scispace - formally typeset
Open AccessJournal ArticleDOI

Takeover defense when financial markets are (only) relatively efficient

Reads0
Chats0
TLDR
In this paper, the authors evaluate the impact of developments in the understanding of asset value pricing for alternative legal standards for takeover defenses: the management discretion and the shareholder rights positions, and conclude that the legal standard prevailing in Delaware regarding takeover defenses can be understood as focusing on giving managers the discretion to maximize the value of the corporation.
Abstract
This paper evaluates the impact of developments in the understanding of asset value pricing for alternative legal standards for takeover defenses: the management discretion and the shareholder rights positions. Both sides place considerable, albeit implicit, reliance on alternative views of the efficiency of financial markets. Developments in finance theory show that when financial markets are only "relatively efficient," stock prices can incorrectly value the corporation at any point in time, at the same time as investors cannot outperform the market on an ongoing basis. I focus on financial market anomalies arising from the failure of the capital asset pricing model to provide a reliable estimate of the market capitalization rate. In a world of perfectly efficient capital markets, a shareholder choice standard is the dominant policy solution. In such a state, any noncoercive hostile tender offer at a premium to the market price moves assets to more valued uses while offering shareholders enhanced market value. Best of all, it sends a clear signal to all managers to be more faithful to shareholder interests or risk losing their jobs. But in a world where capital markets are only relatively efficient, the calculus shifts. Successful hostile tender offers could move assets to less valued uses. Shareholders could be paid less than the intrinsic value of the corporation. Worst of all, managers might choose to manage to the financial market anomalies; that is, to adopt otherwise suboptimal business strategies intended to minimize the risks of under-pricing or maximize the probability of over-pricing. I conclude that the legal standard prevailing in Delaware regarding takeover defenses can be understood as focusing on giving managers the discretion to maximize the value of the corporation. In light of modern finance theory, and the evidence that capital markets are only relatively efficient, this is a plausible way to strike the balance.

read more

Content maybe subject to copyright    Report

Citations
More filters
Posted Content

The Economics of the Proposed European Takeover Directive

TL;DR: The Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) as mentioned in this paper is an independent policy research institute dedicated to producing sound policy research leading to constructive solutions to the challenges facing Europe today, which was founded in 1983.
Dissertation

Legal Framework for Promoting Minority Shareholders' Protection in Thailand

TL;DR: In this article, the authors consider whether the existing Thai legal framework provides adequate protection for minority shareholders, whether the transplanting of legal frameworks from other jurisdictions into Thai law is feasible, and what the obstacles to legal reforms are.
Posted Content

Optionality Arrangements and Reciprocity in the European Takeover Directive

TL;DR: In this paper, the authors argue that optionality may very well be a sound approach with regards to the BTR, as its beneficial impact is still highly debated, and represents an acceptable compromise for the gradual implementation of the board neutrality rule.
Journal ArticleDOI

A Long-Term Vision for UK Firms? Revisiting the Target Director's Advisory Role Since the Takeover of Cadbury'S PLC

TL;DR: The takeover of Cadbury by Kraft in 2010 led to the questioning of the UK's open market for corporate control and initiated a political enquiry into the framework regulating takeover bids.
Journal ArticleDOI

Optionality arrangements and reciprocity in the European takeover directive

TL;DR: The European Directive on Takeover Bids (DTB) has created broad dissatisfaction as mentioned in this paper because of a failure to harmonize the regime of takeover defenses, the fact that their adoption will rely upon local choices by national legislatures puts into serious question whether the ultimate outcome of the DTB will be that of promoting a vibrant and efficient pan-European market for corporate control.