Content uploaded by Michail Pazarskis
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Michail Pazarskis on Mar 29, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Andreas G. Koutoupis
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Andreas G. Koutoupis on Aug 06, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Copyright © 2022 e Author(s). Published by Vilnius Gediminas Technical University
is is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.
org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author
and source are credited.
*Corresponding author. E-mail: pazarskis@ihu.gr
Journal of Business Economics and Management
ISSN 1611-1699 / eISSN 2029-4433
2022 Volume 23 Issue 5: 1170–1193
https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2022.17697
MERGER DECISIONS, ACCOUNTING INFORMATION AND
PERFORMANCE STABILITY INSIDE AND OUTSIDE
OF ECONOMIC CRISIS PERIODS: EVIDENCE FROM GREECE
Michail PAZARSKIS1*, Nikolaos GIOVANIS2, Andreas KOUTOUPIS3,
Aikaterini CHASIOTOU4
1Department of Economics, International Hellenic University, Greece
2,4Department of Business Administration, International Hellenic University, Greece
3Department of Accounting and Finance, University of essaly, Greece
Received 05 November 2021; accepted 11 July 2022
Abstract. is study examines the merger decisions from a sample of Greek listed companies in the
economic crisis period and shortly aer its end, by employing various quantitative and qualitative
variables of mergers that signalize dierent levels of risk. e results revealed that the performance
subsequent of mergers is not signicantly dierent for the merged companies. But in comparison
to control sample of companies without mergers for the examined period, the results reveal that
merger transactions signalize a more stable protability and better performance for the companies
with mergers. Furthermore, merger events signalize dierent performance levels during and aer
the crisis: mergers that took place when there was no economic crisis are far more protable and
lead to better performance from mergers during the period of economic crisis. Last, regarding the
industry relatedness of the merged rms, the industry type and the merger combination of merged
companies, there is not any impact from them on the post-merger performance in the examined
accounting measures. e study proposes for companies that during crisis periods maybe merger
be the only way to survive and provide a stable protability and accounting performance for share-
holders.
Keywords: mergers, accounting measures, nancial ratios, performance, economic crisis, Greece.
JEL Classication: G34, M40.
Introduction
Mergers and acquisitions are undoubtedly one of the most important ways for corporate
restructuring worldwide (Hoshino, 1982; Healy etal., 1992; Golubov etal., 2013; Berrioat-
egortua etal., 2018; Grigorieva, 2020; Rodionov & Mikhalchuk, 2020). ey are a common
occurrence in several industries, geographical areas and time periods, while in some other
cases they occur with less frequency and intensity (Mueller, 1980; Jensen & Ruback, 1983;
Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2022, 23(5): 1170–1193 1171
Ramaswamy & Waegelein, 2003; Martynova & Renneboog, 2008; Harrison, 2005). eir
execution is associated with particular risks in relation to how they are implemented, due to
the chosen business strategy and the characteristics of the merger by any company that wants
to do a merger transaction (Lev & Mandelker, 1972; Amihud & Lev, 1981; Harford etal.,
2009; Furne & Rosen, 2011; Jandik & Lallemand, 2014; Harrison etal., 2014; Alhenawi &
Krishnaswami, 2015).
Merger decisions during periods of crisis are a special area of research to study, due to
the current interest it presents nowadays (Rao-Nicholson & Salaber, 2013; Rao-Nicholson
etal., 2016; Pantelidis etal., 2018; Pazarskis etal., 2021; Lois etal., 2021). e macroeconomic
environment aects directly the motives, but mainly plays an important role in the success
of mergers, in any economy worldwide (Ibrahim & Raji, 2018). Over time, there have been a
few studies that have examined the implementation of mergers in periods of economic crisis,
but still there is a certain scarcity of studies. It is therefore of particular interest to implement
a study that will investigate mergers during an economic crisis in any geographical area.
e worldwide economic crisis that began in 2008 in the United States has exacerbated
on the next years the European debt issue. Following the European crisis, certain small Eu-
ropean countries in the eurozone, particularly Greece, suered terrible consequences. e
Greek government used the “support mechanism”, which was established by the International
Monetary Fund, the European Union, and the European Central Bank, in 2009 (Pantelidis
etal., 2018; Pazarskis etal., 2021). e existence of the IMF within the Eurozone, on the other
hand, is a rst and provides unique challenges for all parties involved in this past transaction.
In fact, this is the rst time in the IMF’s history that the majority of its funds have been sent
to a single country, an EU member state: Greece. As a result, it is evident that examining the
eects of the economic crisis on merger decisions in developed countries and EU members
in the Eurozone that accept the provision of a “support mechanism” is extremely fascinating.
As a result, Greek businesses of all sizes and industries were confronted with a slew of
dicult nancial issues and tried to employ every strategic solution to their problems (any
potential form of corporate restructuring, including considering merger’s option). us, this
study examines empirically the implementation of mergers by companies in Greece during
the recent economic crisis in this country and aer the recession of economic crisis. More
specically, the business performance of all listed companies in the Athens Stock Exchange
that made mergers for a recent period of ve years (2014–2018) is investigated by analyzing
the accounting measures and compared before and aer the merger. In addition, sub-samples
are created to examine the particular merger characteristics that are assessed with dierent
aspects of managerial past decisions, and compared with the relevant literature. Also, merg-
ers are evaluated periodically based on the time period in which they took place: during the
crisis, aer its end or without the existence of the economic crisis.
e contribution of the work is located in three issues. First, it contributes theoretically to
the limited literature on mergers during period of crisis. Second, on a practical level, it can
be a useful guide for those companies that want to make mergers in crisis periods. Finally, it
provides a fresh look of the present situation for the Greek capital market where there are a
few studies to capture the performance stability aer mergers inside and outside of economic
crisis periods.
1172 M. Pazarskis et al. Merger decisions, accounting information and performance stability inside...
Finally, the structure of the study is as follows: the following section presents the literature
review, while the next section presents the research methodology and the examined sample
with the various quantitative and qualitative variables. en, are presented the results and in
the last section, the conclusions are stated.
