Служба спасения студентов
Служба спасения для студентов (18+)

Topic: Board of directors’ features that increase value of international M&A deals in beverage industry in 2010-2020. An example by Campari.

Стоимость
2500 руб.
Содержание
Теория
Объем
76 лист.
Год написания

Описание работы

Работа пользователя Vseznayka1995
Добрый день! Уважаемые студенты, Вашему вниманию представляется дипломная работа на тему: «Topic: Board of directors’ features that increase value of international M&A deals in beverage industry in 2010-2020. An example by Campari.»
Оригинальность работы 92%

INTRODUCTION.. 3
CHAPTER 1 - Theoretical aspects of board of directors’ features that increase value of international M&A deals in beverage industry. 7
1.1       Merger and acquisition reasons and performance assessment. 7
1.2       Agency problem in merger and acquisition. 11
1.3       Corporate governance. 13
1.4       Board of directors. 22
1.5       Role of corporate governance in increasing value of M&A in the beverage industry. 31
1.6       Hypothesis development. 35
CHAPTER 2 - Analytical research of board of directors’ features that increase value of international M&A deals in beverage industry in 2010-2020 exemplified by Campari 40
2.1       Historical background of Campari Group. 40
2.2       Analysis of Campari Group’s acquisition strategy. 43
2.3       Sample description. 47
2.4       Regression results and analysis. 56
Practical implications of board of directors’ features that increase value of international M&A deals in beverage industry. 58
3.1       Main findings. 58
3.2       Limitations and future research. 61
CONCLUSION.. 64
BIBLIOGRAPHY.. 65
SITOGRAPHY.. 74

INTRODUCTION
Nowadays, merger and acquisition are one of the most used and useful tools in the “hands” of companies to increase their value once their peak in performance is reached, or when they want to quickly expand. For this reason, merger and acquisition activity has registered an exponential growth in the last 35 years[1], also considering the fact that the trend of M&A is heavily affected by “shocks” in the economy (i.e. deregulation, new technologies, increase of commodities’ price) (DePamphilis, 2011). Indeed, when analyzing the trend of worldwide M&A, starting back to 1985, it is possible to notice that a first peak has been reached in 1999[2], just before the dot.com bubble burst. After an initial contraction that lasted until 2001, a new peak, which is still today the record for value of transactions, was set in 2007, when 47455 deals created a value of over 4.746 trillion USD. The third peak over the last four decades was registered in 2015[3], but then, the trend plateaued around 3.7 trillion USD.
Despite the number of transactions has soared, and so the value, it is common knowledge that M&As frequently destroy rather than create value. This idea is supported by a survey conducted by PwC in 2019[4]; indeed, when they asked to 600 global senior executives about their previous experience with M&A transactions, “only 61 percent of buyers believed their last acquisition created value”[5]. Moreover, 53% of acquiror executives admitted that for the 24 months following the closure of the deal, they underperformed compared to industry peers.
This contradiction, the unstoppable rise of M&A number despite the difficulty to achieve positive outcome, is reflected on the findings of previous studies related to value generation for the companies involved. Indeed, while some researches, such as the one by Andrade, Mitchell and Stafford (2001), demonstrated that on average M&A activity create value for both firms; other scholars like Ruback and Jensen (1983) and Moeller, Schlingemann and Stulz (2004) proved that despite an initial value creation, on average, acquiror company’s value on the long run tend to be around zero or even negative.
Academics found out that the major problem of value destruction during M&A transactions is the agency problem, namely the separation between ownership and control within companies (Jensen and Meckling, 1976; Jensen, 1986; Morck, Shleifer and Vishny, 1988). In order to better understand this problematic situation, investors should be imagined as “principals” and managers as “agents”. The job of agents is to maximize principals’ value, but, once the agents receive the control of the company, interest misalignment may arise. As a consequence, managers might take advantage of their position in order to fulfill their own interests.
