Board classification and managerial entrenchment: Evidence from the market for corporate control

被引:107
作者
Bates, Thomas W. [1 ]
Becher, David A. [2 ]
Lemmon, Michael L. [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Arizona, Dept Finance, Eller Coll Management, Tucson, AZ 85721 USA
[2] Drexel Univ, Dept Finance, LeBow Coll Business, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
[3] Univ Utah, Dept Finance, David Eccles Sch Business, Salt Lake City, UT 84112 USA
关键词
merger; acquisition; takeovers; classified board; staggered board; boards; directors; antitakeover provisions; corporate governance;
D O I
10.1016/j.jfineco.2007.03.007
中图分类号
F8 [财政、金融];
学科分类号
0202 ;
摘要
This paper considers the relation between board classification, takeover activity, and transaction outcomes for a panel of firms between 1990 and 2002. Target board classification does not change the likelihood that a firm, once targeted, is ultimately acquired. Moreover, shareholders of targets with a classified board realize bid returns that are equivalent to those of targets with a single class of directors, but receive a higher proportion of total bid surplus. Board classification does reduce the likelihood of receiving a takeover bid, however, the economic effect of bid deterrence on the value of the firm is quite small. Overall, the evidence is inconsistent with the conventional wisdom that board classification is an antitakeover device that facilitates managerial entrenchment. (C) 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:656 / 677
页数:22
相关论文
共 30 条
[1]   Interaction terms in logit and probit models [J].
Ai, CR ;
Norton, EC .
ECONOMICS LETTERS, 2003, 80 (01) :123-129
[2]   Board composition, board effectiveness, and the observed form of takeover bids [J].
Bange, MM ;
Mazzeo, MA .
REVIEW OF FINANCIAL STUDIES, 2004, 17 (04) :1185-1215
[3]   Shareholder wealth effects and bid negotiation in freeze-out deals: Are minority shareholders left out in the cold? [J].
Bates, Thomas W. ;
Lemmon, Michael L. ;
Linck, James S. .
JOURNAL OF FINANCIAL ECONOMICS, 2006, 81 (03) :681-708
[4]   Breaking up is hard to do? An analysis of termination fee provisions and merger outcomes [J].
Bates, TW ;
Lemmon, ML .
JOURNAL OF FINANCIAL ECONOMICS, 2003, 69 (03) :469-504
[5]  
Bebchuk L., 2004, What matters in corporate governance?
[6]   The costs of entrenched boards [J].
Bebchuk, LA ;
Cohen, A .
JOURNAL OF FINANCIAL ECONOMICS, 2005, 78 (02) :409-433
[7]   The powerful antitakeover force of staggered boards: Theory, evidence, and policy [J].
Bebchuk, LA ;
Coates, JC ;
Subramanian, G .
STANFORD LAW REVIEW, 2002, 54 (05) :887-951
[8]  
Coates JC, 2000, TEX LAW REV, V79, P271
[9]   Do IPO charters maximize firm value? Antitakeover protection in IPOs [J].
Daines, R ;
Klausner, M .
JOURNAL OF LAW ECONOMICS & ORGANIZATION, 2001, 17 (01) :83-120
[10]   ANTITAKEOVER CHARTER AMENDMENTS AND STOCKHOLDER WEALTH [J].
DEANGELO, H ;
RICE, EM .
JOURNAL OF FINANCIAL ECONOMICS, 1983, 11 (1-4) :329-360