1. Literature review
Mergers and acquisitions are a broad subject of research where dierent methodologies have
been applied over time and are examined from dierent angles in accounting and nance
(Jensen & Ruback, 1983; Manson etal., 1995; Netter etal., 2011; Karampatsas etal., 2014;
Lebedev etal., 2014; Triantafyllopoulos & Mpourletidis, 2014; Sun etal., 2017; Dimopoulos
& Sacchetto, 2017; Ibrahim & Raji, 2018; Tanna & Yousef, 2019; Tampakoudis & Anagnos-
topoulou, 2020; Rodionov & Mikhalchuk, 2020). However, it is generally accepted that the
ability of a researcher to express an opinion on a subject of study is a direct function of the
fact that it is certied by an existing and reliable. Consequently, the methodology followed
determines the prestige of his nal achievement that he demonstrates methodology (Chat-
terjee & Meeks, 1996; Pazarskis etal., 2014). Based on these assumptions, we can say that
over time, various methodologies have been developed to capture the protability of merger
activities, through merger studies that periodically examine a sample of companies, whether
or not there was a prot for the shareholders of the parties involved in merger (Bruner, 2002;
Meglio & Risberg, 2011; Golubov etal., 2013; Grigorieva, 2020). Depending on the size of
the sample of companies to be examined, the applied methodologies are divided into case
studies and large sample studies that aim to draw a new or more general conclusion about
the current business situation.
To begin with, the rst case (case studies or clinical studies) examines a small number
of examined companies (one or at most ve companies) with dierent general method-
ologies (nancial statements’ examination, event study, etc.), but there is the additional
possibility of more detailed knowledge and evaluation with more careful study of the par-
ticular circumstances that led to them, in addition to nancial and accounting historical
data or personal individual considerations, which may lead us to in-depth conclusions and
interpretations from those that had originally emerged, as additional considerations are
considered from a strategic and organizational point of view (Kaplan, 1989; Lys & Vincent,
1995; Ruback, 1983).
In the second case, it is considered a large number of companies examined and examined
with various general methodologies. ese ones can be summarized in three main categories:
(i) surveys of executives, (ii) event studies, (iii) accounting studies. From these, the rst two
rely more on the objective observation and examination of real data and elements, while the
third relies more on the acceptance and examination of the subjective perception of man-
agers’ human characters. Finally, all of the above could also be combined (Mueller, 1980;
Kumar, 1984; Healy etal., 1992; Golubov etal., 2013; Grigorieva, 2020). Next, these three
methods are described in details:
e methodology of surveys of executives is recommended and applied by examining
senior business executives either through interviews or through questionnaires. In this case,
Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2022, 23(5): 1170–1193 1173
the researcher must either be experienced enough to accurately diagnose the type of answers
in a structured interview conducted mainly with senior executives or to construct a question-
naire where he will receive explicit answers to the questions he asks without hesitation and
beyond doubts of any kind, because many times the questionnaires are sent only in printed
form and are not completed in the presence of their author to provide the necessary clari-
cations. en, whatever data emerges, is recorded, a statistical analysis is performed, from
which the nal results are derived (Bruner, 2002).
On the other hand, event studies employ as a methodology the assessment of the
reaction of the share price from the announcement of various corporate events, and in
our case the announcement of the merger event. In this category firstly the performance,
before and after the merger, is recorded. Then, the difference in the share prices of the
companies is evaluated based on the previously expected performance, which would have
been without the merger event. The difference between the actual and expected price
indicates the magnitude of the change in the share price, and in other words, it shows the
positive or negative outperformance resulting from the announcement of the corporate
event of the merger. Finally, since the early 1970s there has been a significant application
and use of the business case study in many studies, despite objections to its weaknesses
(Caves, 1989). The popularity of event studies that examine the effect of mergers on the
share price of companies involved in mergers has continued and is an important method
of evaluating the success of mergers (Moeller etal., 2004; Fu etal., 2013; Rao-Nicholson
& Salaber, 2013; Golubov etal., 2013; Hu etal., 2016; F. Tao etal., 2017; Young Chae
etal., 2018; Zhang etal., 2018; Tampakoudis etal., 2018; HaiYue etal., 2019; Cheng,
2019; Kyei-Mensah, 2019; Chen etal., 2020).
Last but not least, accounting studies examine mergers and their success in relation to
their impact on nancial statements (Healy etal., 1992; Chatterjee & Meeks, 1996; Ramas-
wamy & Waegelein, 2003; anos & Papadakis, 2012; Pervan etal., 2015; Rao-Nicholson
etal., 2016; Abdou etal., 2016; Cui & Chi-Moon Leung, 2020; Abdelmoneim & Abdelrahman
Fekry, 2021; Lois etal., 2021). at is, a comparison is made of the operating performance
and protability of the companies involved in mergers either with their dierent account-
ing measures or with ratios extracted from their nancial statements. More specically, this
methodology is recommended and applied by examining the recorded nancial accounting
data and analyzes the balance sheets, accounting measures, nancial ratios, etc. of the ab-
sorbing companies before and aer a merger transaction, in order to investigate the change
in their operating performance and protability. What this methodology usually studies are
changes in net income, in return on equity, return on investment, earnings per share, the
degree of use of loans or debt and liquidity (Healy etal., 1992; Yeh & Hoshino, 2002; Ra-
maswamy & Waegelein, 2003; Pantelidis etal., 2018; Lois et al., 2021). e examination of
the data can be done either by recording and comparing the actual data with a comparison
of the industry mean (to which the company belongs) or the most important company in
the industry, etc. (Bruner, 2002; Sharma & Ho, 2002). Finally, any comparison of data can be
done by comparing two samples of companies, companies that made mergers and companies
that did not merge, to draw useful conclusions (Mueller, 1985; Ravenscra & Scherer, 1987;
Dickerson etal., 1997).
