Asymmetric Cost Behavior and Acquirer Returns: Evidence from U.S. Mergers

Mine UGURLU, (Boğaziçi Üniversitesi, İstanbul, Türkiye)
GAMZE ÖZTÜRK DANIŞMAN, (Bahçeşehir Üniversitesi, İstanbul, Türkiye)
Seda BILYAY-ERDOGAN, (Kadir Has Üniversitesi, İstanbul, Türkiye)
Cigdem VURAL-YAVAS (Kadir Has Üniversitesi, İstanbul, Türkiye)
Ege Akademik Bakış
4 0
Yıl: 2019 Cilt: 19 Sayı: 3 Sayfa Aralığı: 323 - 339 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.21121/eab.536640 İndeks Tarihi: 26-12-2020

Asymmetric Cost Behavior and Acquirer Returns: Evidence from U.S. Mergers

Öz:
This paper investigates the asymmetric behaviorof the selling, general and administrative (SG&A)costs of acquirers, and reveals its effects on mergers& acquisitions (M&A) performance in a one-yearevent window. It is based on a sample of 6888 M&Ascompleted in the U.S. during the 2003-2015 periodand employs panel data regressions. The resultsshow that 73% of the acquirers display asymmetriccost behavior. A significant negative relation is foundbetween cost stickiness and acquirers’ abnormalreturns following the merger announcement.Competition in the market for corporate controlis positively related with acquirer returns butexacerbates the negative effects of cost-stickinesson abnormal returns of acquirers. The acquirers’ riskof default is significantly negatively related to theabnormal returns they generate. This adverse effectof default risk on returns is stronger for acquirerswith anti-sticky costs. Acquirer risk offsets thepositive effects of competition on returns. Acquirerswith sticky costs have lower abnormal returns thanthose with anti-sticky costs in a one-year window.The present study contributes to the literature byrevealing the asymmetric cost behavior of acquirersinvolved in merger activity during the last decade,and provides evidence for an alternative explanationfor the lower abnormal returns of the acquiring firms.
Anahtar Kelime:

Asimetrik Maliyet Davranışı ve Alıcıların Getirileri: A.B.D. Birleşmelerinden Bulgular