The most important tool in the hands of shareholders to weaken the agency problem is corporate governance, which is a bundle of mechanism put in place to protect stakeholders’ interests (Zattoni, 2019). Commonly, three main mechanisms are deemed as the most useful: board of directors, executive compensation and ownership structure. However, as it will be shown later, and also in order to not produce a superficial work, only the most important of this mechanism, namely board of directors, will be taken as explanatory variable, since it is our belief that this is the mechanism which could better explain the effects that corporate governance can have on abnormal return of the share price of acquirer firm.
This topic, namely the study of the relationship between corporate governance and merger and acquisition performance, is not new, indeed many researches will be mentioned, especially in the literature review section; however, the novelty of this work lies in the fact that takes into account only cross-border M&As of a single company throughput a decade, to be more precise, between 2010 and 2020. Indeed, so far, researchers focused on the analysis of internal mergers and acquisition activities, or, in case of the inquiry of cross-border deals, only a specific sector was taken into account.
At this point, it is possible to formulate the research question:
Can board of directors’ features positively influence the value of cross-border merger and acquisition deals?
In particular, the object of the paper will be board of directors’ features that increase value of international M&A deals. While the subject will be board of directors’ features that increase value of international M&A deals in the beverage industry by the example of Campari. Therefore, the ultimate goal of this paper will be to evaluate how certain board’s characteristics influence the value of cross-border M&A deals in the beverage industry, using as a case study: Campari.
In order to answer this question, a specific work structure will be followed and is here below described.
The initial chapter will be dedicated to the literature review. The opening section of the chapter will be about the merger and acquisition reasons and how to calculate if an acquisition has been successful or not; hence, it will be defined what a merger and acquisition activity is, which are the different forms which may adopt, and which are the main reasons for an M&A to happen. Finally, it will be explained how to assess the value which the M&A brought to the acquirer firm. In the second section, initially, agency problem in general will be addressed, for then shifting the focus to the repercussions that it has on value creation/destruction during an M&A activity. Subsequently, the topic of corporate governance will be introduced, followed by the description of its main mechanisms, with a big part devoted to executive compensation and ownership structure. The next section will be then dedicated to the most important of the mechanisms, namely board of directors. The main duties and responsibilities of directors will be listed, as well as an in-depth analysis of board composition, structure and how to assess its effectiveness will be addressed. Then, a sub-chapter of the theory will be dedicated to beverage market and the gathering of the main researches which tried to study the role of corporate governance in increasing the value of merger and acquisition, in order to have a full picture of the subject. Ultimately, the last part will be about the hypothesis development and the theory and empirical findings which supports them.
The second chapter is dedicated to the analysis of the several M&As which Campari has carried out in the last 10 years. Firstly, an historical background will be provided, in order to better understand what will be later presented and studied. Afterwards, the strategy which Campari has adopted will be explained. The following section will be devoted to methodology; indeed, the first segment will be about the steps made in order to build the sample, the description of the variables used in the sample and the previous researches or theories which support the usage of such variables. Subsequently, the samples will be described, hence the results of the descriptive statistics, such as mean, median, etc., will be showed. The last part will be dedicated to the study of the multicollinearity issue, and thus, a correlation matrix will be run, as well as a VIF test.
The third chapter will be about the empirical results obtained and their analysis. Initially, the results of the forward selection regressions for all samples will be illustrated, and then, the analysis of the regressions will help us to reject or not the hypothesis. Ultimately, the limitations of the study will be explained so that future inquiries will not make our same mistakes.
 