1174 M. Pazarskis et al. Merger decisions, accounting information and performance stability inside...
Regarding the advantages and disadvantages for accounting studies, as their advantages
are the reliability they present, as the various nancial statements have been audited and
certied in terms of their content, and the clear wording of business performance and the
course that emerges from them and that is of particular interest to investors (Mueller, 1980;
Pazarskis etal., 2014, 2021). eir weaknesses include the possibility of incomparable data
over time, as companies may change their recording methods or dierent government tax
practices or dierent data apply across countries, the fact that oen not included in the nan-
cial statements or value of various intangible assets by the company that creates it over time
(goodwill), also the fact that they are aected by the existence of mainly high ination and
nally the possibility of illegal alteration of nancial statements from the executives of a com-
pany (Chatterjee & Meeks, 1996; Bruner, 2002; Bhabra etal., 2013; Dargenidou etal., 2016).
ere have been numerous accounting studies over time. What they usually study are
changes in net income, ROE, ROA, earnings per share, etc. In general, as shown in the sample
survey below, many researchers believe that the most common outcome in terms of the value
of the investment of the shareholders of a company aer mergers or acquisitions by a com-
pany is the reduction of value of their investment (Utton, 1974; Meeks, 1977; Kumar, 1984;
Mueller, 1985; Kusewitt, 1985; Dickerson etal., 1997). Also, in smaller percentages, other
researchers believe that either the mergers increase the value of the shareholders’ investment
(Cosh etal., 1980; Chatterjee & Meeks, 1996) or it remains unchanged (Healy etal., 1997).
Next, several inuential studies are presented for the US and UK market.
For the United States (US) capital market, Mueller (1980) studied 287 mergers in the
US during the period 1962–1972. He used the ratios ROE, ROA and ROC of the companies
involved as a comparison of pre- and post-merger period, also comparing them with those of
other companies not involved in mergers. e conclusion was that the companies involved in
the mergers were less protable than others in the same industry that did not merge. Similar
conclusions existed when the same methodology was applied to a sample of companies in
various European countries selectively (Belgium, Germany, France, Netherlands, Sweden,
UK). Also, Mueller (1985) ve years aer the above research, published another study with
a similar methodology, but with a sample of the thousand largest companies in the United
States involved in mergers (either horizontal or conglomerate) during the period 1950–1972
and a control sample of companies in the same sector for each of them. e aim of this re-
search was to study the eect from mergers on the market share of the companies involved.
Mueller (1985) claimed that due to the mergers the sample companies recorded signicant
losses in market shares where they operated, compared to the companies that were in the
control sample.
Healy etal. (1992) studied the y largest mergers in the US. eir sample concentrated
over the period 1979–1984 and Healy etal. (1992) found a signicant improvement in the
current ratio, but no increase in the net margin or net prot ratio of the companies involved.
Also, this improvement of the current ratio that Healy etal. (1992) recorded on average for
their sample, it did not come from the one quarter of the sample of the companies as their
current ratio and liquidity had deteriorated. Also, Healy etal. (1997) in another study for the
same sample and for the same period of time as the previous argued that merger-involved
companies had increased operating cash ows as a result of the combined activities of the
Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2022, 23(5): 1170–1193 1175
merging companies. However, Healy etal. (1997) supported that in no case their prot was
greater than the price paid for each merger, and thus, they claimed that any merger activities
they studied were essentially zero net present value (NPV) investment activities.
Ravenscra and Scherer (1987) investigated 471 cases of mergers in the United States for
the period 1950–1977. Ravenscra and Scherer (1987) concluded that the protability of the
companies involved in merger activities was barely above the control group levels over the
three years 1975–1977, and even in the best year 1977, it was much lower than the average
pre-merger levels. Salter and Weinhold (1979) looked at US-based acquisitions over time.
eir research found that, on average, the ROI for acquisitions was 44% below the average
for the corresponding period for all listed companies on the New York Stock Exchange, while
the corresponding ROA was below 75% respectively. Kusewitt (1985) looked at 138 cases of
US companies that had 3,500 acquisitions and mergers for ten years (1967–1976). Kusewitt
(1985) found that the ROA of the acquiring companies was signicantly reduced and there
was a negative correlation between this and the increase in the size of the acquired company.
For the United Kingdom (UK), Cosh etal. (1980) studied 290 mergers in the UK as to
their nal result during the period 1967–1969. In the selected sample Cosh etal. (1980) ex-
amined the protability with the ROE ratio in the absorbing companies in relation to a con-
trol sample of non-involved companies in mergers. e conclusion of their research was that
the protability of the merger-involved companies improved signicantly aer three years
and aer ve years, immediately aer any merger action in relation to the non-companies
involved in the mergers. Meeks (1977) studied 233 mergers in terms of their nal result dur-
ing the period 1964–1972 for the UK. In this sample it examined the return on investment
of business performance in absorbing companies. Overall and by a very large percentage,
he found that ROA deteriorated signicantly in the following years immediately aer any
merger action relative to the industry average. More specically, merger prots are declined
from -5.3% the year aer merger to –7.3% seven years post-merger.
Kumar (1984) examined 354 mergers in the UK as to their nal result during the period
1967–1974. In the selected sample, he examined the protability with the ROE index in the
absorbing companies in relation to the average of the respective sector. By and large, Kumar
(1984) found that the protability of the companies involved deteriorated signicantly af-
ter three years, immediately aer any merger action relative to the industry average. More
specically, merger prots are declined from –10% the year aer merger to –7% seven years
post-merger. Utton (1974), also for the UK market, examined 39 mergers in the period 1954-
1965 and argued that the percentage of rms with below median protability was 58% both
one and two years aer merger.
Dickerson etal. (1997) investigated for thirty years (from 1948 to 1977) in the UK market
613 companies with acquisitions or mergers. In this survey, Dickerson etal. (1997) concluded
that the ROA of the acquiring companies in the rst ve years aer the transaction was 2%
lower than the corresponding other UK companies not involved in mergers or acquisitions.
Chatterjee and Meeks (1996) also examined in the UK market 144 merger activities for the
period 1977–1990 (exactly aer the previous study’s examined period). With this research,
Chatterjee and Meeks (1996) claimed that there was not any change in the protability of
companies for the period 1977–1984. But they stated that this situation was dierent and
1176 M. Pazarskis et al. Merger decisions, accounting information and performance stability inside...
change for the merger events during the period 1985–1990 (the rest of their research period),
where it exists a signicant improvement in the protability of the companies involved of
13% to 22%, which is attributed mainly to changes in UK tax policy.
