Compare china main land economic and Taiwan Research Paper

Compare china main land economic and Taiwan - Research Paper Example venue had risen to $2278 while that of Mainland had remained a paltry $256.This broadening gap between the two economies had started attracting global attention. Taiwan mostly is considered to have embraced market capitalism whereas China is considered to be a predominantly socialistic country. However both nations have shown that they do not pursue a purely socialistic system or capitalistic system. They in actuality pursue a mixture of both kinds to various levels. Despite the fact that Taiwan pursues a system that is capitalistic ,the government still controls the finance and banking system and makes decisions on which industries it should support and protect. Conversely, China began out under firm socialism but over the years but has started to change so as to widen both domestic and foreign markets. One of the key bases for the disparities in growth between China and Taiwan was the distinctions in international trade. Thus industries that are high-exporting seem to lead to productivity that is faster than industries that are low-exporting. Firms that are owned by the state without any foreign assistance tend to be less productive than the ones that are privatized or joint-ventures having foreign direct investment (FDI). It wasn’t just a coincidence therefore that China for the earliest time ever matched Taiwan’s 8% GDP growth rate that it has had for years after opening up of its foreign markets, allowing the entry of FDI. One of the key stated merits of communism/socialism over capitalism is stability in growth over lengthy periods of time. Taiwan has however under capitalism displayed a more stabilized GDP growth of around 8% over the past 5 decades while China has exhibited unstable and negative GDP growth rate to a point where the government of China refused t o expose statistics officially anymore (Lijun, 2002). It wasn’t until recently when the Chinese government embraced advantages of capitalism that their economy eventually started to grow

Government intervention in global business Outline

Government intervention in global business - Outline Example Different economic forces, such as, booms, recessions or different forms of crisis such as financial crisis, create different situations that need different forms of government intervention. In this paper, the issue of government intervention would be studied with respect to the various measures that governments in different nations of the world adopt. This research work would follow inductive approach and use secondary data for the analysis of data. The research process would involve preparation a research proposal, designing the research method, identification of reliable sources of information, collection of data from secondary sources, analysis of the data and the inferring the results from the discussion of the facts gathered through review of literature. Research studies have been made in the past and are also being made in the current times to assess the motivations behind government intervention in the global economy. Many of the research results reveal that one of the most important and commonly observable intentions of the government behind intervening in the economies is to boost up the economies (Tragakes, 2011). In the developing economies, governments emphasize on increasing level of economic activities in the economy, while in the developed countries, the intention of the government is to maintain stability in the economy and also enhance future growth prospective. According to some researchers, the policies developed by the governments are, essentially, either directed towards covering their economies against outside economic forces or regulating the performances of internal economic forces operating in their countries (P. J. Welch and G. F. Welch, 2009). The varieties of policies of the governments at the global level, fu ndamentally, are guide by these two basic motives of intervention. Partnership has become a buzzword in the current economic context. Until the past few decades, the

MArketting Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2750 words

MArketting - Assignment Example This reflects the success of the company in various countries (Jumeirah International, 2013). The company has mainly eyed tourist attractions and travel destinations for the placement of its properties and this have hugely contributed towards the instant popularity of the group in that particular area. The architectural finesse of the group is appreciated the world over and these hotels and resorts are the sought after destinations for sight-seeing purposes too. As a part of its expansion plan, the Jumeirah group is viewing the feasibility of setting up its foot in India, also a country in Asia with huge population and growing economy. The hospitality sector is estimated to generate revenue of $ 30 billion by 2015 (ICRA Limited, 2011). This paper aims to undertake environmental analysis that would help the parent company in arriving at a positive decision towards establishing their business in India. In order to evaluate the macro-environment of the country with regard to the hotel industry, a PEST analysis is conducted. The sector is explored to assess the political, economic, social and technological factors that impact the business. The hospitality industry hugely contributes towards the economy by the way of taxes and tariffs, as per the luxury and services that they provide. Thus, decisions pertinent to hotel industry are definitely under the scrutiny of the government and its intervention into the operations in the sector is inevitable. Incentives and tax concessions are given to aspirant hoteliers serving foreign tourists and generating income in foreign currencies. The government also allows tax concessions for hotels in hilly areas and remote places and these concessions helped the industry wade through the economic crises. However, the terrorist attacks in Taj hotel at Mumbai has affected the sector, as the tourists do not feel enough secure in these lodging set

Compare china main land economic and Taiwan Research Paper

Compare china main land economic and Taiwan - Research Paper Example venue had risen to $2278 while that of Mainland had remained a paltry $256.This broadening gap between the two economies had started attracting global attention. Taiwan mostly is considered to have embraced market capitalism whereas China is considered to be a predominantly socialistic country. However both nations have shown that they do not pursue a purely socialistic system or capitalistic system. They in actuality pursue a mixture of both kinds to various levels. Despite the fact that Taiwan pursues a system that is capitalistic ,the government still controls the finance and banking system and makes decisions on which industries it should support and protect. Conversely, China began out under firm socialism but over the years but has started to change so as to widen both domestic and foreign markets. One of the key bases for the disparities in growth between China and Taiwan was the distinctions in international trade. Thus industries that are high-exporting seem to lead to productivity that is faster than industries that are low-exporting. Firms that are owned by the state without any foreign assistance tend to be less productive than the ones that are privatized or joint-ventures having foreign direct investment (FDI). It wasn’t just a coincidence therefore that China for the earliest time ever matched Taiwan’s 8% GDP growth rate that it has had for years after opening up of its foreign markets, allowing the entry of FDI. One of the key stated merits of communism/socialism over capitalism is stability in growth over lengthy periods of time. Taiwan has however under capitalism displayed a more stabilized GDP growth of around 8% over the past 5 decades while China has exhibited unstable and negative GDP growth rate to a point where the government of China refused t o expose statistics officially anymore (Lijun, 2002). It wasn’t until recently when the Chinese government embraced advantages of capitalism that their economy eventually started to grow

MArketting Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2750 words

MArketting - Assignment Example This reflects the success of the company in various countries (Jumeirah International, 2013). The company has mainly eyed tourist attractions and travel destinations for the placement of its properties and this have hugely contributed towards the instant popularity of the group in that particular area. The architectural finesse of the group is appreciated the world over and these hotels and resorts are the sought after destinations for sight-seeing purposes too. As a part of its expansion plan, the Jumeirah group is viewing the feasibility of setting up its foot in India, also a country in Asia with huge population and growing economy. The hospitality sector is estimated to generate revenue of $ 30 billion by 2015 (ICRA Limited, 2011). This paper aims to undertake environmental analysis that would help the parent company in arriving at a positive decision towards establishing their business in India. In order to evaluate the macro-environment of the country with regard to the hotel industry, a PEST analysis is conducted. The sector is explored to assess the political, economic, social and technological factors that impact the business. The hospitality industry hugely contributes towards the economy by the way of taxes and tariffs, as per the luxury and services that they provide. Thus, decisions pertinent to hotel industry are definitely under the scrutiny of the government and its intervention into the operations in the sector is inevitable. Incentives and tax concessions are given to aspirant hoteliers serving foreign tourists and generating income in foreign currencies. The government also allows tax concessions for hotels in hilly areas and remote places and these concessions helped the industry wade through the economic crises. However, the terrorist attacks in Taj hotel at Mumbai has affected the sector, as the tourists do not feel enough secure in these lodging set

Should People Have Autonomy over Their End of Life Decisions Essay Example for Free

