Abstract
Most bank merger studies do not control for hidden bailouts, which may lead to biased results. In this study we employ a unique data set of approximately 1000 mergers to analyze the determinants of bank mergers. We use undisclosed information on banks’ regulatory intervention history to distinguish between distressed and non-distressed mergers. Among merging banks, we find that improving financial profiles lower the likelihood of distressed mergers more than the likelihood of non-distressed mergers. The likelihood to acquire a bank is also reduced but less than the probability to be acquired. Both distressed and non-distressed mergers have worse camel profiles than non-merging banks. Hence, non-distressed mergers may be motivated by the desire to forestall serious future financial distress and prevent regulatory intervention.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 3200-3217 |
| Journal | Journal of Banking & Finance |
| Volume | 31 |
| Issue number | 10 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Oct 2007 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Keywords
- mergers
- bailout
- x-efficiency
- multinomial logit