The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Acquisitions of private vs. public firms: Private information, target selection, and acquirer returns
Abstract
The acquisition of privately held firms is a prevalent phenomenon that has received little attention in mergers and acquisitions research. In this study, we examine three questions: (1) What drives the acquirer's choice between public and private targets? (2) Do acquisitions of private targets elicit a more positive stock market reaction than acquisitions of public targets, which, on average, destroy value for acquirers' shareholders? (3) Do acquirers gain when their selection of a public or private target fits the theory? In this paper, we argue that the lack of information on private targets limits the breadth of the acquirer's search and increases its risk of not evaluating properly the assets of private targets. At the same time, less information on private targets creates more value‐creating opportunities for exploiting private information, whereas the market of corporate control for public targets already serves as an information‐processing and asset valuation mechanism for all potential bidders. Using an event study and survey data, we find that: (1) acquirers favor private targets in familiar industries and turn to public targets to enter new business domains or industries with a high level of intangible assets; (2) acquirers of private targets perform better than acquirers of public targets on merger announcement, after controlling for endogeneity bias; (3) acquirers of private firms perform better than if they had acquired a public firm, and acquirers of public firms perform better than if they had acquired a private firm. These results support the expectation that acquirer returns from their target choice (private/public) are not universal but depend on the acquirer's type of search and on the merging firms' attributes. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error
Heckman, J. J. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1912352 · Cited by 28,779
The Market for "Lemons": Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism
Akerlof, G. A. (1970) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/1879431 · Cited by 23,016
Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method.
Babbie, E., & Dillman, D. A. (1982) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2068433 · Cited by 6,852
Strategic Factor Markets: Expectations, Luck, and Business Strategy
Barney, J. B. (1986) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.32.10.1231 · Cited by 5,548
Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method.
Osmond, M. W., & Dillman, D. A. (1979) · Social Forces · doi:10.2307/2577403 · Cited by 5,023
How do family ownership, control and management affect firm value?
Villalonga, B., & Amit, R. (2006) · Journal of Financial Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jfineco.2004.12.005 · Cited by 4,185
New Evidence and Perspectives on Mergers
Andrade, G., Mitchell, M., & Stafford, E. (2001) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.15.2.103 · Cited by 2,798
Interorganizational Endorsements and the Performance of Entrepreneurial Ventures
Stuart, T. E., Hoang, H., & Hybels, R. C. (1999) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2666998 · Cited by 2,751
Firm size and the gains from acquisitions
Moeller, S. B., Schlingemann, F. P., & Stulz, R. M. (2004) · Journal of Financial Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jfineco.2003.07.002 · Cited by 2,322
EVENT STUDIES IN MANAGEMENT RESEARCH: THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL ISSUES.
McWILLIAMS, A., & SIEGEL, D. (1997) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/257056 · Cited by 1,940
Cited by
Gubbi, S. R., Aulakh, P. S., Ray, S., Sarkar, M. B., & Chittoor, R. (2010) · Journal of International Business Studies · doi:10.1057/jibs.2009.47 · Cited by 607
Adegbesan, J. A. (2009) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2009.40632465 · Cited by 257
Metadata
- Authors
- Capron, L., & Shen, J.
- Venue
- Strategic Management Journal
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-04-24
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 891-911
- ISSN
- 0143-2095 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0266
- OpenAlex
- W2163226127
- Cited by
- 549
- References
- 45
- FWCI
- 52.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Acquisitions of private vs. public firms: Private information, target selection, and acquirer returns. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/smj.612
- The paper
- Capron, L., & Shen, J. (2007). Acquisitions of private vs. public firms: Private information, target selection, and acquirer returns. Strategic Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.612
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.