Öz:
Bu çalışma alıcıların satış, genel ve yönetim maliyetlerinin asimetrik davranışlarını incelemekle birlikte; “Birleşme ve Satın Alma” performanslarına olan etkisini 1 yıllık olay penceresinden analiz etmektedir. Çalışma A.B.D.’de 2003-2015 yılları arasında tamamlanan 6,888 birleşme ve satınalmaya dayanmakta ve panel veri regresyonları kullanmaktadır. Sonuçlar alıcıların 73%’ünün maliyetlerinin asimetrik davranış sergilediğini göstermektedir. Birleşme duyurusunun ardından maliyet yapışkanlığı ile alıcıların olağandışı getirileri arasında anlamlı ve negatif bir ilişki olduğu saptanmıştır. Piyasadaki rekabet alıcıların getirilerini olumlu etkiler, ancak yapışkan maliyetlerin alıcıların olağandışı getirileri üzerindeki olumsuz etkisini daha da artırır. Ayrıca alıcıların temerrüt riskinin olağandışı getiriler üzerinde anlamlı ve negatif yönde etkisi vardır. Bununla birlikte, temerrüt riskinin getiriler üzerindeki olumsuz etkisi yapışkan olmayan maliyet yapısı olan alıcılar için daha kuvvetlidir. Alıcıların riski rekabetin getiriler üzerindeki pozitif etkisini azaltmaktadır. Bir yıllık olay penceresinden incelendiğinde, yapışkan maliyet yapısına sahip alıcıların yapışkan olmayan maliyet yapısına sahip alıcılara göre daha az olağandışı getirilere sahip olduğu gözlemlenmiştir. Bu çalışma 2003-2015 yılları arasında gerçekleşen birleşmelerde rol alan alıcıların asimetrik maliyet davranışlarını ortaya çıkararak ve alıcı firmaların daha düşük olağandışı getiri elde etmelerine alternatif bir açıklama getirerek literatüre katkıda bulunmuştur.
Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • Alexandridis, G., Petmezas, D., & Travlos, N.G. (2010). Gains from mergers and acquisitions around the world: New evidence, Financial Management, 39, 1671–1695. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755- 053X.2010.01126.x
  • Alexandridis, G., Mavrovitis, C.F., & Travlos, N.G. (2012). How have M&As changed? Evidence from the sixth merger wave, The European Journal of Finance, 18, 663–688. https://doi.org/10.1080/135184 7X.2011.628401
  • Altman, E. I. (1968). Financial ratios, discriminant analysis and the prediction of corporate bankruptcy, The Journal of Finance, 23, 589–609. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1968.tb00843.x
  • Anderson, M., Banker, R., Huang, R., & Janakiraman, S. (2007). Cost behavior and fundamental analysis of SG&A Costs, Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, 22, 1–28. https://doi. org/10.1177/0148558X0702200103
  • Anderson, M.C., Banker, R.D., & Janakiraman, S.N. (2003). Are selling, general, and administrative costs “sticky”?, Journal of Accounting Research, 41, 47–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-679X.00095
  • Asquith, P., Bruner, R.F., & Mullins, D.W. (1983). The gains to bidding firms from merger, Journal of Financial Economics, 11, 121–139. https://doi. org/10.1016/0304-405X(83)90007-7
  • Balakrishnan, R., Petersen, M.J., & Soderstrom, N.S. (2004). Does capacity utilization affect the “stickiness” of cost?, Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, 19, 283–300. https://doi. org/10.1177/0148558x0401900303
  • Banker, R.D., & Byzalov, D. (2014). Asymmetric cost behavior, Journal of Management Accounting Research, 26, 43–79. https://doi.org/10.2308/jmar-50846
  • Banker, R.D., Byzalov, D., Ciftci, M., & Mashruwala, R. (2014a). The moderating effect of prior sales changes on asymmetric cost behavior, Journal of Management Accounting Research, 26, 221–242. https://doi. org/10.2308/jmar-50726
  • Banker, R.D., Byzalov, D., & Plehn-Dujowich, J.M. (2014b). Demand uncertainty and cost behavior, The Accounting Review, 89, 839–865. https://doi. org/10.2308/accr-50661
  • Banker, R.D., & Chen, L.T. (2006). Predicting earnings using a model based on cost variability and cost stickiness, The Accounting Review, 81, 285–307. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2006.81.2.285
  • Banker, R.D., Huang, R., & Natarajan, R. (2011). Equity incentives and long-term value created by SG&A expenditure, Contemporary Accounting Research, 28, 794–830. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1911- 3846.2011.01066.x
  • Barberis, N., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. (1998). A model of investor sentiment, Journal of Financial Economics, 49, 307–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304- 405X(98)00027-0