Should People Have Autonomy over Their End of Life Decisions Essay There is a lot of controversy surrounding the issue of people’s autonomy when it comes to the end of their lives. Why somebody would want to end their life prematurely is a question that puzzles people. So therefore is hard to comprehend why people should have autonomy over such a thing. There has been an increase in the interest of euthanasia and assisted suicide for the terminally ill in recent years (Williams 1997). The most obvious reason for someone wanting to end their life is to end the suffering they are going through once the illness goes beyond being bearable. Palliative care is an important part of treating a seriously ill patient. It provides a patient with care, support and any medical treatment they need including pain relief. But is this enough? A person that is extremely sick, for example, a terminally ill cancer patient, or a person that is paralysed from the neck down, or any person that is unable to do things for themselves – such as washing, eating etc., will need to depend on others to help them. This would involve somebody dressing them, washing them, feeding them – or having being fed via I.V., they would need help going to the toilet and may need to be lifted in and out of a bed. These peoples quality of life would be very low. They may be depending on family members for these things or medical professionals that are strangers to them. Either way, this can be an embarrassing and upsetting for a person. They may feel like they have lost all sense of dignity and some might feel like they are just waiting to die. People in these situations may often decide that the best option for them is to end their physical and emotional pain. If a doctor cannot improve an individual’s quality of life and they make that decision to end their suffering, the patient should have right to have their wishes met. Those that request assistance in dying are usually very desperate and do not see any other option. There are vast amounts of arguments against autonomy at the end of ones life too. Religious perspectives. consequences on family, friends and healthcare professionals. Is it ethical? Would it begin a slippery slope towards involuntary euthanasia? But are these arguments and opinions stronger than a person’s right to choose? The Argument The subject of euthanasia is very controversial because there are very strong arguments at both ends of the spectrum. There are any justifications for and against the issue of one’s autonomy over their end of life decision. Paterson (2008) states that religion plays a role in many people’s decisions against voluntarily ending one’s life. Most religions are strongly opposed to the idea that a person should want to end their own life and/or aid an individual in doing so. Other factors come into play such as conscience and morality. Some people see it as unlawful and more often than not, it is a very taboo subject that people would rather not discuss. (Paterson, 2008) On the opposite end of the spectrum, one will argue that those who are terminally ill are going through unbearable suffering, they may need help going to the bathroom, eating and drinking and possibly feel like they have lost their dignity because of this. In an online article written for the Daily Mail, a man by the name of Tony Nicklinson describes his life as â€Å"miserable, demeaning and undignified† (Miller, 2012). The article describes how Nicklinson is mentally sound but physically paralysed from the neck down and took his plea for his right to die to the courts. This emphasises that euthanasia and assisted suicide can be a relief from pain and suffering, or in Tony Nicklinson’s case, an alternative to the quality of life he must struggle through on a daily basis. (Miller, 2012) Many factors come into play when a person decides they no longer want to live. It is not a decision that is made lightly. It is one of desperation. Those opposed to the idea of assisted suicide and euthanasia will argue that a patient in severe pain and suffering in their daily living, will receive the appropriate palliative care thus, rendering euthanasia unnecessary (Anti-euthanasia arguments 2012) But surely palliative care is also a necessary element in figuring out whether or not a person would be deemed eligible if euthanasia were an option for them. Palliative care also provides support for those closest to a patient. If a terminally ill patient of sound mind wishes to end their pain and suffering, does that mean that they and their close family and friends are no longer entitled to the same care and support as those patients that do not choose to end their lives earlier? Under the subtitle ‘Proper Palliative Care’, an article on the BBC website states â€Å"The key to successful palliative care is to treat the patient as a person, not as a set of symptoms, or medical problems.† (Anti-euthanasia arguments 2012) If this is the case, the patient as a person – should be given their dignity, respect and deserve to have their voice heard. â€Å"The judgement – as to whether a life, in the face of intractable pain and suffering, is worth living – can and should be determined by the conscience of the individual patient []† (Paterson, 2008. p16) An article for the Irish Times declares that the attitudes of the irish people towards euthanasia is rapidly changing. A study carried out by a Canadian student, Matthew Carere on final year medical students in UCC, reveals that the majority – almost 60% were in favour of euthanasia, with Carere stating that the reason for this was that patients are more informed these days to make their own decisions and that medical professionals have more respect for patient autonomy (Roseingrave, 2011). Very often, deliberate decisions are made which results in the end of a life. For example, a person could be kept on life support, but instead, a family member or other significant person might choose to switch off the life support machine resulting in the official death of a patient. There is also the case that resuscitation of a patient may eventually prove to be trivial and a doctor might suggest just making the patient as comfortable as possible until their eventual passing. In the above situations, a medical professional’s decisions would not be questioned or doubted. It is conventional practice (Warnock and MacDonald 2008). An organisation called Exit International was set up in 1997 by Dr. Philip Nitschke. They believe that people have the right to make an informed decision about when and how they will bring their life to an end. They provide information and support to those that need it on assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia (About Exit International 2012) â€Å"Exit’s long term goal is responsible and ethical law reform. The Swiss model of decriminalising assisted suicide is the preferred model.† (About Exit International 2012) At the moment the Netherlands is the only place in the world that one can legally take action should they decide it’s their time to go (Griffiths and Weyers 1998). It was legalised fully in the year 2000. Prior to this doctors could still be prosecuted by law. However, there are strict guidelines that must be met. â€Å"1. Adult patients must be beyond any hope of recovery and face continuous unbearable pain. 2. The patient must make repeated, clear and reasoned requests to do so. 3. A second physician must be consulted. 4. The action must be carried out in a medically approved manner. 5. parental consent is required for patients under 16 years old.† (Legalized Euthanasia 2007) In Switzerland, active euthanasia is illegal but with specific consent, doctors may provide the drugs but the patient must be the one to take them voluntarily. (Legalized Euthanasia 2007) A person’s right to choose is very imminent. Considering the criteria that must be met in the Netherlands and Switzerland, it’s very obvious that it is only an option if it is in the very best interest of the patient. This makes sense if one considers prolonging the suffering of a patient both physically and mentally as cruel and unethical. Conclusion The term ‘suicide’ brings with it a lot of negative emotions. The idea that somebody would willingly want to end their lives is a distressing thought. It conjures up the idea that a person is depressed and in deep emotional pain. The idea of suicide is indeed scary. This, perhaps may be why people panic when they hear the term ‘assisted-suicide’ or when they think about euthanasia. What those opposed to the idea of prematurely ending a life do not think about though, is the physical as well as the emotional pain a terminally ill person is feeling. They can empathise but not fully understand, unless they are in the same or similar situation. So, who are they to deny a human being their free will and choice to end their suffering? How do they know that they would not feel the same way if they were the ones going through the unbearable pain and lack of dignity? â€Å"Furthermore it is argued, we ourselves have an obligation to relieve the suffering of our fell ow human beings and to respect their dignity.† (Andre, Velasquez 2012) People against the idea of assisted suicide and euthanasia will speak of the guilt of allowing a person to seek an end to their own lives. But where is their guilt in watching an individual, perhaps a loved one in relentless pain? Where is their compassion for the terminally ill patient? (Andre and Velasquez 2012) Thos people may also talk about a ‘slippery-slope’ to involuntary suicide. the legalisation of euthanasia and assisted suicide under certain circumstances, would mean legislation – criteria that needs to be met, similarly, if not the same as that of Netherlands. â€Å"with safeguards, the law should permit it and people should be supplied with the means to take their own life or a doctor should be authorized to end their life provided the request is made before witnesses.† (Williams 1997) People of sound mind should have autonomy over what they want to happen at the end of their life, they should have the choice. Williams (1997) suggests that if one rationally decides that they want to end their life, they must be prepared to discuss the pros and the cons of their decision and the reasons behind those decisions will be questioned. He writes that we all have a right to make a decision on our own life and once their unit of family and friends is taken into account, then it can be justifiable to deliberately end a life. This is completely understandable and logical. People would no longer have to endure excruciating pain and struggle through the end of their lives without dignity. If they have autonomy, they have the choice to end their suffering and pain.