[1] In 1985, only 2676 deals took place for a value of around 350 billion USD, while in 2019, 49849 deals were completed with a registered cumulative value of 3.7 trillion US dollars (https://imaa-institute.org/mergers-and-acquisitions-statistics/).
[2] In that year, more than 33 thousand M&A were registered for a total value of more than 4.1 trillion USD (https://imaa-institute.org/mergers-and-acquisitions-statistics/).
[3] Total value in that year was 4.74 trillion USD (https://imaa-institute.org/mergers-and-acquisitions-statistics/).
[4] https://www.pwc.com/ph/en/pwc-needles-in-a-haystack/2019/creating-value-through-ma.
[5] According to a Deloitte report, the main reasons for transactions to not deliver the expected value are: economic (32%) or market sector forces (30%) for what concerns external factors; while the leading internal factors are the inability to reach expected sales (30%) or the expected synergies did not materialize (28%) (https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pages/mergers-and-acquisitions/articles/m-a-trends-report.html).

BIBLIOGRAPHY
  • Adams, R & Hermalin, B. & Weisbach, M. (2010). The role of Board of Directors in Corporate Governance: A conceptual framework and survey. Journal of Economic Literature.
  • Agrawal, A. & Jaffe, J. (2003). Do takeovers targets underperform? Evidence from Operating and Stock Returns. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis. Vol. 38.
  • Ambrose, B. & Megginson, W. (1992). The Role of Asset Structure, Ownership Structure, and Takeover Defenses in Determining Acquisition Likelihood. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis. Vol. 27.
  • Andrade, G. & Mitchell, M. & Stafford, E. (2001). New evidence and perspectives on mergers. Journal of economic perspectives. Vol. 15. No. 2.
  • Ansoff, I. (1957). Strategies for diversification. Harvard Business Review.
  • Ararat, M. & Aksu, M. & Cetin, A. (2015). How Board Diversity Affects Firm Performance in Emerging Markets: Evidence on Channels in Controlled Firms. Corporate Governance. An International Review.
  • Baker, G. & Jensen, M. & Murphy, K. (1988). Compensation and Incentives: Practice vs. Theory. The Journal of Finance.
  • Bantel, K. (1993). Strategic Clarity in Banking: Role of Top Management-Team Demography. Psychological Reports.
  • Bear, S. & Rahman, N. & Post, C. (2010). The impact of Board Diversity and Gender Composition on Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Reputation. Journal of Business Ethics. Vol. 97.
  • Bell, S. & Villado, A. & Lukasik, M. & Belau, L. & Briggs, A. (2011). Getting Specific about Demographic Diversity Variable and Team Performance Relationships: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Management.
  • Ben-Amar, W. & André, P. (2006). Separation of Ownership from Control and Acquiring Firm Performance: The Case of Family Ownership in Canada. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting.
  • Ben-Amar, W. & Boujenoui, A. & Francoeur, C. (2011). CEO Attributes, Board Composition, and Acquirer Value Creation: A Canadian Study. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences.
  • Berle, A. & Means, G. (1932). The modern corporation and private property. Transaction Publishers.
  • Birkett, B. (1986). The recent history of corporate audit committees. Accounting Historians Journal. Vol. 13. No. 2.
  • Blair, M. (1995). Rethinking assumptions behind corporate governance. Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
  • Bradley, M. & Desai, A. & Kim E.H. (1988). Synergetic gains from corporate acquisitions and their division between the stockholders of target and acquiring firms. Journal of Financial Economics. Vol. 21.
  • Brickley, J. & Coles, J. & Jarrell, G. (1997). Leadership structure: Separating the CEO and Chairman of the Board. Journal of Corporate Finance. Vol. 3.
  • Brown, J. & Anderson, A.M. & Salas, J. & Ward, A. (2017). Do investors care about director tenure? Insights from executive cognition and social capital theories. Organization science.
  • Byrd, J. & Hickman, K. (1992). Do outside directors monitor managers? Evidence from tender offer bids. Journal of Financial Economics. Vol. 32.
  • Cadbury committee (1992). The financial aspects of corporate governance. GEE.
  • Cantwell, J. & Santangelo, G. (2007). M&As and the global strategies of TNCs. The developing Economies.
  • Chaganti, R. & Mahajan, V. & Sharma, S. (1985). Corporate board size, composition and corporate failures in retailing industry. Journal of Management Studies.
  • Chan Kim, W. & Mauborgne, R. (2004). Blue Ocean Strategy. Harvard Business Review.
  • Coles, J. & Naveen, D. & Naveen, L. (2008). Boards: Does one size fit all? Journal of Financial Economics. Vol. 87.
  • Corbetta, G. & Salvato, C. (2014). Imparare ad acquisire. L’esperienza del gruppo Campari. Economia & Management: la rivista della Scuola di Direzione Aziendale dell’Università L. Bocconi.
  • Cornett, M. & Marcus, A. & Saunders, A. & Tehranian, H. (2003). The Impact of Institutional Ownership on Corporate Operating Performance. SSRN Electronic Journal.
