SavedAdd your journal

Journals / İktisadi İdari ve Siyasal Araştırmalar Dergisi / 2017 / Cilt: 2 - Sayı: 2

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EQUITY PARTICIPATION AND PUBLIC TARGET STATUS: CROSS-BORDER ACQUISITION IN TURKEY

SINIR-ÖTESİ ŞİRKET SATIN ALMALARINDA SATIN ALMA ORANI İLE HEDEF ŞİRKETİN HALKA AÇIK OLMASI ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİ: TÜRKİYE ÖRNEĞİ

Sibel AYAS
Özlem YAŞAR UĞURLU
Pages
1–10
Publication Date
2017-02-27
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

If the target company has public status, acquirer companies prefer buying partial acquisition to full acquisition.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The question of what percentage of the target company should be acquired in cross-border acquisitions is a critical decision.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The percentage of equity sought has both risks and returns.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:If the target company has public status, acquirer companies prefer buying partial acquisition to full acquisition.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2006 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Sınır-ötesi Şirket Satın Almaları · Halka Açık Şirketler · Cross-border Acquisitions

Abstract

The question of what percentage of the target company should be acquired in cross-border acquisitions is a critical decision. The percentage of equity sought has both risks and returns. Therefore, it affects the success and survival of the companies. The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of the target company's public status on the percentage of equity sought. According to this, acquisition activities between 2006 and 2015 performed by companies from 23 different countries in Turkey were examined. In this context, 113 acquisition activities have been identified. If the target company has public status, acquirer companies prefer buying partial acquisition to full acquisition.

Özet

Sınır-ötesi gerçekleştirilen satın almalarda hedef şirketin yüzde kaçının satın alınması gerektiği konusu kritik bir karardır. Ne oranda satın alma yapıldığının hem riskleri hem de getirileri vardır. Dolayısıyla firmaların başarılarını ve hayatta kalmalarını etkiler. Bu çalışmanın amacı ise, hedef şirketin halka açık olmasının satın alma oranı üzerindeki etkisini incelemektir. Buna göre, 2006-2015 yılları arasında 23 farklı ülkeden alıcı firmanın Türkiye’de gerçekleştirdiği şirket satın alma faaliyetleri incelenmiştir. Bu bağlamda 113 satın alma faaliyeti belirlenmiş ve hedef şirket halka açık ise daha az oranda satın alma yapıldığı görülmüştür.

🔖

Cite This Article

AYAS, S., UĞURLU, Ö. Y. (2017). THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EQUITY PARTICIPATION AND PUBLIC TARGET STATUS: CROSS-BORDER ACQUISITION IN TURKEY. İktisadi İdari ve Siyasal Araştırmalar Dergisi, Cilt: 2 - Sayı: 2, 1–10. https://ajindex.com/articles/674332

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. AHERN, K. R., DAMINELLI, D. and FRACASSI, C. (2015). “Lost in Translation? The Effect of Cultural Values on Mergers around the World”. Journal of Financial Economics, 117(1): 165-189.
  2. BARKEMA, H. G. and VERMEULEN, F. (1998). “International Expansion Through Start-Up or Acquisition: A Learning Perspective”. Academy of Management Journal,41(1): 7-26. Organizational Marriage”. The Academy of Management Executive,7(2): 57-70.
  3. CHARI, M. D. and CHANG, K. (2009). “Determinants of the Share of Equity Sought in Cross-Border Acquisitions”. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(8): 1277-1297.
  4. CONTRACTOR, F. J., LAHIRI, S., ELANGO, B. and KUNDU, S. K. (2014). “Institutional, Cultural and Industry Related Determinants of Ownership Choices in Emerging Market FDI Acquisitions”. International Business Review, 23(5): 931-941.
  5. DELIOS, A. and BEAMISH, P. W. (2001). “Survival and Profitability: The Roles of Experience and İntangible Assets in Foreign Subsidiary Performance”. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5):1028-1038.
  6. DIKOVA, D., SAHIB, P. R. and VAN WITTELOOSTUIJN, A. (2010). “Cross-Border Acquisition Abandonment and Completion: The Effect of Institutional Differences and Organizational Learning in the International Business Service Industry, 1981–2001”. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(2): 223-245.
  7. DÜNYA YATIRIM RAPORU (2014). Investing in the SDG’s: An Action Plan. http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2014_en.pdf, (21.09.2016).
  8. DÜNYA YATIRIM RAPORU (2016). Investor Nationality: Policy Challengeshttp://unctad.org/en/pages/PublicationWebflyer.aspx?publicationid=1555 (02.10.2016)
  9. HALEBLIAN, J. J., KIM, J. Y. J. and RAJAGOPALAN, N. (2006). “The Influence of Acquisition Experience and Performance on Acquisition Behavior: Evidence From the US Commercial Banking Industry”. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2): 357-370.
  10. HITT, M.A., HARRISON, J.S. and IRELAND, R.D. (2001). Mergers and Acquisitions: A Guide to Creating Value for Stakeholders. Oxford Univ. Press,
  11. New York. HITT, M. A., IRELAND, R. D. and HOSKISSON, R. E. (2012). Strategic Management Cases: Competitiveness and Globalization. Cengage Learning, USA. LAHIRI, S., ELANGO, B. and KUNDU, S. K. (2014). “Cross-Border Acquisition in Services: Comparing Ownership Choice of Developed and Emerging Economy MNEs in India”. Journal of World Business, 49(3): 409-420.
  12. MALHOTRA, S., LIN, X. and FARRELL, C. (2016). “Cross-National Uncertainty and Level of Control in Cross-Border Acquisitions: A Comparison