Effect of MA Strategy on Shareholder Value

Effect of MA Strategy on Shareholder Value The aim of this project is to examine whether the decision of large UK companies looking to pursue a merger/acquisition strategy will affect shareholder value. The data analyzed in this study will determine if there is a positive or negative correlation in shareholder wealth when a merger/acquisition occurs. The research for this project will be conducted through the analysis of 40 different large UK companies that were merged or acquired by other UK based firms prior to 2002. The data will be obtained from the Bloomberg website. Further research and analysis on the topic will include information obtained from books, journals and reliable internet sources. To test the value of shareholder wealth when a merger/acquisition is pursued, different models will be used which includes Capital Asset Pricing Model, Efficient Capital Markets, Equilibrium Models, and Market Model (Event Studies and Abnormal Returns Methodology). The hypothesis that will be tested in this study is: H0 = If managers of large sized UK companies pursue a merger and acquisition strategy then shareholder wealth (value) will increase. H1 = If managers of large sized UK companies pursue a merger and acquisition strategy then shareholder wealth (value) will remain unchanged or will decrease. The first chapter will give a brief overview of mergers and acquisitions and introduce the reader to recent merger trends in the UK and different types of takeovers. The second chapter will be an in-depth analysis of past research studies which includes: examining different ways a company pays for a bid in a merger, exploring shareholder and managerial wealth perspectives, and analyzing long term post-merger performance of target and bidder firms. Chapter three presents the research methodology used in wealth gain studies and also states the methodology adopted for this dissertation. Chapter four analyzes and discusses the findings in context to wealth gain effects of mergers and acquisitions among the large UK companies chosen for this study. Chapter five concludes this research and highlights possible areas that may require further investigation. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Mergers and acquisitions have become important events in todays rapidly changing business environment and have been the subject of many research studies. Reasons as to why companies may pursue a merger or acquisition strategy could be to reduce costs to achieve economies of scale or to reduce competition due to increased market power. Mergers and acquisitions have also been known to facilitate entry into new markets or industries and increase the level of effectiveness in a company by eliminating inefficient management. Mergers and acquisitions worldwide have tended to follow a pattern of waves, with there being periods of frantic takeover activity followed by relatively calmer periods. The main objective of financial theory is to maximize shareholder wealth therefore all decisions are taken with the aim of maximizing shareholder value. The purpose of this research is to re-examine the shareholder wealth gain criterion with regards to mergers and acquisitions within the United Kingdom. The objective of this study is to find out if shareholders of large UK companies benefit from the acquisition decisions made by the managers. Past research studies on post-acquisition performance of acquiring and target firms have mixed results. To determine if there is an increase or decrease in shareholder value from corporate takeovers, the Market Model and Event Study Methodology will be used in this study. The hypothesis developed in this study aims to support the argument that mergers and acquisitions are profitable events and lead to an increase in shareholder value. This study however concluded that merger and acquisitions among the large UK organizations chosen did not lead to an increase of shareholder value for both target and bidder firms. These results might not be entirely accurate due to various reasons such as size effects and the firms chosen in this study are from different industries. Other factors such as acquisition financing and acquisition motives also may have an effect on shareholder value however the testing of these factors is outside the scope of the following study. CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF MERGERS AND ACQUISTIONS The following chapter briefly examines the benefits that a merger is expected to generate for both the target firm and the acquiring firm. The historical pattern of takeover activity in the UK from 1964-1992 is discussed to show merger and acquisition (MA) trends and recent MA activity abroad and within the UK will also be highlighted among large UK companies in 2008. In addition, the definition of mergers and acquisitions is provided and the second part of chapter one introduces the reader to different types of mergers used to create value for an organization. 1.1 Benefits to Mergers and Acquisitions Activity The main objective for an acquiring firm is to grow and expand its assets, sales and market shares. Other specific reasons for entering into a merger bid are reflected in the benefits that are expected to be generated which include: Exploiting scale economies Obtain synergy Enter into new markets To restore growth impetus To acquire market power To reduce dependence on existing or perhaps risky activities With the above mentioned benefits to MA activity, it should also be noted that takeovers most likely to succeed are those approached with a strategic focus, incorporating a detailed analysis of the objectives of the takeover, the possible alternatives and how the acquired company can be integrated in the new parent (Pike and Neale). 1.2 Trends in UK Merger Activity There has been an increasing trend of MA activity in the UK over the past few decades, with there being periods of high takeover activity followed by relatively slower periods as can be seen by the graph below. Figure 1.0 History of UK MA Activity Source: National Statistics, 2002 The highest peaks in takeovers are during the period 1984-1989. During this time, the average size of an acquisition had grown significantly from 9.64 million to 20.38 million. As per Sudarsanam (1995) the main reason for this was because the stock market in the UK, along with the harmony with the rest of the world stock markets experienced a strong bull phase which culminated in the October 1987 crash. Furthermore, the 1980s also experienced divestments on a large scale which meant companies would sell off divisions or subsidiaries to other firms of the divested parts in a management buyout. This increase in acquisitions and divestments had shown significant amount of corporate restructuring in the UK and thus led to new organizational innovations such as management buyouts and management buyins, as well as by financial innovations like high-leverage buyouts and mezzanine finance (Sudarsanam, 1995).As can be seen from the graph above, the UK MA market has experienced a relatively le aner period, which has continued till date. The main reasons that can be attributed to this are the various world catastrophes and the overall global economic slowdown. As per the office of National Statistics, the largest significant transaction recorded during the first quarter of 2008 was the acquisition by Imperial Tobacco Group Plc of Altadis S.A. for a press reported value of 9.3 billion. Another significant transaction was the acquisition by Carillion Plc of Alfred McAlpine Plc for a reported value of approximately 0.5 billion. For quarter one in 2008, the number of transactions reported for acquisitions in the UK by UK companies has been the lowest reported since quarter one 2003. Other recent major UK mergers acquisitions (2008) are as follows: Table 1.0 Recent Acquisitions in the UK by UK Companies Company Value in million Carillion Plc acquiring Alfred McAlpine Plc 554 Willmott Dixon Ltd acquiring Inspace Plc 133 easyJet Plc acquiring GB Airways Ltd 104 iimia MitonOptimal Plc acquiring Midas Capital Partners Ltd 100 Source: National Statistics, 2008 Table 2.0 Recent Acquisitions abroad by UK Companies Company Value in million Imperial Tobacco Group Plc acquiring Altadis S.A. 9339 Reckitt Benckiser Group Plc acquiring Adams Respiratory Therapeutics 1100 Scottish and Southern Energy Plc acquiring Airtricity Holdings Ltd 808 SABMiller Plc acquiring Koninklijke Grolsch N.V 606 Ineos Group Ltd acquiring Kerling AS 429 429 Standard Chartered Plc acquiring American Express Bank Ltd 413 Kesa Electricals Plc disposing of BUT SAS 389 Source: National Statistics, 2008 1.3 Definitions and Different Types of Mergers and Acquisitions Although the terms merger, acquisition and takeover are used interchangeably, technical differences do exist. A merger is when corporations come together to combine and share their resources to achieve a common set of objectives (Sudarsanam, 1995). The shareholders of the two combined corporations will continue to be joint owners. An acquisition is when one firm purchases the assets or shares of another firm however the shareholders of the acquired firm continue