Advisors In Mergers Research Articles

Why bidding firms do not hire financial advisors in mergers and acquisitions

In this paper, we examine why some bidders decide not to hire investment bank advisors in M&A transactions. We build a sample of 181 M&A transactions in which the acquiring firms do not hire investment bank advisors, and compare them with a control sample of 181 M&A transactions in which the acquiring firms hire investment bank advisors. We find that the transaction costs are the primary reason that investment banks are hired as advisors for bidders in M&A transactions. In addition, the information asymmetry and contracting costs are the other two reasons that bidders hire investment banks in M&A transactions.

Loan underpricing and the provision of merger advisory services

This paper investigates the primary and secondary syndicated bank loan market to analyze the effect on pricing when the financial institution commingles syndicated lending with merger advisory services. In particular, we investigate the connection between the acquirer’s choice of financial advisor in a merger and future financing commitments. We find evidence of underpricing of syndicated bank loans in both the primary and secondary market. In the primary market, we show that non-acquisition loans granted by merger advisors to acquiring firms after the merger announcement date are charged a lower all-in-spread relative to acquisition loans if there has been a prior lending relationship. Consistent with this finding, we find that syndicated bank loans for non-acquisition purposes arranged by the acquirer’s advisor after the merger announcement date trade in the secondary market at a significant discount. Since the terms on these non-acquisition loans are not set upon merger announcement, they are most subject to risk shifting and underpricing agency problems. These findings offer evidence consistent with the existence of loss leader and potentially conflicted loans (priced at below-market terms) that are offered by the acquirer’s relationship bank advisor in order to win merger advisory business.

The Role of Bank Advisors in Mergers and Acquisitions

This paper looks at the role of commercial banks and investment banks as financial advisors. In their role as lenders and advisors, banks can be viewed as serving a certification function. However, banks acting as both lenders and advisors face a potential conflict of interest that may mitigate or offset any certification effect. Overall, we find evidence of a net certification effect for target firms but conflicts of interest for acquirers. In particular, target firms earn higher abnormal returns when the target's own bank is hired as merger advisor, consistent with the bank's role as certifier of the (more informationally opaque) target's value to the acquirer. In contrast, we find no net certification role for acquirers. There are at least two possible reasons for this. First, certification of value may be less important for acquirers because it is the target firm that must be priced in a merger. Second, acquirers may utilize commercial bank advisors in order to obtain access to bank loans to finance activities in the postmerger period. Thus, an acquirer may choose its own bank (with whom it has had a prior lending relationship) as an advisor in a merger. However, this choice weakens the certification effect and creates a potential conflict of interest because the advisor's merger advice may be distorted by considerations related to the bank's past and future lending activity.

An analysis of advisor choice, fees, and effort in mergers and acquisitions

AbstractThis paper investigates the choice of financial advisors in mergers and acquisitions, the fees that the targets and the acquiring firms pay to these advisors, and the speed with which advisors complete transactions. Our sample includes 5337 merger deals announced during the period January 1995 to June 2000, that involved publicly traded targets and acquirers. We find that top‐tier advisors are more likely to complete deals and to complete them in less time than lower tier advisors. However, the synergistic gains realized by the acquirers declined when top advisors were used. We also find that contingent fees play a significant role in expediting the deal completion. Surprisingly, we find that deals that are initiated by the advisors do not seem to take less time to complete. Our results suggest that the payment of larger advisory fees do not play an important role in determining the likelihood of completing the deal, but they are associated with greater acquisition gains realized by the acquirer. In addition, these synergistic gains are also associated with the switching by acquirers of their financial advisors within the same tier.

The Role of Bank Advisors in Mergers and Acquisitions

This paper looks at the role of both commercial and investment banks in providing merger advisory services. In this area, unlike some areas of investment banking, commercial banks have always been allowed to compete directly with investment banks. In their dual role as lenders and advisors to firms that are the target or the acquirer in a merger, banks can be viewed as serving a certification function. However, banks acting as both lenders and advisors face a potential conflict of interest that may mitigate or offset any certification effect. Overall, we find evidence supporting the certification effect for target firms. In contrast, conflicts of interest appear to dominate the certification effect when banks are advisors to acquirers. In particular, the target earns higher abnormal returns when the target's own bank certifies the (more informationally opaque) target's value to the acquirer. In contrast, we do not find a certification role for acquirers. There are two possible reasons for these different outcomes. First, it is the target firm, not the acquirer, that must be priced in a merger. Second, acquirers predominantly use commercial bank advisors to obtain access to bank loans that may be used to finance the merger. Thus, we find that acquirers tend to choose their own banks (those with prior lending relationships to the acquirer) as advisors in mergers. However, this choice weakens any certification effect and creates a potential conflict of interest because the acquirer's advisor negotiates the terms of both the merger transaction and future loan commitments. Moreover, the advising bank's recommendations may be distorted by considerations related to credit exposure incurred in both past and future lending activity. The market prices these conflicts of interest; we find significantly negative abnormal returns for bank advisors when they advise their own loan customers in acquiring other firms.

Investment bank market share, contingent fee payments, and the performance of acquiring firms

This paper investigates the determinants of the market share of investment banks acting as advisors in mergers and tender offers. In both mergers and tender offers, bank market share is positively related to the contingent fee payments charged by the bank and to the percentage of deals completed in the past by the bank. It is unrelated to the performance of the acquirors advised by the bank in the past. In tender offers, the post-acquisition performance of the acquiror is negatively related to the contingent fee payments charged by the bank, suggesting that the contingent fee structure in tender offers ensures that investment banks focus on completing the deal.