The Delisting Decision: The Case of Buyout Offers with Squeeze-Out (BOSO)

S. Serve, Isabelle Martinez
{"title":"The Delisting Decision: The Case of Buyout Offers with Squeeze-Out (BOSO)","authors":"S. Serve, Isabelle Martinez","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1717018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, we exploit the specificity of going-private transactions that are initiated by the historic controlling shareholders (i.e. voluntary delistings). In Continental Europe, the majority of firms that become private do so following a buyout offer with squeeze-out (BOSO); using this mechanism, the controlling shareholder can cash out minorities and take the firm private. We argue that the decision to go private results from a cost–benefit analysis. Moreover, we pay particular attention to the consequences and the related costs of compliance resulting from the passage of the French Financial Security Law (FSL) in 2003. A quantitative study was performed using a unique dataset spanning 1997–2006. This data set consists of 140 French firms, of which 70 were voluntarily delisted via BOSO and 70 were industry-matched control firms. Univariate analysis and logistic regressions support the cost–benefit analysis: when listing benefits decrease because of weak liquidity and/or weak analyst coverage, it seems better for the firm to go private. Furthermore, the inherent characteristics of delisted firms (i.e. performance, leverage, and risk as measured by the beta factor) appear to be important driving factors of delisting. The passage of the FSL has strengthened the impact of these characteristics on the decision to go private. Mature firms that have weak performance and low specific risk and that are not financially constrained by debt will decide to go private because they cannot afford the listing status anymore. Finally, we show that the driving factors of delisting differ according to the identity of the controlling shareholder; specifically, the level of risk appears to be the strongest determinant for family firms, while non-family firms also consider their own financial structure.","PeriodicalId":106641,"journal":{"name":"Corporate Law: Corporate & Takeover Law","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"45","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Corporate Law: Corporate & Takeover Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1717018","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 45

Abstract

In this paper, we exploit the specificity of going-private transactions that are initiated by the historic controlling shareholders (i.e. voluntary delistings). In Continental Europe, the majority of firms that become private do so following a buyout offer with squeeze-out (BOSO); using this mechanism, the controlling shareholder can cash out minorities and take the firm private. We argue that the decision to go private results from a cost–benefit analysis. Moreover, we pay particular attention to the consequences and the related costs of compliance resulting from the passage of the French Financial Security Law (FSL) in 2003. A quantitative study was performed using a unique dataset spanning 1997–2006. This data set consists of 140 French firms, of which 70 were voluntarily delisted via BOSO and 70 were industry-matched control firms. Univariate analysis and logistic regressions support the cost–benefit analysis: when listing benefits decrease because of weak liquidity and/or weak analyst coverage, it seems better for the firm to go private. Furthermore, the inherent characteristics of delisted firms (i.e. performance, leverage, and risk as measured by the beta factor) appear to be important driving factors of delisting. The passage of the FSL has strengthened the impact of these characteristics on the decision to go private. Mature firms that have weak performance and low specific risk and that are not financially constrained by debt will decide to go private because they cannot afford the listing status anymore. Finally, we show that the driving factors of delisting differ according to the identity of the controlling shareholder; specifically, the level of risk appears to be the strongest determinant for family firms, while non-family firms also consider their own financial structure.
退市决策:以BOSO收购要约为例
在本文中,我们利用了历史控股股东发起的私有化交易(即自愿退市)的特殊性。在欧洲大陆,大多数私有化的公司都是在收购要约和挤出(BOSO)之后实现私有化的;利用这种机制,控股股东可以将少数股权套现,并将公司私有化。我们认为,私有化的决定是成本效益分析的结果。此外,我们特别关注2003年法国金融安全法(FSL)通过后的后果和合规相关成本。使用跨越1997-2006年的独特数据集进行了定量研究。该数据集由140家法国公司组成,其中70家通过BOSO自愿退市,70家是行业匹配的控制公司。单变量分析和逻辑回归支持成本效益分析:当上市收益因流动性弱和/或分析师覆盖面弱而下降时,公司私有化似乎更好。此外,退市公司的内在特征(即业绩、杠杆和风险衡量的贝塔因子)似乎是退市的重要驱动因素。FSL的通过加强了这些特征对私有化决策的影响。业绩不佳、特定风险较低、财务上不受债务约束的成熟公司将决定私有化,因为它们再也负担不起上市的费用。最后,根据控股股东身份的不同,退市的驱动因素也不同;具体而言,风险水平似乎是家族企业最重要的决定因素,而非家族企业也会考虑自身的财务结构。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信