  • Bargeron, L., Schlingemann, F., Stulz, R., & Zutter, C. (2008). Why Do Private Acquirers Pay So Little Compared to Public Acquirers?, Journal of Financial Economics, 89, 375–390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jfineco.2007.11.005
  • Betzer, A., Doumet, M., & Goergen, M. (2015). Disentangling the Link Between Stock and Accounting Performance in Acquisitions, The European Journal of Finance, 21, 755–771. https://doi.org/10.1080/13 51847X.2014.890633.
  • Bhabra, H.S. & Hossain, A.T. (2017). Impact of SOX on the Returns to Targets and Acquirers in Corporate Tender Offers, The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 42, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. najef.2017.06.001.
  • Calleja, K., Steliaros, M., & Thomas, D.C. (2006). A Note on Cost Stickiness: Some International Comparisons, Management Accounting Research, 17, 127–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2006.02.001.
  • Campa, J.M. & Hernando, I. (2004). Shareholder Value Creation in European M&As, European Financial Management, 10, 47–81, https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1468-036X.2004.00240.x
  • Chen, C.X., Gores, T., & Nasev, J. (2013). Managerial Overconfidence and Cost Stickiness, SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 2208622, Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY.
  • Chen, C.X., Lu, H., & Sougiannis, T. (2012). The Agency Problem, Corporate Governance, and the Asymmetrical Behavior of Selling, General, and Administrative Costs: The Agency Problem and SG&A Costs, Contemporary Accounting Research, 29, 252–282. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1911-3846.2011.01094.x.
  • Daniel, K., Hirshleifer, D., & Subrahmanyam, A. (1998). Investor Psychology and Security Market Under- and Overreactions, The Journal of Finance, 53, 1839–1885. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-1082.00077.
  • Dierkens, N. (1991). Information Asymmetry and Equity Issues, The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 26, 181. https://doi.org/10.2307/2331264.
  • Dierynck, B., Landsman, W.R., & Renders, A. (2012). Do Managerial Incentives Drive Cost Behavior? Evidence about the Role of the Zero Earnings Benchmark for Labor Cost Behavior in Private Belgian Firms, The Accounting Review, 87, 1219–1246. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-50153.
  • Furfine, C.H., & Rosen, R.J. (2011). Mergers Increase Default Risk, Journal of Corporate Finance, 17, 832–849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2011.03.003.
  • Jang, Y., Yehuda, N., & Radhakrishnan, S. (2017). Asymmetric Cost Behavior and Value Creation in M&A Deals, SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi. org/10.2139/ssrn.2824132.
  • Kama, I., & Weiss D. (2013). Do Earnings Targets and Managerial Incentives Affect Sticky Costs?: Earnings Targets and Managerial Incentives, Journal of Accounting Research, 51, 201–224. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1475-679X.2012.00471.x
  • Kuang, Y.F., Mohan, A., & Qin, B. (2015). CEO Overconfidence and Cost Stickiness, Management Control & Accounting, 2, 26-32.
  • Lant, T.K., & Hurley, A.E. (1999). A contingency model of response to performance feedback: Escalation of commitment and incremental adaptation in resource investment decisions, Group & Organization Management, 24, 421–437. https://doi. org/10.1177/1059601199244002
  • Lee, D. (2017). Cross-border mergers and acquisitions with heterogeneous firms: Technology vs. market motives, The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 42, 20–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. najef.2017.06.003
  • Meglio, O., & Risberg, A. (2011). The (mis)measurement of M&A performance—A systematic narrative literature review, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 27, 418–433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. scaman.2011.09.002
  • Moeller, S.B., Schlingemann, F.P., & Stulz, R.M. (2004). Firm size and the gains from acquisitions, Journal of Financial Economics, 73, 201–228. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2003.07.002
  • Moeller, S.B., Schlingemann, F.P., & Stulz, R.M. (2005). Wealth destruction on a massive scale? A study of acquiring-firm returns in the recent merger wave, The Journal of Finance, 60, 757–782. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2005.00745.x