To sum up, as for the eect of the mergers and whether they are good for a company
that chooses to merge, there have been many other views than the above over time: some
researchers again consider that there is a positive result or value creation aer mergers
(Lang etal., 1989; Netter etal., 2011; Dargenidou etal., 2016; Alhenawi & Stilwell, 2017;
Gupta etal., 2021), some others claim a negative one or a decrease in business perfor-
mance, protability or additional leverage for the merged companies (Pawaskar, 2001; Yeh
& Hoshino, 2002; Harford etal., 2009; Bhabra & Huang, 2013; Jandik & Lallemand, 2014;
Harrison etal., 2014) and other researchers supports a pattern familiar to the previous
literature: no signicant change from mergers in the performance of the merger-involved
companies (Healy etal., 1992; Ghosh, 2001; Sharma & Ho, 2002; Al-Hroot, 2016; Pantelidis
etal., 2018).
2. Research design
2.1. Sample selection
e preliminary sample for the empirical component of this study is made up of all publicly
traded rms in Greece, with the reporting period spanning from 2014 to 2018. is pre-
liminary sample includes the merged companies with annual nancial statements during the
economic crisis in Greece, aer the turmoil of the economic crisis and up to its end, as well
as the new era, which follows the end of the economic crisis. Furthermore, the companies
that merged more than once in the preceding and subsequent years, or were in the process of
bankruptcy were excluded from the analysis, as they could not provide a full set of account-
ing information (Sharma & Ho, 2002; Pantelidis et al., 2018; Lois etal., 2021). Also, were
omitted from the sample some companies that are in highly regulated sectors such as rms
that predominantly involved in nancial activities (for example, banks) or public utilities
(Hoshino, 1982; Sharma & Ho, 2002; Netter etal., 2011; Pazarskis etal., 2014; Alhenawi &
Stilwell, 2017; Brahma etal., 2018). As a result, the survey’s nal sample consists of forty-one
companies listed on the Athens Exchange that merged with other listed or unlisted compa-
nies between 2014 and 2018.
is sample size is enough satisfactory compared to past research on mergers done in
substantially bigger capital markets such as in the United States (Healy etal., 1992: n = 50;
Clark & Ofek, 1994: n = 38), the United Kingdom (Utton, 1974: n = 39; Manson etal., 1995:
n = 38), Japan (Hoshino, 1982: n = 15), India (Pawaskar, 2001: n = 36), Australia (Sharma &
Ho, 2002: n = 36), or in six countries at the ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations)
region (Rao-Nicholson etal., 2016: n = 57), where n is the examined number of companies
that constitutes the sample in each study. e survey sample rms’ accounting information
was hand collected from the Athens Exchange website, as well as from publicly available
nancial statements and annual reports on the internet. e percentage rate and number of
mergers by year is tabulated in Table 1.
Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2022, 23(5): 1170–1193 1177
Table 1. Number and percent of mergers by year
Year of the merger event Number of mergers (n)Percentage per year (%)
2014 7 17.07%
2015 10 24.39%
2016 9 21.95%
2017 9 21.95%
2018 6 14.64%
Total 41 100.00%
2.2. Qualitative variables (merger characteristics)
In order to evaluate the risk level in mergers from several business characteristics, the study
introduces in this examination three qualitative variables as risk factors and one specic
variable for the examined time period as risk factor, inside and outside of economic crisis
periods (Lev & Mandelker, 1972; Amihud & Lev, 1981; Furne & Rosen, 2011). More speci-
cally, we examine the industry type, the merger combination of merged companies and the
industry relatedness in order to nd if there is a better performance according some business
past decisions (Lewellen, 1971; Amihud & Lev, 1981; Tanna & Yousef, 2019). For example,
regarding the industry relatedness of the merged rms for conglomerate mergers and non-
conglomerate mergers (thus, horizontal or vertical merger), Ramaswamy & Waegelein (2003)
supported with their study that the positive results which are highly related or unrelated to
the industry are unclear. A non-conglomerate merger expected to have greater synergy, better
overlap and market risk reduction. But conglomerate mergers may lead to risk diversication
and higher prots.
e qualitative variables of the study with their analysis are listed below in Table 2:
– the industry type of the absording rm: 1 = trade, 2 = industry, 3 = tourism and ser-
vices, 4 = construction;
– the merger combination: 1 = horizontal merger, 2 = vertical merger, 3 = concentric or
congeneric merger, 4 = conglomerate merger;
– the industry relatedness of the merged rms: 1 = conglomerate merger, 2 = non-con-
glomerate merger;
– the relation of merger deal to the period of the economic crisis: 1 = years 2014 to 2015
(in the middle of the economic crisis), 2 = year 2016 (aer the turmoil of the econom-
ic crisis), 3 = years 2017 to 2018 (new era, following the end of the economic crisis).
Based on the examined data, the following qualitative data were obtained from the
sample:
– 19.51% of the companies belong to the trade sector, 31.71% are industrial companies,
21.95% are tourism companies or companies in the services sector and 26.83% belong
to the construction sector;
– from the forty-one companies that are the sample of the survey 29.27% made a hori-
zontal merger, 26.83% a vertical merger, 21.95% a concentric merger and 21.95% a
conglomerate merger;
1178 M. Pazarskis et al. Merger decisions, accounting information and performance stability inside...
– 60.98% show industry relatedness of the merged rms, while 39.02% made unrelated
or conglomerate mergers;
– last, many mergers took place during the period of economic crisis (41.46%), while
21.95% took place at the end of it and 36.59% took place in a period when there was
no economic crisis.
Table 2. Summary of qualitative variables of the sample rms
Qualitative variables 1%2%3%4%
Industry Type 8 19.51% 13 31.71% 9 21.95% 11 26.83%
Merger combination 12 29.27% 11 26.83% 9 21.95% 9 21.95%
Industry relatedness 25 60.98% 16 39.02% – – – –
Period of the
economic crisis 17 41.46% 9 21.95% 15 36.59% – –
More analytically, regarding the morphology of mergers and time period of the research
sample (considering the impact of the economic crisis from the beginning to its end), at the
rst examined period (years 2014 to 2015 that are in the middle of the economic crisis) are
observed the following. For the industry type, 5.88% of the companies belong to the trade
sector, 47.06% are industrial companies, 29.41% are tourism companies or companies in the
services sector and 17.65% belong to the construction sector. Considering the merger combi-
nation on the sample of the survey 35.29% made a horizontal merger, 35.29% a vertical merg-
er, 17.65% a concentric merger and 11.77% a conglomerate merger. 70.59% of the merged
rms show vast industry relatedness, while 29.41% made unrelated or conglomerate mergers.
