Discipline or Disruption? Stakeholder Relationships and the Effect of Takeover Threat

References

• Atanassov J (2013) Do hostile takeovers stifle innovation? Evidence from antitakeover legislation and corporate patenting. J. Finance 68:1097–1131.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Banerjee S, Dasgupta S, Kim Y (2008) Buyer-supplier relationships and the stakeholder theory of capital structure. J. Finance 63:2507–2552.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bates T, Becher DA, Lemmon ML (2008) Board classification and managerial entrenchment: Evidence from the market for corporate control. J. Financial Econom. 87:656–677.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bebchuk LA, Cohen A, Ferrell A (2009) What matters in corporate governance? Rev. Financial Stud. 22:783–827.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bertrand M, Mullainathan S (1999) Is there discretion in wage setting? A test using takeover legislation. RAND J. Econom. 30:535–554.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bertrand M, Mullainathan S (2003) Enjoying the quiet life? Corporate governance and managerial preferences. J. Political Econom. 111:1043–1075.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cheng S, Nagar V, Rajan MV (2005) Identifying control motives in managerial ownership: Evidence from antitakeover legislation. Rev. Financial Stud. 18:637–672.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Correia S (2014) Explanation of the HDFE iteration with 3 FEs. Accessed November 7, 2015, http://scorreia.com/stata/reghdfe/explanation.pdf.Google Scholar
• Cremers KM, Nair VB, Peyer U (2008) Takeover defenses and competition. J. Empirical Legal Stud. 5:791–818.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fama EF, French K (1997) Industry costs of equity. J. Financial Econom. 43:153–193.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Francis B, Hasan I, John K, Waisman M (2009) The effect of state antitakeover laws on the firm’s bondholders. J. Financial Econom. 96:127–154.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Garvey GT, Hanka G (1999) Capital structure and corporate control: The effect of antitakeover statutes on firm leverage. J. Finance 54:519–546.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Giroud X, Mueller H (2010) Does corporate governance matter in competitive industries? J. Financial Econom. 95:312–331.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gomes JF, Kogan L, Yogo M (2009) Durability of output and the cross-section of stock returns. J. Political Econom. 117:941–986.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gompers PA, Ishii JL, Metrick A (2003) Corporate governance and equity prices. Quart. J. Econom. 118:107–155.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gormley TA, Matsa D (2014) Common errors: How to (and not to) control for unobserved heterogeneity. Rev. Financial Stud. 27:617–661.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greene WH (2004) Fixed effects and bias due to the incidental parameters problem in the Tobit model. Econometric Rev. 23:125–147.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grossman SJ, Hart OD (1980) Disclosure laws and takeover bids. J. Finance 35:323–334.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jensen MC (1986) Agency costs of free cash flow, corporate finance, and takeovers. Amer. Econom. Rev. 76:323–329.Google Scholar
• Johnson SA, Moorman T, Sorescu S (2009) A reexamination of corporate governance and equity prices. Rev. Financial Stud. 22:4753–4786.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Johnson WC, Karpoff JM, Yi S (2015) The bonding hypothesis of takeover defenses: Evidence from IPO firms. J. Financial Econom. 117:307–332.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kale J, Shahrur H (2007) Corporate capital structure and the characteristics of suppliers and customers. J. Financial Econom. 83:321–365.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Karpoff JM, Wittry MD (2015) Institutional and political economy considerations in natural experiments: The case of state antitakeover laws. Working paper, University of Washington, Seattle.Google Scholar
• Mogg T (2011) Microsoft pact with Nvidia could result in future takeover. Accessed November 7, 2015, http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/microsoft-pact-with-nvidia-could-result-in-future-takeover/.Google Scholar
• Patatoukas PN (2012) Customer-base concentrations: Implications for firm performance and capital markets. Accounting Rev. 87:363–392.Crossref, Google Scholar
• PR Newswire (2010) New service from Dow Jones helps reduce supply chain risk by identifying potential threats. (October 19), http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-service-from-dow-jones-helps-reduce-supply-chain-risk-by-identifying-potential-threats-105239388.html.Google Scholar
• Rauh JD (2006) Own company stock in defined contribution pension plans: A takeover defense? J. Financial Econom. 81:379–410.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Robertson J (2010) Tech customers skeptical of takeovers. Houston Chronicle (July 5), http://www.chron.com/business/technology/article/Tech-customers-skeptical-of-takeovers-1699380.php.Google Scholar
• Romano R (1987) The political economy of takeover statutes. Virginia Law Rev. 73:111–199.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rothenberg R (1989) The media business: Advertising; time may be running out at Ogilvy. New York Times (May 2), http://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/02/business/the-media-business-advertising-time-may-be-running-out-at-ogilvy.html.Google Scholar
• Schnitzer M (1995) “Breach of trust” in takeovers and the optimal corporate charter. J. Indust. Econom. 43:229–259.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shleifer A, Summers L (1988) Breach of trust in hostile takeovers. Auerbach AJ, ed. Corporate Takeovers: Causes and Consequences (University of Chicago Press, Chicago), 33–67.Google Scholar
• Titman S (1984) The effect of capital structure on a firm’s liquidation decision. J. Financial Econom. 13:137–151.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Titman S, Wessels R (1988) The determinants of capital structure choice. J. Finance 43:1–19.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wooldridge JM (2010) Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Yun H (2009) The choice of corporate liquidity and corporate governance. Rev. Financial Stud. 22:1447–1475.Crossref, Google Scholar