Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-bkrcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-19T09:34:18.447Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Does the Disposition Effect Matter in Corporate Takeovers? Evidence from Institutional Investors of Target Companies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 April 2014

Pengfei Ye
Pengfei Ye*
Affiliation:
yep@rpi.edu, Lally School of Management and Technology, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 110 8th St, Troy, NY 12180.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper examines whether one of the most important participants in the takeover market, the institutional investors of target companies, suffers from the disposition effect and, if so, how this selling bias influences the takeover outcomes. I report robust evidence that target institutional investors are reluctant to realize losses. This bias further allows their sunk cost to affect both the takeover price and the deal success. My results are explained by neither the undervalued targets nor the 52-week-high price effect. They are most pronounced among targets whose investors have a strong propensity to hold on to loser stocks.

Information

Type
Research Articles
Information
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis , Volume 49 , Issue 1 , February 2014 , pp. 221 - 248
Copyright
Copyright © Michael G. Foster School of Business, University of Washington 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Baker, M.; Coval, J.; and Stein, J. C.. “Corporate Financing Decisions When Investors Take the Path of Least Resistance.” Journal of Financial Economics, 84 (2007), 266–298.Google Scholar
Baker, M.; Pan, X.; and Wurgler, J.. “The Effect of Reference Point Prices on Mergers and Acquisitions.” Journal of Financial Economics, 106 (2012), 49–71.Google Scholar
Barberis, N., and Thaler, R.. “A Survey of Behavioral Finance.” In Handbook of the Economics of Finance, Vol. 1, Constantinides, G., Harris, M., and Stulz, R., eds. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier (2003), 1053–1128.Google Scholar
Barberis, N., and Xiong, W.. “What Drives the Disposition Effect? An Analysis of a Long-Standing Preference-Based Explanation.” Journal of Finance, 64 (2009), 751–784.Google Scholar
Benartzi, S., and Thaler, R.. “Myopic Loss Aversion and the Equity Premium Puzzle.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110 (1995), 75–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boone, A., and Mulherin, H.. “Do Auctions Induce a Winner’s Curse? New Evidence from the Corporate Takeover Market.” Journal of Financial Economics, 89 (2008), 1–19.Google Scholar
Brickley, J.; Lease, R.; and Smith, C. Jr. “Ownership Structure and Voting on Anti-Takeover Amendments.” Journal of Financial Economics, 20 (1988), 267–291.Google Scholar
Calvet, L.; Campbell, J.; and Sodini, P.. “Fight or Flight? Portfolio Rebalancing by Individual Investors.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124 (2009), 301–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooney, W.; Moeller, T.; and Stegemoller, M.. “The Underpricing of Private Targets.” Journal of Financial Economics, 93 (2009), 51–66.Google Scholar
Cremers, M.; Nair, V.; and John, K.. “Takeover and the Cross-Section of Returns.” Review of Financial Studies, 22 (2009), 1409–1445.Google Scholar
Dhar, R., and Zhu, N.. “Up Close and Personal: An Individual Level Analysis of the Disposition Effect.” Management Science, 52 (2006), 726–740.Google Scholar
Dong, M.; Hirshleifer, D.; Richardson, S.; and Teoh, S. H.. “Does Investor Misvaluation Drive the Takeover Market?” Journal of Finance, 61 (2006), 725–762.Google Scholar
Frazzini, A. “The Disposition Effect and Underreaction to News.” Journal of Finance, 51 (2006), 2017–2046.Google Scholar
Gaspar, J.; Massa, M.; and Matos, P.. “Shareholder Investment Horizons and the Market for Corporate Control.” Journal of Financial Economics, 76 (2005), 135–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Genesove, D., and Mayer, C.. “Loss Aversion and Seller Behavior: Evidence from the Housing Market.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116 (2001), 1233–1259.Google Scholar