At the second time-frame period (year 2016, aer the turmoil of the economic crisis),
the industry type that are evaluated in the sample are: 33.33% of the companies belong to
the trade sector, 33.33% are industrial companies, 22.23% are tourism companies or compa-
nies in the services sector and 11.11% belong to the construction sector. Also, at the second
time period 11.11% of the companies made a horizontal merger, 11.11% a vertical merger,
44.45% a concentric merger and 33.33% a conglomerate merger. Industry relatedness is di-
vided in two almost similar subsamples of companies: 44.45% show industry relatedness of
the merged rms, while 55.55% made unrelated or conglomerate mergers.
In the last period of the research sample (years 2017 to 2018, new era following the end
of the economic crisis), the majority of sample companies for the industry type fall in the
construction sector (46.67%), while 26.67% of the companies belong to the trade sector,
13.33% are industrial companies, 13.33% are tourism companies or companies in the services
sector. As for the merger combination of the sample companies, 33.33% made a horizontal
merger, 26.67% a vertical merger, 13.33% a concentric merger and 26.67% a conglomerate
merger. Regarding industry relatedness, 60% of the companies in this period show high in-
dustry relatedness of the merged rms, while 40% made unrelated or conglomerate mergers.
Last, analytical presentation of the qualitative variables of the study is following in the
table at the Appendix with the number of rms per year according to the period of the eco-
nomic crisis, the industry type, the merger combination and the industry relatedness.
Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2022, 23(5): 1170–1193 1179
2.3. Quantitative variables (accounting measures and ratios)
Quantitative variables of the study are several basic accounting measures and ratios ex-
tracted from financial statements of the sample firms (Utton, 1974; Ravenscraft & Scher-
er, 1987; Healy etal., 1992; Chatterjee & Meeks, 1996; Pawaskar, 2001; Yeh & Hoshino,
2002; Ramaswamy & Waegelein, 2003; Harrison etal., 2014; Abdou etal., 2016; Q. Tao
etal., 2017; Pantelidis etal., 2018; Aggarwal & Garg, 2019; Abdelmoneim & Abdelrah-
man Fekry, 2021). More specifically, accounting measures are: total assets; shareholders
funds; total liabilities; sales; net income. The employed ratios are the following: return
on equity (ROE); return on assets (ROA); profit margin; total liabilities to sales ratio;
debt ratio; equity to debt ratio; solvency ratio; asset turnover ratio, which the majority
of them have been extensively applied in many past studies (Salter & Weinhold, 1979;
Cosh etal., 1980; Mueller, 1980; Kumar, 1984; Healy etal., 1992; Sharma & Ho, 2002;
Thanos & Papadakis, 2012; Rao-Nicholson etal., 2016). All these accounting information
is presented with their definitions and calculations in Table 3.
Table 3. Classication of accounting measures and ratios (quantitative variables)
Variables Accounting Measures / Ratios Calculations
ACCM01 Total assets Total assets
ACCM02 Shareholders funds Shareholders funds
ACCM03 Total liabilities Total liabilities
ACCM04 Sales Sales
ACCM05 Net Income Net Income
RATIO01 Return on equity (ROE) Net Income / Shareholders funds
RATIO02 Return on assets (ROA) Net Income/ Total assets
RATIO03 Prot Margin Net Income / Sales
RATIO04 Total liabilities to sales ratio Total liabilities / Sales
RATIO05 Debt ratio Total liabilities / Total assets
RATIO06 Equity to debt ratio Shareholders funds / Total liabilities
RATIO07 Solvency ratio Shareholder funds / Total assets
RATIO08 Asset turnover ratio Sales / Total assets
2.4. Methodology
e study analyzes the performance of the sample rms that were absorbing companies in
mergers for one year before and aer the merger using numerous ratios-accounting mea-
sures. ese measures show how the rm is doing regarding various parts of business per-
formance, such as protability, liquidity, capital structure (Lev & Mandelker, 1972; Salter &
Weinhold, 1979; Mueller, 1980; Chatterjee & Meeks, 1996; Abdou etal., 2016; Rao-Nicholson
et al., 2016; Q. Tao etal., 2017; Pazarskis etal., 2021). e mean from the sum of each
quantitative variable is computed and further compared with t-tests in dierent subsamples
of pre- and post-merger period. e mean of a data set is widely adopted in the relevant
1180 M. Pazarskis et al. Merger decisions, accounting information and performance stability inside...
literature of depicturing the impact from mergers and acquisitions (Al-Hroot, 2016; Pante-
lidis etal., 2018; Aggarwal & Garg, 2019; Gupta etal., 2021; Lois etal., 2021). However,
in order to avoid mean’s various limitations and verify the received results from mean’s
analysis, the study computes the median too from the sum of each accounting measures
and financial ratio and employs a non-parametric test, Mann-Whitney test, for median
comparisons (Mueller, 1980; Cosh etal., 1980; Sharma & Ho, 2002). The study applies
the Healy etal. (1992), Sharma and Ho (2002), and Ramaswamy and Waegelein (2003)
methodologies to determine if a merger is advantageous. Furthermore, the performance
of the sample firms is compared for the same period with the relevant performance of
a control sample of firms with no merger events, which were created according their
industry type, profitability and capital structure. For unequal variances, we also utilize
two independent mean t-tests from samples’ comparisons.
Then we examine the relationship between changes in the acquirer’s accounting per-
formance following mergers. This is done based on the selected four merger character-
istics as evaluated risk factors (the period of the economic crisis, the industry type, the
merger combination and the industry relatedness) by applying a modified methodology
of Francis and Martin (2010), Hummel and Amiryany (2015) and Rao-Nicholson etal.
(2016). Thus, for the variables ACCM01 to ACCM05 and RATIO01 to RATIO08, the
change from merger in accounting performance is calculated as the change from the
value after the merger minus the value before the merger (for example, ∆ACCM01 =
ACCM01post– ACCM01pre). Following that, we classify these merger characteristics into
two or more sub-categories based on their various merger risks. Because the data sample
does not have a normal distribution, the study applies the Kruskal-Wallis test for each of
the examined risk factors, which does not need the data to be normal and instead utilizes
the rank of the data values (Pazarskis etal., 2014; Pantelidis etal., 2018; Lois etal., 2021).
