Author
Abstract
Purpose - Poison pill adoption is often considered as the most effective tactic to fend off an unsolicited takeover bid. However, it is difficult to identify the deterrent effect because the adoption is naturally endogenous. The purpose of this paper is to use plausibly exogenous instruments to mitigate the endogeneity problem. Design/methodology/approach - The author employs two econometric models: the linear probability model and the bivariate probit model to examine the effect of poison pills on the outcome of a takeover. Findings - Using a sample of 655 unsolicited takeovers, the author finds that poison pills substantially reduce the likelihood that a takeover bid, once undesirably placed, is completed. This negative impact strongly supports the manager entrenchment hypothesis in that managers adopt poison pills to ensure the continuation of their private benefits. However, the author finds no strong evidence consistent with the shareholder interest hypothesis that poison pills enhance the management’s ability to negotiate higher premiums or reject inadequate offers. Research limitations/implications - The demise of the market for unsolicited takeovers with the disappearance of poison pills can be explained by the fact that poison pills, if adopted, will have an absolute deterrent effect on the takeover likelihood of success, and targets always have the power to adopt them instantly. Practical implications - There should be policies to limit the power of managers to adopt poison pills because it causes the entrenchment problem which will negatively affect the firm value. Originality/value - The author tackles the problem of the endogeneity of poison pill adoptions. The author shows that poison pills have a strong negative effect on the takeover outcome and the result can explain the decreasing number of unsolicited takeovers.
Suggested Citation
Duc Giang Nguyen, 2017.
"The endogeneity of poison pill adoption and unsolicited takeovers,"
International Journal of Managerial Finance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 14(1), pages 23-36, October.
Handle:
RePEc:eme:ijmfpp:ijmf-04-2017-0075
DOI: 10.1108/IJMF-04-2017-0075
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to
for a different version of it.
More about this item
Keywords
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
JEL classification:
- G30 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - General
- G34 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Mergers; Acquisitions; Restructuring; Corporate Governance
- G38 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Government Policy and Regulation
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:eme:ijmfpp:ijmf-04-2017-0075. 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: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.