  • Moeller, S.B., Schlingemann, F.P , & Stulz R.M. (2007). How do diversity of opinion and information asymmetry affect acquirer returns?, Review of Financial Studies, 20, 2047–2078. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/ hhm040
  • Petersen, M.A. (2009). Estimating standard errors in finance panel data sets: Comparing approaches, Review of Financial Studies, 22, 435–480. https://doi. org/10.1093/rfs/hhn053
  • Rosen, R.J. (2006). Merger momentum and investor sentiment: The stock market reaction to merger announcements, The Journal of Business, 79, 987–1017. https://doi.org/10.1086/499146
  • Shleifer, A, &. Vishny, R.W. (2003). Stock market driven acquisitions, Journal of Financial Economics, 70, 295–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304- 405X(03)00211-3
  • Wang, D., & Moini, H. (2012). Performance assessment of mergers and acquisitions: Evidence from Denmark, E-Leader, Berlin. http://www.gcasa.com/conferences/berlin/ppt/Wang.pdf.
  • Weiss, D. (2010). Cost behavior and analysts’ earnings forecasts, The Accounting Review, 85, 1441–1471. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2010.85.4.1441
  • Yasukata, K. (2011). Are “Sticky Costs” the result of deliberate decision of managers? SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1444746
APA UGURLU M, Danisman G, Bilyay Erdogan S, Vural Yavaş Ç (2019). Asymmetric Cost Behavior and Acquirer Returns: Evidence from U.S. Mergers. , 323 - 339. 10.21121/eab.536640
Chicago UGURLU MINE,Danisman Gamze Ozturk,Bilyay Erdogan Seda,Vural Yavaş Çiğdem Asymmetric Cost Behavior and Acquirer Returns: Evidence from U.S. Mergers. (2019): 323 - 339. 10.21121/eab.536640
MLA UGURLU MINE,Danisman Gamze Ozturk,Bilyay Erdogan Seda,Vural Yavaş Çiğdem Asymmetric Cost Behavior and Acquirer Returns: Evidence from U.S. Mergers. , 2019, ss.323 - 339. 10.21121/eab.536640
AMA UGURLU M,Danisman G,Bilyay Erdogan S,Vural Yavaş Ç Asymmetric Cost Behavior and Acquirer Returns: Evidence from U.S. Mergers. . 2019; 323 - 339. 10.21121/eab.536640
Vancouver UGURLU M,Danisman G,Bilyay Erdogan S,Vural Yavaş Ç Asymmetric Cost Behavior and Acquirer Returns: Evidence from U.S. Mergers. . 2019; 323 - 339. 10.21121/eab.536640
IEEE UGURLU M,Danisman G,Bilyay Erdogan S,Vural Yavaş Ç "Asymmetric Cost Behavior and Acquirer Returns: Evidence from U.S. Mergers." , ss.323 - 339, 2019. 10.21121/eab.536640
ISNAD UGURLU, MINE vd. "Asymmetric Cost Behavior and Acquirer Returns: Evidence from U.S. Mergers". (2019), 323-339. https://doi.org/10.21121/eab.536640
APA UGURLU M, Danisman G, Bilyay Erdogan S, Vural Yavaş Ç (2019). Asymmetric Cost Behavior and Acquirer Returns: Evidence from U.S. Mergers. Ege Akademik Bakış, 19(3), 323 - 339. 10.21121/eab.536640
Chicago UGURLU MINE,Danisman Gamze Ozturk,Bilyay Erdogan Seda,Vural Yavaş Çiğdem Asymmetric Cost Behavior and Acquirer Returns: Evidence from U.S. Mergers. Ege Akademik Bakış 19, no.3 (2019): 323 - 339. 10.21121/eab.536640
MLA UGURLU MINE,Danisman Gamze Ozturk,Bilyay Erdogan Seda,Vural Yavaş Çiğdem Asymmetric Cost Behavior and Acquirer Returns: Evidence from U.S. Mergers. Ege Akademik Bakış, vol.19, no.3, 2019, ss.323 - 339. 10.21121/eab.536640
AMA UGURLU M,Danisman G,Bilyay Erdogan S,Vural Yavaş Ç Asymmetric Cost Behavior and Acquirer Returns: Evidence from U.S. Mergers. Ege Akademik Bakış. 2019; 19(3): 323 - 339. 10.21121/eab.536640
Vancouver UGURLU M,Danisman G,Bilyay Erdogan S,Vural Yavaş Ç Asymmetric Cost Behavior and Acquirer Returns: Evidence from U.S. Mergers. Ege Akademik Bakış. 2019; 19(3): 323 - 339. 10.21121/eab.536640
IEEE UGURLU M,Danisman G,Bilyay Erdogan S,Vural Yavaş Ç "Asymmetric Cost Behavior and Acquirer Returns: Evidence from U.S. Mergers." Ege Akademik Bakış, 19, ss.323 - 339, 2019. 10.21121/eab.536640
ISNAD UGURLU, MINE vd. "Asymmetric Cost Behavior and Acquirer Returns: Evidence from U.S. Mergers". Ege Akademik Bakış 19/3 (2019), 323-339. https://doi.org/10.21121/eab.536640
Sayfa Oluşturulma Tarihi
23-04-2024 16:17

İLETİŞİM

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Dizin

Yüzüncüyıl, İşçi Blokları Mahallesi

Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu Caddesi No:51/C

06530 Çankaya / ANKARA +90 (312) 298 92 00

trdizin@tubitak.gov.tr

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © Tüm Hakları Saklıdır. Gizlilik Politikası Kullanım Şartları