3. Results
3.1. Results for research sample and control sample
Initially, the performance of the companies of the sample has been compared with those of
the control sample for the post-merger period, using the mean with t-tests (see Table 4a).
In the thirteen accounting measures (variables ACCM01 to ACCM05 and RATIO01 to RA-
TIO08) examined, statistically signicant changes are observed in four nancial ratios-varia-
bles: RATIO01, RATIO02, RATIO05, RATIO07. e variable RATIO01, which calculates the
return on equity– ROE (net income to shareholders funds), is improved for the companies
that made mergers for the examined period, while the companies that did not make merg-
ers show a negative result (p < 0.1). e variable RATIO02, which calculates the return on
assets– ROA (net income to total assets), is improved for the companies that made mergers
and show prots, while the companies that did not make mergers show losses (p < 0.01).
e variable RATIO05, which calculates the debt ratio (total liabilities to total assets), seems
to be better for the companies that made mergers and show lower borrowing than the total
capital, while the companies that did not make mergers show higher borrowing based on
Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2022, 23(5): 1170–1193 1181
capital employed (p < 0.05). Finally, the variable RATIO07, which calculates the solvency
ratio (shareholders funds to total assets), seems to be improved for the companies that made
mergers and show an increase in equity in relation to the total funds, while the companies
that did not make mergers show decrease in equity in proportion to total employed capital
(p < 0.05). Similar results are received by employing the median for the comparisons with
Mann-Whitney tests (see Table 4b).
ese results of the study are similar to some past studies. Cosh etal. (1980) concluded
that the protability of the merger-involved companies improved signicantly aer three
years and aer ve years, immediately aer any merger action in relation to the non-com-
panies involved in merger deals.
Also, these results are dierent to some other past studies that found a deterioration of the
sample companies’ performance to this one from the control sample companies. Dickerson
etal. (1997) concluded that the ROA of the acquiring companies in the rst ve years aer
the transaction was 2% lower than the corresponding other UK companies not involved in
mergers or acquisitions. Meeks (1977) found that ROA deteriorated signicantly in the fol-
lowing years immediately aer any merger action relative to the industry average. Mueller
(1980) concluded that the companies involved in mergers were less protable than others
in the same industry that did not merge. Kumar (1984) found that the protability of the
companies involved deteriorated signicantly aer three years, immediately aer any merger
action relative to the industry average.
Table 4a. Comparison results (with mean) of merged and non-merged rms (sample and control
sample)
Variab l e Mean
Merged
Mean
Non-Merged t-value p-value 95% CI
ACCM01 839 882 –0.14 0.886 (–629; 545)
ACCM02 322 330 –0.07 0.947 (–250; 234)
ACCM03 518 552 –0.18 0.858 (–414; 345)
ACCM04 502 455 0.28 0.783 (–295; 390)
ACCM05 10.1 4.5 0.54 0.590 (–14.8; 25.9)
RATIO01 0.025 –0.245 1.76 0.085* (–0.039; 0.580)
RATIO02 0.0165 –0.0249 3.09 0.003*** (0.0147; 0.0682)
RATIO03 0.037 –0.21 1.41 0.167 (–0.105; 0.591)
RATIO04 1.37 2.47 –0.96 0.341 (–3.41; 1.21)
RATIO05 0.598 0.736 –2.07 0.042** (–0.2714;
–0.0054)
RATIO06 1.15 0.697 1.44 0.154 (–0.174; 1.076)
RATIO07 0.402 0.264 2.07 0.042** (0.0054; 0.2714)
RATIO08 0.619 0.603 0.26 0.797 (–0.1073; 0.1394)
Notes: 1. e amounts of variables ACCM01-ACCM05 are in millions of euros.
2. ***, **, * indicate rejection of the null hypothesis at a signicance level of 0.01, 0.05, 0.1, respectively.
1182 M. Pazarskis et al. Merger decisions, accounting information and performance stability inside...
Table 4b. Comparison results (with median) of merged and non-merged rms (sample and control
sample)
Variab l e Median
Merged
Median
Non-Merged p-value 95% CI
ACCM01 301.0 207.0 0.799 (–96.9; 151.0)
ACCM02 99.0 39.0 0.196 (–16.9; 84.9)
ACCM03 186.0 179.0 0.707 (–129.9; 77.1)
ACCM04 108.0 113.0 0.882 (–82.0; 56.9)
ACCM05 1.00 –0.23 0.107 (–0.57; 11.55)
RATIO01 0.0435 0.0206 0.041** (0.0016; 0.1104)
RATIO02 0.0194 –0.0025 0.005*** (0.0065; 0.0466)
RATIO03 0.0226 –0.0050 0.010*** (0.0079; 0.0969)
RATIO04 1.1667 1.2340 0.455 (–0.4486; 0.1768)
RATIO05 0.5769 0.7577 0.055* (–0.2338; 0.0031)
RATIO06 0,7333 0.3197 0.055* (–0.0049; 0.5284)
RATIO07 0.4231 0.2423 0.055* (–0.0031; 0.2338)
RATIO08 0.6169 0.5556 0.799 (–0.0937; 0.1476)
Notes: 1. e amounts of variables ACCM01-ACCM05 are in millions of euros.
2. ***, **, * indicate rejection of the null hypothesis at a signicance level of 0.01, 0.05, 0.1, respectively.
Next, the performance of the sample companies is analysed (see, next table), comparing
their pre-merger performance with that aer the merger event, employing the mean with
t-tests (see Table 5a). By examining all the thirteen accounting measures (variables ACCM01
to ACCM05 and RATIO01 to RATIO08), the study does not nd any statistically signicant
changes over these. As the rst results support statistically signicant changes of the sample
companies in comparison to control sample, it was expected to reveal a better accounting
performance for the companies with mergers. However, this signalize that in crisis period or
shortly aer crisis maybe merger be the only way to survive and provide a stable protability
and accounting performance for shareholders. is can be easily explained by the fact that
in times of crisis there is no room for wrong decisions.
e results of this study support that the performance subsequent of mergers is not sig-
nicantly dierent for the merged companies and is similar with other past studies (Cosh
etal., 1980; Chatterjee & Meeks, 1996; Healy etal., 1992; Ghosh, 2001; Sharma & Ho, 2002;
Al-Hroot, 2016; Pantelidis etal., 2018). In addition, these results are in contrast with several
other past studies that found an improvement or value creation aer mergers (Utton, 1974;
Meeks, 1977; Kumar, 1984; Mueller, 1985; Lang etal., 1989; Netter etal., 2011; Dargenidou
etal., 2016; Alhenawi & Stilwell, 2017; Gupta etal., 2021) or a decrease in business per-
formance, protability or additional leverage for the merged companies (Dickerson etal.,
1997; Pawaskar, 2001; Yeh & Hoshino, 2002; Harford et al., 2009; Bhabra & Huang, 2013;
Jandik & Lallemand, 2014; Harrison etal., 2014). Furthermore, almost the same results are
received using the median for the comparisons with Mann-Whitney tests (as are tabulated
in Table 5b).
Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2022, 23(5): 1170–1193 1183
Table 5a. Comparison results (with mean) of mergers with pre- and post-analysis of the sample rms
Variab l e Mean
Pre-Merger
Mean
Post-Merger t-value p-value 95% CI
ACCM01 810 839 0.09 0.926 (–604; 663)
ACCM02 299 322 0.19 0.850 (–211; 256)
ACCM03 510 518 0.03 0.972 (–410; 425)
ACCM04 481 502 0.11 0.915 (–373; 416)
ACCM05 –3.3 10.1 1.39 0.167 (–5.71; 32.38)
RATIO01 0.014 0.025 0.26 0.797 (–0.0771; 0.10)
RATIO02 0.0011 0.0165 1.49 0.139 (–0.0051; 0.0359)
RATIO03 –0.011 0.037 1.33 0.187 (–0.0234; 0.1181)
RATIO04 1.28 1.37 0.39 0.700 (–0.384; 0.570)
RATIO05 0.594 0.598 0.07 0.943 (–0.1044; 0.1123)
RATIO06 1.17 1.15 –0.06 0.954 (–0.774; 0.731)
RATIO07 0.406 0.402 –0.07 0.943 (–0.1123; 0.1044)
RATIO08 0.629 0.619 –0.15 0.880 (–0.1429; 0.1227)
Notes: 1. e amounts of variables ACCM01-ACCM05 are in millions of euros.
2. ***, **, * indicate rejection of the null hypothesis at a signicance level of 0.01, 0.05, 0.1, respectively.
Table 5b. Comparison results (with median) of mergers with pre- and post-analysis of the sample rms
Variab l e Median
Pre-Merger
Median
Post-Merger p-value 95% CI
ACCM01 219.0 301.0 0.846 (–102.1; 169.1)
ACCM02 90.0 99.0 0.799 (–39.9; 59.8)
ACCM03 148.0 186.0 0.886 (–69.0; 103.0)
ACCM04 109.0 108.0 0.937 (–50.9; 59.9)
ACCM05 0.29 1.00 0.157 (–1.07; 11.01)
RATIO01 0.0203 0.0435 0.266 (–0.0198; 0.0727)
RATIO02 0.0032 0.0194 0.074* (–0.0011; 0.0317)
RATIO03 0.0035 0.0226 0.127 (–0.0080; 0.0646)
RATIO04 1.0238 1.1667 0.806 (–0.2560; 0.3169)
RATIO05 0.5806 0.5769 0.967 (–0.1047; 0.1084)
RATIO06 0.7222 0.7333 0.967 (–0.3181; 0.2760)
RATIO07 0.4194 0.4231 0.967 (–0.1084; 0.1047)
RATIO08 0.5641 0.6169 0.867 (–0.1510; 0.1229)
Notes: 1. e amounts of variables ACCM01-ACCM05 are in millions of euros.
2. ***, **, * indicate rejection of the null hypothesis at a signicance level of 0.01, 0.05, 0.1, respectively.
1184 M. Pazarskis et al. Merger decisions, accounting information and performance stability inside...
3.2. Results for dierent merger characteristics
Examining the dierence in performance (pre- and post-merger) of the sample companies
for the industry type (trade, industry, tourism and services, construction) or the period of the
economic crisis (years 2014 to 2015, in the middle of the economic crisis; year 2016, aer the
turmoil of the economic crisis; years 2017 to 2018, new era following the end of the economic
crisis) for the merged companies, Table 6 presents the results of this study.
By comparing all the thirteen accounting measures (variables ΔACCM01 to ΔACCM05
and ΔRATIO01 to ΔRATIO08), the study does not nd any statistically signicant changes
for the dierence of performance in the industry type (by comparison of pre- and post-merg-
er accounting data). However, this signalize that in crisis period maybe merger have not
any negative impact at none industry type (business sector) and lead merged companies to
survive in crisis periods, with a stable accounting performance. In contrary, Al-Hroot (2016)
claims that each sector which is examined for mergers events could be inuenced dierently
by mergers. Also, Rao-Nicholson etal. (2016) contend that the accounting performance of
the acquiring rms in the post-merger period is aected by industry type and claim dier-
ences for ASEAN countries.
Furthermore, in the examined accounting measures and regarding the period of the
economic crisis, statistically signicant changes are observed in four accounting variables:
ΔACCM03, ΔRATIO05, ΔRATIO06, ΔRATIO07. e variable ΔACCM03, which calculates
the dierence in total liabilities (pre- and post-merger), is improved very much for the com-
panies that made mergers aer the end of economic crisis and fewer in the new era follow-
ing the end of the economic crisis (p < 0.1). e variable ΔRATIO05, which calculates the
dierence in debt ratio (total liabilities to total assets), seems to be better for the companies
that made mergers especially in years 2017 to 2018, aer the crisis (p < 0.05). e variable
ΔRATIO06 which calculates the dierence in equity to debt ratio (shareholders funds to total
liabilities) is improved for the companies with mergers during the years aer the economic
crisis (p < 0.1). Finally, the variable ΔRATIO07 which calculates the dierence in solvency
ratio (shareholders funds to total assets) seems to be improved for the merged companies
once again in the period aer the crisis period (p < 0.05). However, these results are in con-
trast with some past studies as Rao-Nicholson etal. (2016), which claimed that mergers were
related to better performance during the economic crisis period and not out of economic
crisis periods.
