Bargaining in Mergers and Termination Fees
We model takeovers as a bargaining process and explain termination fees for, both, the target and the acquirer, subject to parties’ bargaining power and outside options. In equilibrium, termination fees are offered by firms with outside options in exchange for a greater share of merger synergies. Termination fees decrease in firms’ bargaining power, and increase in firms’ outside options. We find that a merger with the second highest bidder, including a termination fee, can lead to equally high premiums as a merger with the highest bidder, without a termination fee. This novel result directly contrasts the agency cost perspective, which argues that termination provisions may be used by managers to lock into acquirers that do not generate the highest shareholder value. Further, even in a merger with the highest bidder and in the absence of bidding related costs, a termination fee is not necessarily a deal protection device, but can be used to improve shareholder value. Our bargaining model offers an alternative to auction related explanations of termination fees, like cost compensation or seller commitment.
|Date of creation:||Mar 2007|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Centre for Economic Policy Research, 77 Bastwick Street, London EC1V 3PZ.|
Phone: 44 - 20 - 7183 8801
Fax: 44 - 20 - 7183 8820
|Order Information:|| Email: |
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.:
- Comment, Robert & Jarrell, Gregg A., 1987. "Two-tier and negotiated tender offers: The imprisonment of the free-riding shareholder," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 283-310, December.
- Paul Povel & Rajdeep Singh, 2006. "Takeover Contests with Asymmetric Bidders," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 19(4), pages 1399-1431.
- Roger B. Myerson, 1978. "Optimal Auction Design," Discussion Papers 362, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Officer, Micah S., 2003. "Termination fees in mergers and acquisitions," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 431-467, September.
- Peter Cramton & Alan Schwartz, 1991.
"Using Auction Theory to Inform Takeover Regulation,"
Papers of Peter Cramton
91jleo, University of Maryland, Department of Economics - Peter Cramton, revised 09 Jun 1998.
- Cramton, Peter & Schwartz, Alan, 1991. "Using Auction Theory to Inform Takeover Regulation," Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 7(1), pages 27-53, Spring.
- McAfee, R Preston & McMillan, John, 1987. "Auctions and Bidding," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 25(2), pages 699-738, June.
- Berkovitch, Elazar & Khanna, Naveen, 1990. " How Target Shareholders Benefit from Value-Reducing Defensive Strategies in Takeovers," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 45(1), pages 137-56, March.
- Burch, Timothy R., 2001. "Locking out rival bidders: The use of lockup options in corporate mergers," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 103-141, April.
- Luis Alvarez & Rune Stenbacka, 2006. "Takeover Timing, Implementation Uncertainty, and Embedded Divestment Options," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 10(3), pages 417-441, September.
- Klemperer, Paul, 1998.
"Auctions with almost common values: The 'Wallet Game' and its applications,"
European Economic Review,
Elsevier, vol. 42(3-5), pages 757-769, May.
- Paul Klemperer, 1997. "Auctions with Almost Common Values: The Wallet Game and its Applications," Economics Series Working Papers 1998-W03, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
- Povel, Paul & Singh, Rajdeep, 2004. "Using bidder asymmetry to increase seller revenue," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 17-20, July.
- Audra L. Boone & J. Harold Mulherin, 2007. "How Are Firms Sold?," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 62(2), pages 847-875, 04.
- Bates, Thomas W. & Lemmon, Michael L., 2003. "Breaking up is hard to do? An analysis of termination fee provisions and merger outcomes," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 469-504, September.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:6210. 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: ()
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.