Abstract
AbstractWe investigate the puzzle of banks contracting the services of external advisors for deals they can self-manage and the role of financial advisors in mergers and acquisitions among European banking firms. We also study the determinants of the choice by bank acquirers and bank targets to either appoint external advisors or manage in-house, as well as between appointing either top or lower tier advisors. Top tier advisors are more likely to be employed in debt financed and cross-border deals. We also find that most European bank mergers are managed in-house, contrary to prior findings reporting mostly externally managed deals attributed to the certification effect. Targets fail to benefit from deals where they do not match acquirer’s decision to appoint external advisors. However, there is an overall propensity to match the counter party’s tier of advisor.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference121 articles.
1. Agrawal A, Jaffe JF (2003) Do takeover targets underperform? Evidence from operating and stock returns. J Financ Quant Anal 38(4):721–746
2. Allen L, Jagtiani J, Peristiani S, Saunders A (2004) The role of bank advisors in mergers and acquisitions. J Money, Credit, Bank 36:197–224
3. Altunbas Y, Ibanez D (2004) ‘Mergers and acquisitions and bank performance in Europe: the role of strategic similarities’, Working paper series, ECB, No. 398, October
4. Altunbas Y, Marques D (2008) Mergers and acquisitions and bank performance in Europe: The role of strategic similarities. J Econ Bus 60:204–222
5. Amel D, Barnes C, Panetta F, Salleo C (2004) Consolidation and efficiency in the financial sector: a review of the international evidence. J Bank Finance 28:2493–2519