  • Daily, C. & Dalton, D. & Cannella, A. (2003). Corporate governance: decades of dialogue and data. Academy of Management.
  • Dalton, D. & Daily, C. & Ellstrand, A. & Johnson, J. (1998). Meta-analytic reviews of board composition, leadership structure, and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal. Vol. 19.
  • Datta, S. & Iskandar-Datta, M. & Raman, K. (2001). Executive Compensation and Corporate Acquisition Decisions. The Journal of Finance.
  • De Jong, A. & Van der Poel, M. & Wolfswinkel, M. (2007). Corporate Governance and Acquisitions: Acquirer Wealth Effects in the Netherlands. Erasmus Research Institute of Management.
  • De Kluyver, C. (2009). A Primer on Corporate Governance. Corporate Governance. An International Review.
  • Deloitte. (2017). Cross-border M&A. Springboard to global growth. M&A institute.
  • Denis, D. & McConnell, J. (2003). International Corporate Governance. ECGI.
  • DePamphilis, D. (2011). Mergers and Acquisitions Basics. All You Need to Know. Academic Press.
  • Donaldson, L. & Davis, J. (1991). CEO Governance and Shareholder Returns: Agency Theory or Stewardship Theory. Australian Journal of Management.
  • Edmans, A. (2013). Blockholder and corporate governance. ECGI.
  • Eisenberg, T. & Sundgren, S. & Wells, M. (1998). Larger Board Size and Decreasing Firm Value in Small Firms. Cornell Law Faculty Publications.
  • Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. The Academy of Management Review. Vol. 14. No. 4.
  • Erel, I. & Liao, R. & Weisbach, M. (2012). Determinants of Cross-Border Mergers and acquisitions. The Journal of Finance.
  • Erhardt, N. & Werbel, J. & Shrader, C. (2003). Board of directors diversity and firm financial performance. Corporate Governance. An International Review.
  • Fama, E. & Jensen, M. (1983). Separation of Ownership and Control. Journal of Law and Economics. Vol. 26. No. 2.
  • Faleye, O. & Hoitash, R. & Hoitash, U. (2011). The costs of intense board monitoring. Journal of Financial Economics. Vol. 101.
  • Ferreira, M. & Matos, P. (2008). The colors of investors' money: The role of institutional investors around the world. Journal of Financial Economics. Vol. 88.
  • Festa, A (2019). The M&A in luxury. Lecture delivered at LUISS University. September 23rd, 2019.
  • Finkelstein, S. (1992). Power in Top Management Teams: Dimensions, Measurement, and Validation. The Academy of Management Journal.
  • Finkelstein, S. & Hambrick, D. & Cannella, A. (2009). Strategic Leadership; Theory and Research on Executives, Top Management Teams and Boards. Oxford University Press.
  • Fung, S. & Jo, H. & Tsai, S.C. (2009). Agency problems in stock market-driven acquisitions. Review of Accounting and Finance. Vol. 8.
  • Hart, S. (1995). A Natural-Resource-Based View of the Firm. The Academy of Management Review.
  • Hafsi, T. & Turgut, G. (2013). Boardroom Diversity and its Effect on Social Performance: Conceptualization and Empirical Evidence. Journal of Business Ethics.
  • Hambrick, D. & Mason, P. (1984). Upper Echelons: The Organization as a Reflection of Its Top Managers. The Academy of Management Review. Vol. 9. No. 2.
  • Haslam, A. & Reicher, S. & Platow, M. (2010). The new psychology of leadership: identity, influence and power. Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
  • Hayward, M. & Hambrick, D. (1997). Explaining the premiums paid for large acquisitions: Evidence of CEO hubris. Administrative Science Quarterly.
  • Hermalin, B. & Weisbach, M. (2003). Board of directors as an endogenously determined situation: a survey of the economic literature. Economic Policy Review. Vol. 9.
  • Hillman, A. (2014). Board diversity: beginning to unpeel the onion. Corporate Governance. An International Review.
  • Hillman, A. & Withers, M. & Collins, B. (2009). Resource dependency theory: A review. Journal of Management. Vol. 35.
  • Holderness, C. (2009). The myth of diffuse ownership in the United States. Review of Financial Studies. Vol. 22.
  • Ingley, C. & Van der Walt, N. (2001). The Strategic Board: the changing role of directors in developing and maintaining corporate capability. Corporate Governance. An International Review. Vol. 9.
  • Jensen, M. (1986). Agency costs of free cash flow, corporate finance, and takeovers. The American Economic Review. Vol. 76. No. 2.
  • Jensen, M. (1988). Takeovers: Their causes and consequences. Journal of Economic Perspectives. Vol. 2 No. 1.
  • Jensen, M. (1993). The modern industrial revolution, exit, and the failure of internal control systems. The Journal of Finance.
  • Jensen, M. & Meckling, W. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behaviour, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics. Vol. 3.
  • Kagzi, M. & Guha, M. (2017). Board demographic diversity: a review of literature. Journal of Strategy and Management.
  • Kray, L. & Kennedy, J. & Van Zant, A. (2014). Not competent enough to know the difference? Gender stereotypes about women’s ease of being misled predict negotiator deception. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Vol. 125.
