This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

The Powerful Antitakeover Force of Staggered Boards: Theory, Evidence and Policy

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Lucian Arye Bebchuk
John C. Coates IV
Guhan Subramanian

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

Staggered boards, which a majority of public companies now have, provide a powerful antitakeover defense, stronger than is commonly recognized. They provide antitakeover protection both by (i) forcing any hostile bidder, no matter when it emerges, to wait at least one year to gain control of the board and (ii) requiring such a bidder to win two elections far apart in time rather than a one-time referendum on its offer. Using a new data set of hostile bids in the five-year period 1996-2000, we find that not a single hostile bid won a ballot box victory against an 'effective' staggered board (ESB). We also find that an ESB nearly doubled the odds of remaining independent for an average target in our data set, from 34% to 61%, halved the odds that a first bidder would be successful, from 34% to 14%, and reduced the odds of a sale to a white knight, from 32% to 25%. Furthermore, we find that the shareholders of targets that remained independent were made worse off compared with accepting the bid and that ESBs did not provide sufficient countervailing benefits in terms of increased premiums to offset the costs of remaining independent. Overall, we estimate that, in the period studied, ESBs reduced the returns of shareholders of hostile bid targets on the order of 8-10%. Finally, we show that most staggered boards were adopted before the developments in takeover doctrine that made ESBs such a potent defense.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w8974.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: Access to the full text is generally limited to series subscribers, however if the top level domain of the client browser is in a developing country or transition economy free access is provided. More information about subscriptions and free access is available at http://www.nber.org/wwphelp.html.

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Publisher Info
Paper provided by National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc in its series NBER Working Papers with number 8974.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation: May 2002
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:8974

Note: CF LE
Contact details of provider:
Postal: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A.
Phone: 617-868-3900
Email:
Web page: http://www.nber.org
More information through EDIRC

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: ().

Related research
Keywords:

Other versions of this item:

Find related papers by JEL classification:
G30 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - General
G34 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Mergers; Acquisitions; Restructuring; Corporate Governance

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

Cited by:
(explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.)
  1. repec:emp:wpaper:wp04-28 is not listed on IDEAS
  2. Low, Angie, 2006. "Managerial Risk-Taking Behavior and Equity-Based Compensation," Working Paper Series 2006-20, Ohio State University, Charles A. Dice Center for Research in Financial Economics. [Downloadable!]
  3. William H. Greene & Abigail S. Hornstein & Lawrence J. White & Bernard Y. Yeung, 2006. "Multinationals Do It Better: Evidence on the Efficiency of Corporations’ Capital Budgeting," Working Papers 06-04, New York University, Leonard N. Stern School of Business, Department of Economics. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  4. Lucian Bebchuk & Alma Cohen, 2004. "The Costs of Entrenched Boards," NBER Working Papers 10587, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  5. Donald Kempf, 2008. "Corporate governance as religion," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 117-131, February. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  6. repec:emp:wpaper:wp05-24 is not listed on IDEAS
  7. Lucian Bebchuk & Jesse Fried, 2003. "Executive Compensation as an Agency Problem," Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics, Working Paper Series 1106, Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics. [Downloadable!]
  8. Lili Qiu, 2004. "Which Institutional Investors Monitor? Evidence from Acquisition Activity," Working Papers 2004-21, Brown University, Department of Economics. [Downloadable!]
  9. Nenova, Tatiana, 2006. "Takeover laws and financial development," Policy Research Working Paper Series 4029, The World Bank. [Downloadable!]
  10. Bebchuk, Lucian Arye & Fried, Jesse, 2003. "Executive Compensation as an Agency Problem," CEPR Discussion Papers 3961, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? Want to help out with this project? Look for volunteer opportunities.

This page was last updated on 2009-12-1.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.