being owners of that firm. A takeover is the acquisition by one company of the share capital of another in exchange for cash, ordinary shares, loan stock or a combination of these (Pike and Neale). This distinction between the three terms is important in certain contexts however they are used by researchers and authors interchangeably. In the following dissertation, I too will use these three terms interchangeably. There are different types of mergers that exist to create value and are classified into three main categories: horizontal, vertical and conglomerate (Pike and Neale). Horizontal integration: this is when a company takes over the target firm from the same industry and at the same stage of the production process. Vertical integration: where the target is in the same industry as the acquirer however is operating at a different stage in the production process. This can be either close to the source of materials (backward integration) or close to the final customer (forward integration). Conglomerate integration: occurs when the target is in a business that is different to the acquirer. The reasons a firm may undergo a conglomerate merger is to reduce risk through diversification, opportunities for cost reduction and improving internal and external efficiencies. In order to understand whether mergers and acquisitions create or destroy shareholder value, it is important to appreciate and understand few critical aspects of the complex MA theory. The three areas in helping to answer this question with respects to the impact of shareholder value in my opinion are different modes of financing mergers and acquisitions, motives for MA activity and post-merger performance. Various researchers in the finance field have conducted a great amount of research on the above mentioned areas and this dissertation will help put into perspective mergers and acquisitions impact on shareholder value currently in the UK. CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND OF STUDY Mergers and acquisitions are undertaken as a means of corporate growth and expansion but are also an alternative to growth through internal or organic capital investment. The immediate objective of an acquisition is self-evidently growth and expansion of the acquirers assets, sales and market share (Sudarsanam, 1995). Another objective of acquisitions would be to increase the growth of shareholders wealth aimed at creating a strong competitive advantage for the acquirer. In modern finance theory, shareholder wealth maximization is a strong rational for financing and investment decisions made by management. This leads to the question of wealth gain effects of mergers and acquisitions, specifically among large UK companies. The following chapter introduces various literature regarding wealth gain effects of mergers and acquisitions and highlights the various aspects of mergers and acquisitions which may have an effect on the shareholder value within large UK corporations. 2.1 Modes of Acquisition Financing There are various modes of financing a takeover which includes: cash (preferred method), issuing of ordinary shares and fixed interest securities (loan stock, convertibles, and preference shares). The way in which a merger and acquisition is financed has different benefits to the target shareholders and bidder shareholders. In addition, cash takeovers may be sufficiently different from non-cash acquisitions and failure to distinguish between them may lead to inappropriate generalizations (Carleton et al, 1983). As per Sudarsanam (1995), there are various ways a firm can bid an acquisition, which is shown in Table 3.0. Table 3.0 Bid Financing Bidder Offers Target shareholders receive Cash Cash in exchange for their shares Share Exchange A specified number of bidder s shares for each target share Cash underwritten share offer (vendor placing) Bidders shares, then sell them to a merchant bank for cash Loan stock A loan stock/debenture in exchange for their shares Convertible loan or preferred shares Loan stock or preferred shares convertible into ordinary shares at a predetermined conversion rate over a specified period Deferred payment Part of consideration after a specified period, subject to performance criteria Source: Sudarsanam (1995, p.177) In addition, a bidder making cash offer can finance it from one or more of the following sources (Sudarsanam, 1995): Internal operating cash flow A pre-bid rights issue A cash underwritten offer, e.g. vendor placing or vendor rights A pre-bid loan stock issue Bank Credit A cash offer has two advantages from the point of view to both the target and acquiring shareholders which includes (Pike Neale, 1999): The amount is certain; there is no exposure to the risk of adverse movement in share price during the course of the bid. The targeted shareholder is more easily able to adjust his or her portfolio than if he or she receives shares, which involve dealing costs when sold. Because no new shares are issued, there is no dilution of earnings or change in the balance of control of the bidder. In terms of shares being used as a medium of exchange again there are some advantages to both target as well as acquiring shareholders (Arnold, 2002) which are: For target shareholders use of shares helps avoid capital gains tax. Target shareholders maintain an interest in the combine entity thus helping preserve as well as increase shareholders value. Acquiring shareholders gain from the fact that there is no immediate cash outflow. Nickolaos Travlos (1987) study titled Corporate Takeover Bids, Method of Payment, and Bidding Firms Stock Returns was to examine the role of the method of payment in determining common stock returns of bidding firms at the announcement of takeover bids. The analysis in the study was to show the valuation effects on two common methods of payment which are common stock exchanges and cash offers. The results showed that bidding firms had normal returns in cash offers however experienced significant losses in pure stock exchange acquisitions. Other literature studied by Asquith and Mullins (1986), Kalay and Shimrat (1987), Masulis and Korwar (1986) and Mikkelson and Partch ( 1986) show that common stock issues have negative stock price when there are new common stock offerings. These results were supported by various other studies such as Henri Servaess (1991) study titled Tobins Q and gains from takeovers. Agrawal, Jaffe and Mandelkar (1992) found post-acquisition returns to be lower fo r share-financed acquisitions in comparison to cash-financed acquisitions. They further went on to prove that shareholders of acquiring firms suffered a statistically significant loss of about 10% over the five-year merger period. The bidding firms method of payment provides valuable insight to the market. If the bidding firms managers possess information about the intrinsic value of their firm, independent of the acquisition, which is not fully reflected in the pre-acquisition stock price, they will finance the acquisition in the most profitable way for the existing stockholders (Travlos, 1987). Myers and Majluf (1984) model states that management will prefer cash offerings if they believe their firm is under-valued however a common stock exchange offer will be preferred if they believe their firm is over-valued. In addition, market participants will strongly favor a cash offer as good news while the opposite holds true for a common stock exchange about the bidding firms true value. If such information is important in the market, then the bidding firms stock price change at the proposals announcement will reflect both the gain from the takeover (weighted by the probability that the takeover bid will go throug h) and the information effects (Nickolaos, 1987). Jensen and Ruback (1983) state that most tender offers are financed by cash however merger proposals are financed by the exchange of common stock therefore the information argument states that larger target residuals occur in tender offers rather than in mergers. In their study conducted, they determined that for mergers, the weighted abnormal target firm return is 16.3% over the month before announcement however for tender offers; the weighted target return is 30.9% over the two-month period surrounding the announcement dates. Cash is by far the most widely used form of payment in mergers and acquisitions. There are many reasons as to why there is an increased use of cash in financing mergers. One possible explanation for the increasing use of cash depends on market imperfections and/or agency considerations (Carleton et al, 1983). Another reason for why bidding firms use cash in financing mergers is the increase in the number of hostile mergers. Cash not only signals a high value for the target, but also preempts other firms from bidding (Martin, 1996). These findings were also found in the literature of Eckbo, Giammarino and Heinkel (1990) which include a role for mixed financings in which higher-valued bidders are more likely to use more cash to finance the acquisition. As can be seen from the literature above the mode of payment in an acquisition may be driven by various motives and can have various effects on the bidders and acquirers stock price. This can have a major impact on shareholder value during corporate acquisitions as well as value gain studies. A study by Loughran and Vijh (1997) formed an association between the mode of acquisition (merger and tender offer) and the method of payment (cash or stock). They studied this relationship in the context of wealth gains from acquisitions and concluded that the post-acquisition returns of acquirers are related to both the mode of acquisition as well as form of payment. This was also proved by various other researchers (mentioned above) thus making the method of payment during an acquisition all the more important. Reason being, post-acquisition returns are what tend to effect shareholder value the most therefore the knowledge and distinction of the various modes of financing an acquisition is ve ry relevant and essential. 