IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/finlet/v105y2026ics1544612326007610.html

Do board declassifications improve acquisition performance? Evidence from the declassification wave

Author

Listed:
  • Straska, Miroslava
  • Waller, H.Gregory

Abstract

Prior research documents that managers of firms with a classified board pursue acquisitions that create less shareholder value when compared to managers of firms without a classified board (Masulis, Wang, and Xie, 2007). This research has been interpreted as consistent with the view that classified boards allow for non-value-maximizing behavior and has been cited as supporting evidence for those demanding large-scale board declassifications. In this study, we examine whether declassifying corporate boards during 2004–2018, a period of high declassification activity, affects the profitability of firm acquisitions. We find that, all else equal, announcement-period abnormal returns are significantly lower for large acquirers that declassified their boards in this time period compared to large acquirers with a classified board. This finding suggests that, contrary to expectations, board declassifications did not bring about better acquisition performance, on average. By extension, this finding also suggests that the one-size-fits-all push for board declassifications may not have achieved its intended outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Straska, Miroslava & Waller, H.Gregory, 2026. "Do board declassifications improve acquisition performance? Evidence from the declassification wave," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:finlet:v:105:y:2026:i:c:s1544612326007610
    DOI: 10.1016/j.frl.2026.110233
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1544612326007610
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.frl.2026.110233?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    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:eee:finlet:v:105:y:2026:i:c:s1544612326007610. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/frl .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.