  • Levi, M. & Li, K. & Zhang, F. (2014). Director gender and mergers and acquisitions. Journal of Corporate Finance. Vol. 28.
  • Lipton, M. & Lorsch, J. (1992). A modest proposal for improved corporate governance. The Business Lawyer.
  • Lorsch, J. & MacIver, E. (1989). Pawns or Potentates: The Reality of America’s Corporate Boards. Harvard University Graduate School of Business Administration.
  • Manne, H. (1965). Mergers and Market for Corporate Control. The Journal of Political Economy. Vol. 73. No. 2.
  • Marris, R. (1964). The Economic Theory of “Managerial” Capitalism. Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Masulis, R. & Wang, C. & Xie, F. (2007). Corporate Governance and Acquirer Returns. The Journal of Finance.
  • McWilliams, A. & Siegel, D. (1997). Event Studies in Management Research: Theoretical and Empirical Issues. The Academy of Management Journal.
  • Moeller, S. & Schlingemann, F. & Stulz, R. (2004). Firm size and the gains from acquisition. Journal of Financial Economics. Vol. 73.
  • Morck, R. & Shleifer, A. & Vishny, R. (1988). Management ownership and market valuation: An empirical analysis. Journal of Financial Economics. Vol. 20.
  • Murphy, K. (1999). Executive Compensation. Chapter 38 in Handbook of Labor Economics.
  • Murray, A. (1989). Top management group heterogeneity and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal.
  • Muth, M. & Donaldson, L. (1998). Stewardship theory and board structure: a contingency approach. Corporate Governance: An international Review.
  • Myers, S. & Majluf, N. (1984). Corporate financing and investment decisions when firms have information that investors do not have. Journal of Financial Economics. Vol. 13.
  • Pfeffer, J. & Salancik, G. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. Harper & Row.
  • Pi, L. & Timme, S. (1993). Corporate control and bank efficiency. Journal of Banking & Finance. Vol. 17.
  • Prevost, A. & Rao, R. & Hossain, M. (2002). Determinants of board composition in New Zealand: a simultaneous equations approach. Journal of Empirical Evidence. Vol. 9.
  • Roe, J. & Papadopoulos, K. (2019). 2019 U.S. Executive compensation trends. ISS Analytics.
  • Rose, C. & Munch-Madsen, P. & Funch, M. (2013). Does board diversity really matter? Gender does not, but citizenship does. International Journal of Business Science and Applied Management. Vol. 8.
  • Rechner, P. & Dalton, D. (1991). CEO duality and organizational performance: A longitudinal analysis. Strategic Management Journal. Vol. 8.
  • Ruback, R. & Jensen, M. (1983). The market for corporate control: the scientific evidence. Journal of Financial Economics. Vol. 11.
  • Sheridan, T. & Kendall, T. (1992). Corporate governance: an action plan for profitability and business success. Pitman Pub.
  • Shleifer, A & Vishny, R. (1986). Large shareholders and corporate control. Journal of Political Economy. Vol. 94.
  • Shleifer, A & Vishny, R. (1997). A Survey of Corporate Governance. The Journal of Finance. Vol. 52.
  • Shome, D. & Singh, S. (1995). Firm value and external blockholdings. Financial Management.
  • Siciliano, J. (1996). The relationship of board member diversity to organizational performance. Journal of Business Ethics.
  • Singh, M. & Davidson, W. (2003). Agency costs, ownership structure and corporate governance mechanisms. Journal of Banking & Finance. Vol. 27.
  • Sirower, M. (1997). The synergy trap: how companies lose the acquisition game. New York: The Free Press.
  • Sonnenfeld, J. (2002). What makes great board great. Harvard Business Review.
  • Swanstrom, M. (2006). Corporate Governance and the Abnormal Returns to Acquisition Announcements. Journal of Business Strategies.
  • Tehranian, H. & Travlos, N. & Waegelein, J. (1987). The Effect of Long‐Term Performance Plans on Corporate Sell‐Off‐Induced Abnormal Returns. The Journal of Finance.
  • The Financial Reporting Council (2014). The UK Corporate Governance Code. ECGI.
  • Thomsen, S. & Conyon, M. (2012). Corporate Governance: Mechanisms and Systems. McGraw-Hill.
  • Thomsen, S. & Pedersen, T. & Kvist, H.K. (2006). Blockholder ownership: Effects on firm value in market and control-based governance systems. Journal of Corporate Finance. Vol. 12.
  • Trautwein, F. (1990). Merger motives and merger prescriptions. Strategic Management Journal.
  • Vafeas, N. & Theodorou, E. (1998). The Relationship between Board Structure and Firm Performance in the UK. The British Accounting Review.
  • Yermack, D. (1996). Higher market valuation of companies with a small board of directors. Journal of Financial Economics. Vol. 40.
  • Zahra, S. & Pearce, J. (1989). Boards of directors and corporate financial performance: A review and integrative model. Journal of Management. Vol. 15.
  • Zattoni, A. (2015). Corporate governance. EGEA
  • Zattoni, A. (2019). Board of directors. Lecture delivered at LUISS University. November 11th, 2019.
  • Zattoni, A. (2019). Corporate Governance around the world. Lecture delivered at LUISS University. November 25th, 2019.
 

Сколько стоит помощь с учебной работой?