2.2 Motives for Mergers Acquisitions A Dual Perspective Tender offers allow for an in-depth analysis of agency relationships since the best interests of the principal (target firm shareholders) and agent (target firm managers) are often in conflict. Managers of the target firm are often in conflict of interest between their fiduciary responsibilities to the shareholders and their own personal wealth. For this reason, tender offers allow for the analysis of agency conflicts between shareholders and management of the target firm. According to Sudarsanam (1995) there are two main perspectives for acquisition motives which are: Shareholder wealth maximization perspective Under the shareholder wealth maximization perspective, all firms decisions including acquisitions are made with the objective of maximizing the wealth of the shareholders of the firm. In mergers and acquisitions, management of the target firm will oppose bidding firms to takeover if they believe this action would not be in the best interest of its shareholders. Target managers that oppose a bid defend their reasoning by claiming that the bid price is not adequate enough. Managerial wealth perspective Under the managerial wealth perspective, target managers may face an uneasy choice between obligations to current shareholders and those who aspire to such a position (Walkling and Long, 1984). For many target managers, if they sense a possibility of a loss in compensation from the merger or acquisition, conflict of interest will then increase. If self interest is pursued by target managers, there is a possibility that a bad acquisition may occur and/or a loss of shareholder wealth. According to Sudarsanam (1995), managers may undertake acquisitions for the following reasons: To pursue growth in size of their firm, since their salary, prerequisites, status and power are a function of firm size. (Empire-building syndrome) In order to deploy their currently underused managerial skills. (self-fulfillment motive) To diversify risk and minimize costs of financial distress and bankruptcy. (job security motive) To avoid being taken over. (job security motive) The managerial wealth perspective motive is one of survival. Not only do managers tend to seek motivation from sustained growth but also seek job security. Managers unlike shareholders cannot diversify to spread their risks since they are tied to one company. If that company is acquired, managers have a high probability of losing their jobs. A study conducted by Firth (1991) tests to see if executive reward increases when an acquisition takes place. In a sample of 254 UK takeover offers during 1974-1980 found that the acquisition process leads to an increase in managerial remuneration, and that this is predicated on the increased size of the acquirer and concludes that the evidence is consistent with takeovers being motivated by managers wanting to maximize their own welfare'(Firth, 1991). Agency conflicts arise whenever differing incentives cause managers to take actions that benefit themselves but harm shareholders. In the context of acquisitions, agency conflicts may lead to a reduction in shareholder wealth if managers pursue expansion for nonprofit-maximizing reasons. According to past literature, large target shareholder wealth gains are experienced during the announcement of a takeover and large shareholder wealth losses occur when a takeover bid fails (Jensen and Ruback, 1983). This implies that target management interests are not always achieved by accepting bid offers. In addition, target managers may lose compensation and other perks if they are replaced after a successful bid offer. These findings are also confirmed by Walkling and Long (1984) and Martin and McConnell (1991), all of whom reported above-average managerial turnover after a successful takeover bid. The study findings show that in addition to lost compensation, managerial turnover may also be a ssociated with loss of status. Martin and McConnell (1991) further go on to say that the mergers and acquisitions market plays an important role in controlling the non-value maximizing behavior of managers of large corporations. As shown from the literature above, the shareholder wealth perspective and managerial wealth perspective may conflict with one another. With respects to mergers and acquisitions, the managerial motives and a mangers reaction to a takeover bid may have an impact on the shareholder wealth maximization criterion. The extent to which it would impact shareholder value will be decided by the amount of control managers have within the organization. 2.3 Post Merger Performance Debate (Targets and Bidders) There has been considerable interest in the post merger performance on shareholders returns in the target and bidder firms. Typical findings by researchers show three patterns: (1) target shareholders earn significantly positive abnormal returns from all acquisitions, (2) acquiring shareholders earn little or no abnormal returns from tender offers and (3) acquiring shareholders earn negative abnormal returns from mergers. Overall, the results of post merger performance have been mixed. According to Langetieg (1978) and Asquith (1983), their research concluded that acquired firms experience significantly negative abnormal returns over one to three years after the merger. In the research study conducted by Agrawal, Jaffe and Mandelker (1992) titled The Post-Merger Performance of Acquiring Firms: A Re-examination of an Anomaly found that stockholders of acquiring firms experience a statistically significant wealth loss of approximately 10% over five years after the merger completion date. Research conducted by Franks, Harris and Titman (1991) found that no significant underperformance of stockholders returns exist over a three year period after the acquisition. Franks et al concluded that the previous findings of poor performance post-acquisition were likely to be due to benchmark errors rather than inconsistencies with the Efficient Market Theory (EMH) or mis-pricing at the time of the takeover. Similar results that underperformance of stockholders returns do not exist over a three year period after acquisition is also concluded by Bradley and Jarrell (1988). A few studies have analyzed value gains during merger and acquisitions with respect to various classes of merging firms security holders. A study was carried out by Dennis and McConnell (1986) namely, Corporate Mergers and Security Returns and their results indicated mergers on average to be value creating activities for the acquired and the acquiring company individually. They found by other previous studies that on average common stockholders of acquiring firms earn positive returns but are usually not statistically significant. Their results also indicated that convertible preferred stockholders (of acquiring firm) received positive and statistically significant returns post-merger; however, non-convertible preferred stockholders received positive but not statistically significant returns post-merger. The combination of the above mentioned results lead to an overall increase in the value of the firm therefore presenting us with the reason as to why corporations go ahead with merge rs which do not earn statistically significant returns to common stockholders of the acquiring firms. Research results by Asquith and Kim (1982) also confirm what other investigators found for mergers: abnormal returns to the common stocks of acquired firms are positive and statistically significant; abnormal returns to the common stock of acquiring firms are not significantly different from zero. In the study Do Long-term Shareholders Benefit Corporate Acquisitions? by Loughran and Vijh (1997), found that post acquisition returns of acquirers stock are related to both the form of payment as well as the mode of acquisition. They concluded in the overall sample of 947 cases, acquirers that make merger bids earn, on average, 15.9 percent less than matching firms whereas acquirers that make tender offers earn 43.0 percent more than matching firms during a five-year period after acquisition. In addition, stock acquirers earned 24.2 percent less however cash acquirers earn 18.5 percent more with respects to matching firms. Furthermore, conclusions show that during a five year period following the acquisition, on average, firms