study findings in strategic management research: an empirical illustration using horizontal acquisitions (2008, methodology): “For comparison, Moeller et al. (2004) also analyzed announcement period returns, utilizing a much longer list of explanatory variables, and reported R 2s of 4 to 5.5 percent.”
To what extent does corporate liquidity affect M&A decisions, method of payment and performance? Evidence from China (2017, background): “decisions on acquisitions, in order to diversify their personal portfolios and increase the scale and scope of operating assets in their hands (Moeller et al., 2004).”