期刊文献+

反收购条款、并购概率与公司价值 被引量:47

Antitakeover Provisions,Takeover Probability and Firm Value
原文传递
导出
摘要 本文选取A股民营上市公司2007~2011年的面板数据,对章程中设置反收购条款的影响进行了分析,实证结果表明反收购条款对并购的影响存在一个作用区间:当并购交易规模达到10%以上时,反收购条款能显著降低目标公司被并购的可能性,这时错列董事会条款将发挥主要的反收购作用;当交易规模低于10%时,反收购条款对并购概率没有显著影响,这时累积投票制能显著促进并购的发生。与国外的研究结果类似,反收购条款对目标公司价值具有显著的负向影响,反收购条款的主要作用表现为对管理层的保护。 This study provides empirical evidence on the effects of antitakeover provisions( ATPs) on takeover probability and firm value. The article selects the panel data of China's A- share private listed companies from 2007 to 2011,analyzes the influence of ATPs on target firms. The empirical results show that there exists a range that ATPs have impact on takeover probability. When the size of the transaction is more than 10%,the ATPs can significantly reduce the takeover possibility of the target company and staggered board will play a major role. When the size of the transaction is less than 10%,the ATPs have no significant effect on the takeover probability and the cumulative voting can significantly promote the occurrence of M&A. Similar to the findings of the foreign,ATPs have a significant negative effect on the value of the target company. The main role of anti- takeover provisions is the protection of the management.
作者 陈玉罡 石芳
出处 《会计研究》 CSSCI 北大核心 2014年第2期34-40,94,共7页 Accounting Research
基金 国家自然科学基金面上项目(71372147) 国家自然科学基金青年项目(71002055) 中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金(11wkpy05) 广东高校人文社科重大攻关项目(11ZGXM63002)的资助
  • 相关文献

参考文献13

  • 1伍坚.限制董事改选数量:交错董事会的中国模式[J].证券市场导报,2007(6):13-17. 被引量:13
  • 2Bhagat, S., and J. Brickley. 1984. Cumulative Vot- ing: The Value of Minority Shareholder Voting Rights. Journal of Law and Economics, 27 (2): 339- 365.
  • 3吴磊磊,陈伟忠,刘敏慧.公司章程和小股东保护——来自累积投票条款的实证检验[J].金融研究,2011(2):160-171. 被引量:47
  • 4陈敏.论投票制度与我国上市公司治理的改进[J].证券市场导报,2007(2):26-29. 被引量:6
  • 5Bates, T. W., D. A. Beeher, and M. L. Lemmon. 2008. Board Classification and Managerial Entrenchment: Evi- dence from the Market for Corporate Control. Journal of Finan- cial Economics, 87 (3) : 656 - 677.
  • 6Bebchuk, L. A., J. C. Coates, and G. Subramanian 2002. The Powerful Antitakeover Force of Staggered Boards Theory, Evidence & Policy. Stanford Law Review, 54 (5) 887 - 951.
  • 7Straska, M., and G. Waller. 2010. Do Antitakeover Provisions Harm Shareholders? Journal of Corporate Finance, 16 (4): 487-497.
  • 8Holmen, M., E. Nivorozhkin, and R. Rana. 2014. Do anti - takeover Devices Affect the Takeover Likelihood or the Takeover Premium? . The European Journal of Finance, 20 (4) : 319 -340.
  • 9Guo, R. J., T. A. Kruse, and T. Nohel. 2008. Undo- ing the Powerful Anti - takeover Force of Staggered Boards. Journal of Corporate Finance, 14 (3): 274 - 288.
  • 10Gompers, P. A., J. Ishii, and A. Metrick. 2003. Corporate Governance and Equity Prices. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118 (1): 107-155.

二级参考文献86

共引文献164

同被引文献436

引证文献47

二级引证文献309

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部