t Effect of MA Strategy on Shareholder Value Effect of MA Strategy on Shareholder Value The aim of this project is to examine whether the decision of large UK companies looking to pursue a merger/acquisition strategy will affect shareholder value. The data analyzed in this study will determine if there is a positive or negative correlation in shareholder wealth when a merger/acquisition occurs. The research for this project will be conducted through the analysis of 40 different large UK companies that were merged or acquired by other UK based firms prior to 2002. The data will be obtained from the Bloomberg website. Further research and analysis on the topic will include information obtained from books, journals and reliable internet sources. To test the value of shareholder wealth when a merger/acquisition is pursued, different models will be used which includes Capital Asset Pricing Model, Efficient Capital Markets, Equilibrium Models, and Market Model (Event Studies and Abnormal Returns Methodology). The hypothesis that will be tested in this study is: H0 = If managers of large sized UK companies pursue a merger and acquisition strategy then shareholder wealth (value) will increase. H1 = If managers of large sized UK companies pursue a merger and acquisition strategy then shareholder wealth (value) will remain unchanged or will decrease. The first chapter will give a brief overview of mergers and acquisitions and introduce the reader to recent merger trends in the UK and different types of takeovers. The second chapter will be an in-depth analysis of past research studies which includes: examining different ways a company pays for a bid in a merger, exploring shareholder and managerial wealth perspectives, and analyzing long term post-merger performance of target and bidder firms. Chapter three presents the research methodology used in wealth gain studies and also states the methodology adopted for this dissertation. Chapter four analyzes and discusses the findings in context to wealth gain effects of mergers and acquisitions among the large UK companies chosen for this study. Chapter five concludes this research and highlights possible areas that may require further investigation. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Mergers and acquisitions have become important events in todays rapidly changing business environment and have been the subject of many research studies. Reasons as to why companies may pursue a merger or acquisition strategy could be to reduce costs to achieve economies of scale or to reduce competition due to increased market power. Mergers and acquisitions have also been known to facilitate entry into new markets or industries and increase the level of effectiveness in a company by eliminating inefficient management. Mergers and acquisitions worldwide have tended to follow a pattern of waves, with there being periods of frantic takeover activity followed by relatively calmer periods. The main objective of financial theory is to maximize shareholder wealth therefore all decisions are taken with the aim of maximizing shareholder value. The purpose of this research is to re-examine the shareholder wealth gain criterion with regards to mergers and acquisitions within the United Kingdom. The objective of this study is to find out if shareholders of large UK companies benefit from the acquisition decisions made by the managers. Past research studies on post-acquisition performance of acquiring and target firms have mixed results. To determine if there is an increase or decrease in shareholder value from corporate takeovers, the Market Model and Event Study Methodology will be used in this study. The hypothesis developed in this study aims to support the argument that mergers and acquisitions are profitable events and lead to an increase in shareholder value. This study however concluded that merger and acquisitions among the large UK organizations chosen did not lead to an increase of shareholder value for both target and bidder firms. These results might not be entirely accurate due to various reasons such as size effects and the firms chosen in this study are from different industries. Other factors such as acquisition financing and acquisition motives also may have an effect on shareholder value however the testing of these factors is outside the scope of the following study. CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF MERGERS AND ACQUISTIONS The following chapter briefly examines the benefits that a merger is expected to generate for both the target firm and the acquiring firm. The historical pattern of takeover activity in the UK from 1964-1992 is discussed to show merger and acquisition (MA) trends and recent MA activity abroad and within the UK will also be highlighted among large UK companies in 2008. In addition, the definition of mergers and acquisitions is provided and the second part of chapter one introduces the reader to different types of mergers used to create value for an organization. 1.1 Benefits to Mergers and Acquisitions Activity The main objective for an acquiring firm is to grow and expand its assets, sales and market shares. Other specific reasons for entering into a merger bid are reflected in the benefits that are expected to be generated which include: Exploiting scale economies Obtain synergy Enter into new markets To restore growth impetus To acquire market power To reduce dependence on existing or perhaps risky activities With the above mentioned benefits to MA activity, it should also be noted that takeovers most likely to succeed are those approached with a strategic focus, incorporating a detailed analysis of the objectives of the takeover, the possible alternatives and how the acquired company can be integrated in the new parent (Pike and Neale). 1.2 Trends in UK Merger Activity There has been an increasing trend of MA activity in the UK over the past few decades, with there being periods of high takeover activity followed by relatively slower periods as can be seen by the graph below. Figure 1.0 History of UK MA Activity Source: National Statistics, 2002 The highest peaks in takeovers are during the period 1984-1989. During this time, the average size of an acquisition had grown significantly from 9.64 million to 20.38 million. As per Sudarsanam (1995) the main reason for this was because the stock market in the UK, along with the harmony with the rest of the world stock markets experienced a strong bull phase which culminated in the October 1987 crash. Furthermore, the 1980s also experienced divestments on a large scale which meant companies would sell off divisions or subsidiaries to other firms of the divested parts in a management buyout. This increase in acquisitions and divestments had shown significant amount of corporate restructuring in the UK and thus led to new organizational innovations such as management buyouts and management buyins, as well as by financial innovations like high-leverage buyouts and mezzanine finance (Sudarsanam, 1995).As can be seen from the graph above, the UK MA market has experienced a relatively le aner period, which has continued till date. The main reasons that can be attributed to this are the various world catastrophes and the overall global economic slowdown. As per the office of National Statistics, the largest significant transaction recorded during the first quarter of 2008 was the acquisition by Imperial Tobacco Group Plc of Altadis S.A. for a press reported value of 9.3 billion. Another significant transaction was the acquisition by Carillion Plc of Alfred McAlpine Plc for a reported value of approximately 0.5 billion. For quarter one in 2008, the number of transactions reported for acquisitions in the UK by UK companies has been the lowest reported since quarter one 2003. Other recent major UK mergers acquisitions (2008) are as follows: Table 1.0 Recent Acquisitions in the UK by UK Companies Company Value in million Carillion Plc acquiring Alfred McAlpine Plc 554 Willmott Dixon Ltd acquiring Inspace Plc 133 easyJet Plc acquiring GB Airways Ltd 104 iimia MitonOptimal Plc acquiring Midas Capital Partners Ltd 100 Source: National Statistics, 2008 Table 2.0 Recent Acquisitions abroad by UK Companies Company Value in million Imperial Tobacco Group Plc acquiring Altadis S.A. 9339 Reckitt Benckiser Group Plc acquiring Adams Respiratory Therapeutics 1100 Scottish and Southern Energy Plc acquiring Airtricity Holdings Ltd 808 SABMiller Plc acquiring Koninklijke Grolsch N.V 606 Ineos Group Ltd acquiring Kerling AS 429 429 Standard Chartered Plc acquiring American Express Bank Ltd 413 Kesa Electricals Plc disposing of BUT SAS 389 Source: National Statistics, 2008 1.3 Definitions and Different Types of Mergers and Acquisitions Although the terms merger, acquisition and takeover are used interchangeably, technical differences do exist. A merger is when corporations come together to combine and share their resources to achieve a common set of objectives (Sudarsanam, 1995). The shareholders of the two combined corporations will continue to be joint owners. An acquisition is when one firm purchases the assets or shares of another firm however the shareholders of the acquired firm continue