Title
Agency Costs in Small Firm Acquisitions: Evidence from Russell 2000 Firms Acquired During the Two Years Ended June 30, 2001,Used
Sold by Ergodebooks, an authorized reseller.
Returns accepted within 30 days | support@ergodebooks.com
Shipping Information
- Free Standard Shipping — United States only
- Processing Time: 1–3 business days
- Estimated Delivery: 3–5 business days after dispatch
- Double-boxed, fully insured & discreetly packaged
- Tracking number sent via email once dispatched
- Orders over $250 require signature upon delivery. Taxes calculated at checkout.
Returns & Refund
Returns accepted within 30 days of delivery.
Damaged or Defective Item
Free return shipping + replacement or full refund
Wrong Item Received
Free return shipping + replacement or full refund
Change of Mind
Return shipping at customer's expense · 25% restocking fee applies
This event study examines small Russell 2000 firms acquired during the two years ending June 30, 2001. This study tests whether bidders highly value sales or assets (the agency hypothesis) or profits/cash flows (the alternative hypothesis). This study finds that independent director majorities or the presence of academic directors on acquirer boards of directors are associated with lower targetfirm announcementperiod abnormal returns. Acquirer boards with both an independent director majority and at least one director from academia are associated with the lowest targetfirm announcementperiod abnormal returns of any of the groups examined. Consistent with prior research, diversifying acquisitions are associated with higher targetfirm and lower acquirer announcementperiod abnormal returns than focusing acquisitions. However, a closer look at diversifying acquisitions suggests that acquirers more highly value smaller, more profitable target firms for use in entering unfamiliar industries. Therefore, a ?dip your toe into a different pond theory? might be more appropriate for these types of diversifying acquisitions than either the agency or hubris theories.
⚠️ WARNING (California Proposition 65):
This product may contain chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm.
For more information, please visit www.P65Warnings.ca.gov.