Law and economics has proved a particularly fruitful scholarly approach in the field of mergers and acquisitions. A huge law and economics literature has developed, providing critical insights into merger activity in general and the proper role of corporate and securities law in regulating this activity. Early economic research examined the motivations for merger activity and the antitrust implications of mergers. Later scholarship elucidated the important disciplining effects on management from merger activity and the market for corporate control. If management performs poorly, causing a firm to become undervalued relative to a well-managed firm, the firm becomes vulnerable to a takeover where management will be replaced. This prospect provides a powerful incentive for management to perform well. More recent work has revealed the limitations of market discipline on management actions in the merger context, and the corresponding role of corporate law in protecting stockholders. Because a merger is generally the final interaction between management and the other stakeholders in a firm, the typical constraints and mechanisms of accountability that otherwise constrain managerial opportunism may be rendered ineffective. This work has played a central role in informing modern jurisprudence. It has shaped the application of enhanced judicial scrutiny of management actions in the merger context, as embodied in the landmark Delaware cases Unocal and Revlon. The law and economics literature has also made important contribution to more recent developments in stockholder appraisal. The law and economics tradition has also provided a useful framework for evaluating the dynamics of merger litigation, including stockholder appraisal, and the extent to which such litigation can be made to serve a useful role in corporate governance.
Charles R. Korsmo
Marius Guenzel and Ulrike Malmendier
One of the fastest-growing areas of finance research is the study of managerial biases and their implications for firm outcomes. Since the mid-2000s, this strand of behavioral corporate finance has provided theoretical and empirical evidence on the influence of biases in the corporate realm, such as overconfidence, experience effects, and the sunk-cost fallacy. The field has been a leading force in dismantling the argument that traditional economic mechanisms—selection, learning, and market discipline—would suffice to uphold the rational-manager paradigm. Instead, the evidence reveals that behavioral forces exert a significant influence at every stage of a chief executive officer’s (CEO’s) career. First, at the appointment stage, selection does not impede the promotion of behavioral managers. Instead, competitive environments oftentimes promote their advancement, even under value-maximizing selection mechanisms. Second, while at the helm of the company, learning opportunities are limited, since many managerial decisions occur at low frequency, and their causal effects are clouded by self-attribution bias and difficult to disentangle from those of concurrent events. Third, at the dismissal stage, market discipline does not ensure the firing of biased decision-makers as board members themselves are subject to biases in their evaluation of CEOs. By documenting how biases affect even the most educated and influential decision-makers, such as CEOs, the field has generated important insights into the hard-wiring of biases. Biases do not simply stem from a lack of education, nor are they restricted to low-ability agents. Instead, biases are significant elements of human decision-making at the highest levels of organizations. An important question for future research is how to limit, in each CEO career phase, the adverse effects of managerial biases. Potential approaches include refining selection mechanisms, designing and implementing corporate repairs, and reshaping corporate governance to account not only for incentive misalignments, but also for biased decision-making.
Luc Renneboog and Cara Vansteenkiste
Despite the aggregate value of M&A market transactions amounting to several trillions dollars on an annual basis, acquiring firms often underperform relative to non-acquiring firms, especially in public takeovers. Although hundreds of academic studies have investigated the deal- and firm-level factors associated with M&A announcement returns, many factors that increase M&A performance in the short run fail to relate to sustained long-run returns. In order to understand value creation in M&As, it is key to identify the firm and deal characteristics that can reliably predict long-run performance. Broadly speaking, long-run underperformance in M&A deals results from poor acquirer governance (reflected by CEO overconfidence and a lack of (institutional) shareholder monitoring) as well as from poor merger execution and integration (as captured by the degree of acquirer-target relatedness in the post-merger integration process). Although many more dimensions affect immediate deal transaction success, their effect on long-run performance is non-existent, or mixed at best.