being owners of that firm. A takeover is the acquisition by one company of the share capital of another in exchange for cash, ordinary shares, loan stock or a combination of these (Pike and Neale). This distinction between the three terms is important in certain contexts however they are used by researchers and authors interchangeably. In the following dissertation, I too will use these three terms interchangeably. There are different types of mergers that exist to create value and are classified into three main categories: horizontal, vertical and conglomerate (Pike and Neale). Horizontal integration: this is when a company takes over the target firm from the same industry and at the same stage of the production process. Vertical integration: where the target is in the same industry as the acquirer however is operating at a different stage in the production process. This can be either close to the source of materials (backward integration) or close to the final customer (forward integration). Conglomerate integration: occurs when the target is in a business that is different to the acquirer. The reasons a firm may undergo a conglomerate merger is to reduce risk through diversification, opportunities for cost reduction and improving internal and external efficiencies. In order to understand whether mergers and acquisitions create or destroy shareholder value, it is important to appreciate and understand few critical aspects of the complex MA theory. The three areas in helping to answer this question with respects to the impact of shareholder value in my opinion are different modes of financing mergers and acquisitions, motives for MA activity and post-merger performance. Various researchers in the finance field have conducted a great amount of research on the above mentioned areas and this dissertation will help put into perspective mergers and acquisitions impact on shareholder value currently in the UK. CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND OF STUDY Mergers and acquisitions are undertaken as a means of corporate growth and expansion but are also an alternative to growth through internal or organic capital investment. The immediate objective of an acquisition is self-evidently growth and expansion of the acquirers assets, sales and market share (Sudarsanam, 1995). Another objective of acquisitions would be to increase the growth of shareholders wealth aimed at creating a strong competitive advantage for the acquirer. In modern finance theory, shareholder wealth maximization is a strong rational for financing and investment decisions made by management. This leads to the question of wealth gain effects of mergers and acquisitions, specifically among large UK companies. The following chapter introduces various literature regarding wealth gain effects of mergers and acquisitions and highlights the various aspects of mergers and acquisitions which may have an effect on the shareholder value within large UK corporations. 2.1 Modes of Acquisition Financing There are various modes of financing a takeover which includes: cash (preferred method), issuing of ordinary shares and fixed interest securities (loan stock, convertibles, and preference shares). The way in which a merger and acquisition is financed has different benefits to the target shareholders and bidder shareholders. In addition, cash takeovers may be sufficiently different from non-cash acquisitions and failure to distinguish between them may lead to inappropriate generalizations (Carleton et al, 1983). As per Sudarsanam (1995), there are various ways a firm can bid an acquisition, which is shown in Table 3.0. Table 3.0 Bid Financing Bidder Offers Target shareholders receive Cash Cash in exchange for their shares Share Exchange A specified number of bidder s shares for each target share Cash underwritten share offer (vendor placing) Bidders shares, then sell them to a merchant bank for cash Loan stock A loan stock/debenture in exchange for their shares Convertible loan or preferred shares Loan stock or preferred shares convertible into ordinary shares at a predetermined conversion rate over a specified period Deferred payment Part of consideration after a specified period, subject to performance criteria Source: Sudarsanam (1995, p.177) In addition, a bidder making cash offer can finance it from one or more of the following sources (Sudarsanam, 1995): Internal operating cash flow A pre-bid rights issue A cash underwritten offer, e.g. vendor placing or vendor rights A pre-bid loan stock issue Bank Credit A cash offer has two advantages from the point of view to both the target and acquiring shareholders which includes (Pike Neale, 1999): The amount is certain; there is no exposure to the risk of adverse movement in share price during the course of the bid. The targeted shareholder is more easily able to adjust his or her portfolio than if he or she receives shares, which involve dealing costs when sold. Because no new shares are issued, there is no dilution of earnings or change in the balance of control of the bidder. In terms of shares being used as a medium of exchange again there are some advantages to both target as well as acquiring shareholders (Arnold, 2002) which are: For target shareholders use of shares helps avoid capital gains tax. Target shareholders maintain an interest in the combine entity thus helping preserve as well as increase shareholders value. Acquiring shareholders gain from the fact that there is no immediate cash outflow. Nickolaos Travlos (1987) study titled Corporate Takeover Bids, Method of Payment, and Bidding Firms Stock Returns was to examine the role of the method of payment in determining common stock returns of bidding firms at the announcement of takeover bids. The analysis in the study was to show the valuation effects on two common methods of payment which are common stock exchanges and cash offers. The results showed that bidding firms had normal returns in cash offers however experienced significant losses in pure stock exchange acquisitions. Other literature studied by Asquith and Mullins (1986), Kalay and Shimrat (1987), Masulis and Korwar (1986) and Mikkelson and Partch ( 1986) show that common stock issues have negative stock price when there are new common stock offerings. These results were supported by various other studies such as Henri Servaess (1991) study titled Tobins Q and gains from takeovers. Agrawal, Jaffe and Mandelkar (1992) found post-acquisition returns to be lower fo r share-financed acquisitions in comparison to cash-financed acquisitions. They further went on to prove that shareholders of acquiring firms suffered a statistically significant loss of about 10% over the five-year merger period. The bidding firms method of payment provides valuable insight to the market. If the bidding firms managers possess information about the intrinsic value of their firm, independent of the acquisition, which is not fully reflected in the pre-acquisition stock price, they will finance the acquisition in the most profitable way for the existing stockholders (Travlos, 1987). Myers and Majluf (1984) model states that management will prefer cash offerings if they believe their firm is under-valued however a common stock exchange offer will be preferred if they believe their firm is over-valued. In addition, market participants will strongly favor a cash offer as good news while the opposite holds true for a common stock exchange about the bidding firms true value. If such information is important in the market, then the bidding firms stock price change at the proposals announcement will reflect both the gain from the takeover (weighted by the probability that the takeover bid will go throug h) and the information effects (Nickolaos, 1987). Jensen and Ruback (1983) state that most tender offers are financed by cash however merger proposals are financed by the exchange of common stock therefore the information argument states that larger target residuals occur in tender offers rather than in mergers. In their study conducted, they determined that for mergers, the weighted abnormal target firm return is 16.3% over the month before announcement however for tender offers; the weighted target return is 30.9% over the two-month period surrounding the announcement dates. Cash is by far the most widely used form of payment in mergers and acquisitions. There are many reasons as to why there is an increased use of cash in financing mergers. One possible explanation for the increasing use of cash depends on market imperfections and/or agency considerations (Carleton et al, 1983). Another reason for why bidding firms use cash in financing mergers is the increase in the number of hostile mergers. Cash not only signals a high value for the target, but also preempts other firms from bidding (Martin, 1996). These findings were also found in the literature of Eckbo, Giammarino and Heinkel (1990) which include a role for mixed financings in which higher-valued bidders are more likely to use more cash to finance the acquisition. As can be seen from the literature above the mode of payment in an acquisition may be driven by various motives and can have various effects on the bidders and acquirers stock price. This can have a major impact on shareholder value during corporate acquisitions as well as value gain studies. A study by Loughran and Vijh (1997) formed an association between the mode of acquisition (merger and tender offer) and the method of payment (cash or stock). They studied this relationship in the context of wealth gains from acquisitions and concluded that the post-acquisition returns of acquirers are related to both the mode of acquisition as well as form of payment. This was also proved by various other researchers (mentioned above) thus making the method of payment during an acquisition all the more important. Reason being, post-acquisition returns are what tend to effect shareholder value the most therefore the knowledge and distinction of the various modes of financing an acquisition is ve ry relevant and essential. 