IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/globus/v9y2008i2p207-218.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Corporate Mergers and Acquisitions in India

Author

Listed:
  • Debarati Basu
  • Somashree Ghosh Dastidar

    (Debarati Basu and Somashree Ghosh Dastidar are alumni of International Management Institute, New Delhi and working with ICICI Bank and HDFC Bank respectively.)

  • Deepak Chawla

    (Deepak Chawla is a Professor at the International Management Institute, New Delhi. E-mail: dchawla@imi.edu)

Abstract

This article estimates two models for the takeover selection process in India by identifying discriminating variables that help delineate bidder and target firms. Both discriminant analysis and logit regression have been used for the purpose of developing the appropriate frameworks based on sample data of companies involved in a merger, acquisition or takeover during the period 2002 to 2005. Variables tested were measures of leverage, size, liquidity, profitability, growth, operating efficiency, retention, return on equity and risk. Both the techniques identified liquidity, profitability, size, risk and growth as the most significant discriminating variables. Results indicated that targets have higher liquidity, growth and size on one hand and lower risk, leverage, profitability and operating efficiency on the other. These results appear rational and support the theory that takeovers are a market share enhancing mechanism. Synergy gains through economies of scale or scope, reducing cost of capital or increasing debt capacity could be other driving factors. The discriminant model correctly classifies bidder and target firms to the tune of 64.8 per cent and has been applied to holdout sample for the year 2006 for verifying its predictive power. The logit model appears to be a better fit for bidders with a prediction accuracy of 99.1 per cent, which increases to 100 per cent for the holdout set. In case of targets, prediction accuracy increases from 8.9 per cent to more than 23 per cent over the two data sets. Both models yield similar results as both formulations display the same relationships for the independent variables with the dependent and also find current ratio as being the most important variable. Owing to the moderate degree of success of the model, it is recommended that any of the models could be used for screening companies for takeovers while other tools and methodologies could be developed to facilitate further research and enable decision-making.

Suggested Citation

  • Debarati Basu & Somashree Ghosh Dastidar & Deepak Chawla, 2008. "Corporate Mergers and Acquisitions in India," Global Business Review, International Management Institute, vol. 9(2), pages 207-218, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:globus:v:9:y:2008:i:2:p:207-218
    DOI: 10.1177/097215090800900203
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/097215090800900203
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/097215090800900203?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lev, Baruch & Mandelker, Gershon, 1972. "The Microeconomic Consequences of Corporate Mergers," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 45(1), pages 85-104, January.
    2. Singh, Ajit, 1975. "Take-Overs, Economic Natural Selection, and the Theory of the Firm: Evidence from the Postwar United Kingdom Experience," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 85(339), pages 497-515, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Patricia Stanton, 1987. "Accounting Rates of Return as Measures of Post-Merger Perfor Mance," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 12(2), pages 293-304, December.
    2. Dennis Mueller, 1996. "Antimerger policy in the United States: History and lessons," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 23(3), pages 229-253, October.
    3. Sarah Osborne & Dean Katselas & Larelle Chapple, 2012. "The preferences of private equity investors in selecting target acquisitions: An international investigation," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 37(3), pages 361-389, December.
    4. Jang Youn Cho & Kooyul Jung, 1991. "The differential information content of earnings announcements: The case of merger," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(1), pages 42-61, September.
    5. Ajit Singh, 2012. "Financial Globalization and Human Development," Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(1), pages 135-151, February.
    6. Trimbath, S. & Frydman, H. & Frydman, R., 2000. "Corporate Inefficiency and the Risk of Takeover," Working Papers 00-14, C.V. Starr Center for Applied Economics, New York University.
    7. Chang, Ha-Joon, 1998. "Korea: The misunderstood crisis," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 26(8), pages 1555-1561, August.
    8. Andreas Bartels, & Vanessa Just, & Andreas Kompalla, & Jochen Schmid, 2017. "Forces And Effects In The Privatisation Process: An Empirical Study Of Telecommunications Companies In Germany And Romania," EcoForum, "Stefan cel Mare" University of Suceava, Romania, Faculty of Economics and Public Administration - Economy, Business Administration and Tourism Department., vol. 6(1), pages 1-10, January.
    9. Bogan, Vicki & Just, David, 2009. "What drives merger decision making behavior? Don't seek, don't find, and don't change your mind," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(3), pages 930-943, December.
    10. Ndikumana, Leonce, 2005. "Financial development, financial structure, and domestic investment: International evidence," Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 651-673, June.
    11. Julian Franks & Colin Mayer, 2002. "Governance as a source of managerial discipline," Working Paper Research 31, National Bank of Belgium.
    12. Tzu-Ching Weng & Chieh-wen kuo Chem & Pei-Jung Lee, 2022. "The Influence Of Management Compensation On Diversification Strategy," Global Journal of Business Research, The Institute for Business and Finance Research, vol. 16(1), pages 17-40.
    13. Sandro Claudio Lera & Didier Sornette, 2017. "Quantification of the evolution of firm size distributions due to mergers and acquisitions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-16, August.
    14. Yeh Tsung-Ming & Yasuo Hoshino, 2002. "THE IMPACT OF M&As ON SHAREHOLDER WEALTH: EVIDENCE FROM TAIWANESE CORPORATIONS," The Developing Economies, Institute of Developing Economies, vol. 40(4), pages 553-563, December.
    15. Dong, Feng & Doukas, John, 2021. "The effect of managers on M&As," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    16. A. D. Castagna & Z. P. Matolcsy, 1985. "Accounting Ratios and Models of Takeover Target Screens: Some Empirical Evidence," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 10(1), pages 1-15, June.
    17. Sarah Osborne, 2020. "Abnormal returns and asymmetric information surrounding strategic and financial acquisitions," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 60(4), pages 3991-4030, December.
    18. Robert E. Lipsey & Linda O'Connor, 1982. "Swedish Firms Acquired by Foreigners: A Comparison of Before and After Takeover," NBER Working Papers 1022, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Andy Cosh & Alan Hughes, 2008. "Takeovers after "Takeovers"," Working Papers wp363, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.
    20. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:13:y:2008:i:5:p:1-9 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Dimara, Efthalia & Skuras, Dimitris & Tsekouras, Kostas & Tzelepis, Dimitris, 2008. "Productive efficiency and firm exit in the food sector," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 185-196, April.

    More about this item

    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:sae:globus:v:9:y:2008:i:2:p:207-218. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.imi.edu/ .

    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.