Greenwood, R., and Schor, M.. “Investor Activism and Takeovers.” Journal of Financial Economics, 92 (2009), 362–375.Google Scholar
Grinblatt, M., and Han, B.. “Prospect Theory, Mental Accounting and Momentum.” Journal of Financial Economics, 78 (2005), 311–339.Google Scholar
Grinblatt, M., and Keloharju, M.. “What Makes Investors Trade?” Journal of Finance, 56 (2001), 589–616.Google Scholar
Grossman, S., and Hart, O.. “Takeover Bids, the Free-Rider Problem, and the Theory of the Corporation.” RAND Journal of Economics, 11 (1980), 42–64.Google Scholar
Heath, C.; Huddart, S.; and Lang, M.. “Psychological Factors and Stock Option Exercise.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114 (1999), 601–627.Google Scholar
Heckman, J. “Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error.” Econometrica, 47 (1979), 153–161.Google Scholar
Jensen, M. “Agency Cost of Free Cash Flows, Corporate Finance, and Takeovers.” American Economic Review, 76 (1986), 323–329.Google Scholar
Jin, L. “Capital Gains Tax Overhang and Price Pressure.” Journal of Finance, 61 (2006), 1399–1431.Google Scholar
Jin, L., and Scherbina, A.. “Inheriting Losers.” Review of Financial Studies, 24 (2011), 786–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A.. “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk.” Econometrica, 47 (1979), 263–291.Google Scholar
Lakonishok, J., and Smidt, S.. “Volume for Winners and Losers: Taxation and Other Motives for Stock Trading.” Journal of Finance, 41 (1986), 951–974.Google Scholar
Ljungqvist, A., and Wilhelm, W.. “Does Prospect Theory Explain IPO Market Behavior?” Journal of Finance, 60 (2005), 1759–1790.Google Scholar
Loughran, T., and Ritter, J.. “Why Don’t Issuers Get Upset About Leaving Money on the Table in IPOs?” Review of Financial Studies, 15 (2002), 413–443.Google Scholar
Lowry, M., and Shu, S.. “Litigation Risk and IPO Underpricing.” Journal of Financial Economics, 65 (2002), 309–355.Google Scholar
Malmendier, U., and Tate, G.. “Who Makes Acquisitions? CEO Overconfidence and the Market’s Reaction.” Journal of Financial Economics, 89 (2008), 20–43.Google Scholar
Matvos, G., and Ostrovsky, M.. “Cross-Ownership, Returns, and Voting in Mergers.” Journal of Financial Economics, 89 (2008), 391–403.Google Scholar
Moeller, T. “Let’s Make a Deal! How Shareholder Control Impacts Merger Payoffs.” Journal of Financial Economics, 76 (2005), 167–190.Google Scholar
Morck, R.; Shleifer, A.; and Vishny, R.. “Do Managerial Objectives Drive Bad Acquisitions?” Journal of Finance, 45 (1990), 31–48.Google Scholar
Odean, T. “Are Investors Reluctant to Realize Their Losses?” Journal of Finance, 53 (1998), 1775–1798.Google Scholar
Officer, M. “Termination Fees in Mergers and Acquisitions.” Journal of Financial Economics, 69 (2003), 431–467.Google Scholar
Paul, D. “Board Composition and Corrective Action: Evidence from Corporate Responses to Bad Acquisition Bids.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 42 (2007), 759–784.Google Scholar
Rhodes-Kropf, M.; Robinson, D.; and Viswanathan, S.. “Valuation Waves and Merger Activity: The Empirical Evidence.” Journal of Financial Economics, 77 (2005), 561–603.Google Scholar
Rhodes-Kropf, M., and Viswanathan, S.. “Market Valuation and Merger Waves.” Journal of Finance, 59 (2004), 2685–2718.Google Scholar
Roll, R. “The Hubris Hypothesis of Corporate Takeovers.” Journal of Business, 59 (1986), 197–216.Google Scholar
Schwert, W. “Hostility in Takeovers: In the Eyes of Beholder?” Journal of Finance, 55 (2000), 2599–2640.Google Scholar
Shefrin, H., and Statman, M.. “The Disposition to Sell Winners Too Early and Ride Losers Too Long: Theory and Evidence.” Journal of Finance, 40 (1985), 777–790.Google Scholar
Shleifer, A., and Vishny, R.. “Stock Market Driven Acquisitions.” Journal of Financial Economics, 70 (2003), 295–311.Google Scholar
Thaler, R. “Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice.” Marketing Science, 4 (1985), 199–214.Google Scholar