2.2 Motives for Mergers Acquisitions A Dual Perspective Tender offers allow for an in-depth analysis of agency relationships since the best interests of the principal (target firm shareholders) and agent (target firm managers) are often in conflict. Managers of the target firm are often in conflict of interest between their fiduciary responsibilities to the shareholders and their own personal wealth. For this reason, tender offers allow for the analysis of agency conflicts between shareholders and management of the target firm. According to Sudarsanam (1995) there are two main perspectives for acquisition motives which are: Shareholder wealth maximization perspective Under the shareholder wealth maximization perspective, all firms decisions including acquisitions are made with the objective of maximizing the wealth of the shareholders of the firm. In mergers and acquisitions, management of the target firm will oppose bidding firms to takeover if they believe this action would not be in the best interest of its shareholders. Target managers that oppose a bid defend their reasoning by claiming that the bid price is not adequate enough. Managerial wealth perspective Under the managerial wealth perspective, target managers may face an uneasy choice between obligations to current shareholders and those who aspire to such a position (Walkling and Long, 1984). For many target managers, if they sense a possibility of a loss in compensation from the merger or acquisition, conflict of interest will then increase. If self interest is pursued by target managers, there is a possibility that a bad acquisition may occur and/or a loss of shareholder wealth. According to Sudarsanam (1995), managers may undertake acquisitions for the following reasons: To pursue growth in size of their firm, since their salary, prerequisites, status and power are a function of firm size. (Empire-building syndrome) In order to deploy their currently underused managerial skills. (self-fulfillment motive) To diversify risk and minimize costs of financial distress and bankruptcy. (job security motive) To avoid being taken over. (job security motive) The managerial wealth perspective motive is one of survival. Not only do managers tend to seek motivation from sustained growth but also seek job security. Managers unlike shareholders cannot diversify to spread their risks since they are tied to one company. If that company is acquired, managers have a high probability of losing their jobs. A study conducted by Firth (1991) tests to see if executive reward increases when an acquisition takes place. In a sample of 254 UK takeover offers during 1974-1980 found that the acquisition process leads to an increase in managerial remuneration, and that this is predicated on the increased size of the acquirer and concludes that the evidence is consistent with takeovers being motivated by managers wanting to maximize their own welfare'(Firth, 1991). Agency conflicts arise whenever differing incentives cause managers to take actions that benefit themselves but harm shareholders. In the context of acquisitions, agency conflicts may lead to a reduction in shareholder wealth if managers pursue expansion for nonprofit-maximizing reasons. According to past literature, large target shareholder wealth gains are experienced during the announcement of a takeover and large shareholder wealth losses occur when a takeover bid fails (Jensen and Ruback, 1983). This implies that target management interests are not always achieved by accepting bid offers. In addition, target managers may lose compensation and other perks if they are replaced after a successful bid offer. These findings are also confirmed by Walkling and Long (1984) and Martin and McConnell (1991), all of whom reported above-average managerial turnover after a successful takeover bid. The study findings show that in addition to lost compensation, managerial turnover may also be a ssociated with loss of status. Martin and McConnell (1991) further go on to say that the mergers and acquisitions market plays an important role in controlling the non-value maximizing behavior of managers of large corporations. As shown from the literature above, the shareholder wealth perspective and managerial wealth perspective may conflict with one another. With respects to mergers and acquisitions, the managerial motives and a mangers reaction to a takeover bid may have an impact on the shareholder wealth maximization criterion. The extent to which it would impact shareholder value will be decided by the amount of control managers have within the organization. 2.3 Post Merger Performance Debate (Targets and Bidders) There has been considerable interest in the post merger performance on shareholders returns in the target and bidder firms. Typical findings by researchers show three patterns: (1) target shareholders earn significantly positive abnormal returns from all acquisitions, (2) acquiring shareholders earn little or no abnormal returns from tender offers and (3) acquiring shareholders earn negative abnormal returns from mergers. Overall, the results of post merger performance have been mixed. According to Langetieg (1978) and Asquith (1983), their research concluded that acquired firms experience significantly negative abnormal returns over one to three years after the merger. In the research study conducted by Agrawal, Jaffe and Mandelker (1992) titled The Post-Merger Performance of Acquiring Firms: A Re-examination of an Anomaly found that stockholders of acquiring firms experience a statistically significant wealth loss of approximately 10% over five years after the merger completion date. Research conducted by Franks, Harris and Titman (1991) found that no significant underperformance of stockholders returns exist over a three year period after the acquisition. Franks et al concluded that the previous findings of poor performance post-acquisition were likely to be due to benchmark errors rather than inconsistencies with the Efficient Market Theory (EMH) or mis-pricing at the time of the takeover. Similar results that underperformance of stockholders returns do not exist over a three year period after acquisition is also concluded by Bradley and Jarrell (1988). A few studies have analyzed value gains during merger and acquisitions with respect to various classes of merging firms security holders. A study was carried out by Dennis and McConnell (1986) namely, Corporate Mergers and Security Returns and their results indicated mergers on average to be value creating activities for the acquired and the acquiring company individually. They found by other previous studies that on average common stockholders of acquiring firms earn positive returns but are usually not statistically significant. Their results also indicated that convertible preferred stockholders (of acquiring firm) received positive and statistically significant returns post-merger; however, non-convertible preferred stockholders received positive but not statistically significant returns post-merger. The combination of the above mentioned results lead to an overall increase in the value of the firm therefore presenting us with the reason as to why corporations go ahead with merge rs which do not earn statistically significant returns to common stockholders of the acquiring firms. Research results by Asquith and Kim (1982) also confirm what other investigators found for mergers: abnormal returns to the common stocks of acquired firms are positive and statistically significant; abnormal returns to the common stock of acquiring firms are not significantly different from zero. In the study Do Long-term Shareholders Benefit Corporate Acquisitions? by Loughran and Vijh (1997), found that post acquisition returns of acquirers stock are related to both the form of payment as well as the mode of acquisition. They concluded in the overall sample of 947 cases, acquirers that make merger bids earn, on average, 15.9 percent less than matching firms whereas acquirers that make tender offers earn 43.0 percent more than matching firms during a five-year period after acquisition. In addition, stock acquirers earned 24.2 percent less however cash acquirers earn 18.5 percent more with respects to matching firms. Furthermore, conclusions show that during a five year period following the acquisition, on average, firms t