IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is The Mergerstat Control Premium Overstated?


  • Jordan Dan

    (Golden Gate University)

  • Hoppe Paul

    (Golden Gate University)


This paper examines a random sample of 100 acquisitions of U.S. target firms acquired between the first quarter of 1999 through the first quarter of 2003 comparing the ``Control Premium" reported by Mergerstat/Shannon Pratt's Control Premium StudyTM to a comparable ``Abnormal Return" calculated using established academic ``event study" methodology. One of the differences between the Mergerstat methodology and the event study methodology is the removal of general market movements from the total stock return to arrive at the abnormal return while no such adjustments are made to the Mergerstat control premium.The ``Control Premium" reported by Mergerstat averaged 49.02% compared to 53.64% calculated using the event study methodology, a difference of -4.62%. During the event periods, the S&P 500 Index experienced a -4.45% average change, accounting for 96% of the difference in average result between the two methods. However, when the sample is split between up and down market periods, anomalies appear.An analysis of the up market periods reveals an average event study abnormal return of 59.97% compared to a 34.95% average Mergerstat Control Premium. This 25% difference is explained by Mergerstat's methodology understating the ``run-up" of target firms' stock prices prior to the acquisition announcement.

Suggested Citation

  • Jordan Dan & Hoppe Paul, 2008. "Is The Mergerstat Control Premium Overstated?," Journal of Business Valuation and Economic Loss Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 3(1), pages 1-13, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:bpj:jbvela:v:3:y:2008:i:1:n:3

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Barclay, Michael J. & Warner, Jerold B., 1993. "Stealth trading and volatility : Which trades move prices?," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 281-305, December.
    2. Schwert, G. William, 1996. "Markup pricing in mergers and acquisitions," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 153-192, June.
    3. Keown, Arthur J & Pinkerton, John M, 1981. "Merger Announcements and Insider Trading Activity: An Empirical Investigation," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 36(4), pages 855-869, September.
    4. Gupta, Atul & Misra, Lalatendu, 1988. "Illegal Insider Trading: Is It Rampant before Corporate Takeovers?," The Financial Review, Eastern Finance Association, vol. 23(4), pages 453-464, November.
    5. Fama, Eugene F, et al, 1969. "The Adjustment of Stock Prices to New Information," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 10(1), pages 1-21, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Dan Jordan & Donald Wort, 2009. "A test of bear market mergerstat control premiums," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 27-36, July.

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    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:bpj:jbvela:v:3:y:2008:i:1:n:3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Peter Golla). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.