We examine the 52-week anchoring effect in the Indian takeover market that has a unique regulatory design. The Indian takeover regulation mandates the minimum offer price to be function of the target’s 26-week or 60-day high price. We show that the 52-week anchoring effect is robust even in the face of other regulatory anchors that differ from the widely cited 52-week high price. The anchoring effect dominates when the offer price exceeds the 52-week high price. Regulatory intervention in 2011 that shifts the floor price to a recent market price, such as the 60-day high price, does not attenuate the 52-week anchoring effect. We infer that acquirers are willing to pay a higher premium while anchoring to the 52-week high price, even when the regulatory focus is on lower reference prices. Besides, regulatory anchors also serve as additional focal points, demonstrated by the significance of the 26-week high price during its own period of regulation (2002-2011).
BarberB. M.OdeanT. (2008). All that glitters: The effect of attention and news on the buying behavior of individual and institutional investors. Review of Financial Studies, 21, 785-818.
7.
BarberisN.XiongW. E. I. (2009). What drives the disposition effect? An analysis of a long-standing preference-based explanation. The Journal of Finance, 64, 751-784.
8.
BaucellsM.WeberM.WelfensF. (2011). Reference-point formation and updating. Management Science, 57, 506-519.
9.
BekaertG.HarveyC. R.LundbladC. (2007). Liquidity and expected returns: Lessons from emerging markets. Review of Financial Studies, 20, 1783-1831.
10.
BertrandM.MehtaP.MullainathanS. (2002). Ferreting out tunneling: An application to Indian business groups. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117, 121-148.
11.
CapronL.ShenJ. C. (2007). Acquisitions of private vs. public firms: Private information, target selection, and acquirer returns. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 891-911.
12.
ChapmanG. B.JohnsonE. J. (2002). Incorporating the irrelevant: Anchors in judgments of belief and value. In: GilovichT.GriffinD.KahnemanD. (Eds.) Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 120-138). Cambridge, CB2 2RU UK.
13.
ChiraI.MaduraJ. (2015). Reference point theory and pursuit of deals. Financial Review, 50, 275-300.
14.
CoreJ. E.GuayW. R. (2001). Stock option plans for non-executive employees. Journal of Financial Economics, 61, 253-287.
15.
CotterJ. F.ShivdasaniA.ZennerM. (1997). Do independent directors enhance target shareholder wealth during tender offers?Journal of Financial Economics, 43, 195-218.
16.
de La BruslerieH. (2013). Crossing takeover premiums and mix of payment: An empirical test of contractual setting in M&A transactions. Journal of Banking & Finance, 37, 2106-2123.
17.
DongM.HirshleiferD.RichardsonS.TeohS. H. (2006). Does investor misvaluation drive the takeover market?The Journal of Finance, 61, 725-762.
18.
FarrellA. M.KrischeS. D.SedatoleK. L. (2011). Employees’ subjective valuations of their stock options: Evidence on the distribution of valuations and the use of simple anchors. Contemporary Accounting Research, 28, 747-793.
19.
GeorgeT. J.HwangC. Y. (2004). The 52-week high and momentum investing. The Journal of Finance, 59, 2145-2176.
20.
GeorgeT. J.HwangC. Y.LiY. (2018). The 52-week high, q-theory, and the cross section of stock returns. Journal of Financial Economics, 128, 148-163.
21.
GrinblattM.KeloharjuM. (2001). How distance, language, and culture influence stockholdings and trades. The Journal of Finance, 56, 1053-1073.
22.
HartzellJ. C.OfekE.YermackD. (2004). What’s in it for me? CEOs whose firms are acquired. Review of Financial Studies, 17, 37-61.
23.
HeathC.HuddartS.LangM. (1999). Psychological factors and stock option exercise. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 601-627.
24.
HubbardR. G.PaliaD. (1995). Benefits of control, managerial ownership, and the stock returns of acquiring firms. The Rand Journal of Economics, 26, 782-792.
25.
HuddartS.LangM.YetmanM. H. (2009). Volume and price patterns around a stock’s 52-week highs and lows: Theory and evidence. Management Science, 55(1), 16-31.
26.
KahnemanD. (1992). Reference points, anchors, norms, and mixed feelings. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 51, 296-312.
27.
KeownA. J.PinkertonJ. M. (1981). Merger announcements and insider trading activity: An empirical investigation. The Journal of Finance, 36, 855-869.
28.
KhannaT.PalepuK. (2000). Is group affiliation profitable in emerging markets? An analysis of diversified Indian business groups. The Journal of Finance, 55, 867-891.
29.
KosregiBRabinM. (2006) A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121(4), 1135-1165.
30.
KosregiBRabinM. (2007) Reference Dependent Attitudes, American Economic Review, 97(4), 1047-1073.
31.
KristensenH.GärlingT. (1997). The effects of anchor points and reference points on negotiation process and outcome. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71, 85-94.
32.
LiJ.YuJ. (2012). Investor attention, psychological anchors, and stock return predictability. Journal of Financial Economics, 104, 401-419.
33.
MaQ.WangH.ZhangW. (2017). Trading against anchoring. Review of Behavioral Finance, 9, 242-261.
34.
MoellerS. B.SchlingemannF. P.StulzR. M. (2004). Firm size and the gains from acquisitions. Journal of Financial Economics, 73, 201-228.
35.
NealeM. A.BazermanM. H. (1992). Negotiator cognition and rationality: A behavioral decision theory perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 51, 157-175.
36.
NiinivaaraT. (2010). Role of psychological reference points in mergers and acquisitions: 52-week high as a reference price in European takeover activity (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://aaltodoc.aalto.fi/handle/123456789/447
37.
OrrD.GuthrieC. (2005). Anchoring, information, expertise, and negotiation: New insights from meta-analysis. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 21, 625-628.
38.
RhoadesS. A. (1983). Power, empire building, and mergers. Lanham, Maryland, United States: The Free Press.
39.
Rhodes-KropfM.ViswanathanS. (2004). Market valuation and merger waves. The Journal of Finance, 59, 2685-2718.
40.
RollR. (1986). The hubris hypothesis of corporate takeovers. The Journal of Business, 59, 197-216.
41.
SarkarJ.SarkarS. (2000). Large shareholder activism in corporate governance in developing countries: Evidence from India. International Review of Finance, 1, 161-194.
42.
SchwertG. W. (2000). Hostility in takeovers: In the eyes of the beholder?The Journal of Finance, 55, 2599-2640.
Securities and Exchange Board of India. (1997b). Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) regulations 1997. Retrieved from http://www.sebi.gov.in/acts/act15a.pdf
45.
Securities and Exchange Board of India. (2002). Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) (second amendment) regulations, 2002. Retrieved from http://www.sebi.gov.in/acts/takeoveramend2002.html
ShleiferA.VishnyR. W. (2003). Stock market driven acquisitions. Journal of Financial Economics, 70, 295-311.
48.
SiegelJ.ChoudhuryP. (2012). A reexamination of tunneling and business groups: New data and new methods. The Review of Financial Studies, 25, 1763-1798.
49.
SongM. H.WalklingR. A. (1993). The impact of managerial ownership on acquisition attempts and target shareholder wealth. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 28, 439-457.