Table 6. Results from industry type and merger period
ΔVariable
Industry type Period of the economic crisis
trade industry tourism &
services const ruction 1rst
period
2nd
period
3rd
period
ΔACCM01 11.50 0.00 0.00 2.90 0.00 9.00 21.00
ΔACCM02 6.50 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00
ΔACCM03 1.50 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00* 7.00* 1.00*
ΔACCM04 7.00 1.00 5.00 4.00 1.00 5.00 4.00
Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2022, 23(5): 1170–1193 1185
ΔVariable
Industry type Period of the economic crisis
trade industry tourism &
services const ruction 1rst
period
2nd
period
3rd
period
ΔACCM05 4.815 3.00 1.28 6.30 4.00 8.320 3.00
ΔRATIO01 0.0101 0.0011 0.0307 0.0418 0.020 0.0132 0.0328
ΔRATIO02 0.0184 0.00686 0.00687 0.0177 0.00686 0.01606 0.01034
ΔRATIO03 0.02092 0.01031 0.02702 0.05279 0.0180 0.02746 0.05279
ΔRATIO04 0.05789 –0.0433 –0.05369 0.08374 –0.05369 0.07174 0.08696
ΔRATIO05 0.01223 0.0001 0.00439 0.02149 0.000** 0.0372** –0.0044**
ΔRATIO06 0.00901 0.0001 –0.0133 –0.04775 0.000* –0.1426* 0.00757*
ΔRATIO07 –0.01223 0.0001 –0.00439 –0.02148 0.000** –0.037** 0.00438**
ΔRATIO08 –0.01897 0.02778 0.01355 –0.03174 0.01395 0.00174 –0.04202
Notes: 1. e amounts of variables ΔACCM01-ΔACCM05 are in millions of euros.
2. ***, **, * indicate rejection of the null hypothesis at a signicance level of 0.01, 0.05, 0.1, respectively.
Regarding the performance of the sample companies for the merger combination (hori-
zontal merger, vertical merger, concentric or congeneric merger, conglomerate merger) or
the industry relatedness (conglomerate merger, non-conglomerate merger) for the merged
companies, Table 7 presents the results of this study. By comparing all the thirteen account-
ing measures (variables ACCM01 to ACCM05 and RATIO01 to RATIO08), the study does
End of Table 6
Table 7. Results from merger combination and industry relatedness
ΔVariable
Merger combination Industry relatedness
hori zontal vertical concentric conglo merate conglomerate non-
conglomerate
ΔACCM01 13.50 2.00 –3.00 1.00 6.00 –1.00
ΔACCM02 0.000 4.00 0.000 0.000 1.00 0.000
ΔACCM03 5.50 2.00 –1.00 1.00 3.00 –0.50
ΔACCM04 1.50 5.00 12.00 –2.00 2.00 6.50
ΔACCM05 3.815 7.00 0.320 1.140 5.00 0.835
ΔRATIO01 0.03398 0.03074 –0.0042 0.02 0.0322 0.00633
ΔRATIO02 0.00964 0.018 0.00628 0.0068 0.0126 0.00657
ΔRATIO03 0.03688 0.03708 0.01126 0.0103 0.0371 0.01079
ΔRATIO04 0.12694 –0.005 –0.0732 0.07174 0.0717 –0.055
ΔRATIO05 0.01074 –0.00438 –0.00369 0.01209 0.000 0.00436
ΔRATIO06 –0.02387 0.0125 0.0046 –0.05548 0.000 –0.00917
ΔRATIO07 –0.01074 0.00438 0.00369 –0.01209 0.000 –0.00436
ΔRATIO08 –0.01897 0.00312 0.03852 –0.05317 0.000 0.02603
Notes: 1. e amounts of variables ΔACCM01-ΔACCM05 are in millions of euros.
2. ***, **, * indicate rejection of the null hypothesis at a signicance level of 0.01, 0.05, 0.1, respectively.
1186 M. Pazarskis et al. Merger decisions, accounting information and performance stability inside...
not nd any statistically signicant changes over these variables. However, this signalize that
in crisis period maybe merger with all their dierent characteristics can lead companies to
survive and provide a stable business performance.
e results of this study support that the performance subsequent of mergers is not sig-
nicantly dierent from the merger combination or the industry relatedness for the merged
companies and is similar with other past studies. In a past research including businesses from
multiple south-eastern Asian countries, Rao-Nicholson etal. (2016) proposed that mergers
were more gainful during the economic crisis, but there was no evidence of a link between per-
formance and the industry relatedness of the sample companies. Furthermore, these results are
in contrast with several other past studies that found positive eects for companies that carry
business restructuring through conglomerate mergers (Kusewitt, 1985; Pantelidis etal., 2018)
or some other past studies propose extended prots for non-conglomerate mergers. Alhenawi
and Krishnaswami (2015) argue that in each of the ve years following a merger, excess value
is positive for non-conglomerate mergers but negative for conglomerate mergers.
Conclusions
is study examines the merger decisions and its particular characteristics that signalize in
literature dierent levels of risk. e study investigates, from a sample of forty-one listed
companies during the Greek economic crisis, various quantitative and qualitative variables of
the merger event. e main question is whether mergers have contributed, or not, to business
protability and under which circumstances can lead to better business performance. e
study analyzes the accounting performance before and aer mergers of the sample companies
for the period 2014–2018. e data used to perform the survey were derived from the avail-
able nancial statements at the website of Athens Stock Exchange and from annual reports
published on the website of the examined companies.
e results of the study revealed that the performance subsequent of mergers is not sig-
nicantly dierent for the merged companies. In addition, our results support statistically
signicant changes of the sample companies in comparison to control sample and revealed
a stable protability and a better accounting performance for the companies with mergers.
Furthermore, merger events signalize dierent performance levels during the crisis, Mergers
that took place in the period when there was no economic crisis are more protable and lead
to better performance from the mergers in the sub-sample that took place during the period
of economic crisis, and thus the improvement has increased when we leave far from the
onslaught of crisis. But even in the beginning of crisis, there is observed also positive eects
from mergers (than in companies without mergers) and maybe merger be the only way to
survive and provide satisfying accounting performance for shareholders. Last, regarding the
industry relatedness of the merged rms (for conglomerate mergers and non-conglomerate
mergers), the industry type and the merger combination of merged companies, there is not
dierent risk levels or any impact from them on the post-merger performance in these ex-
amined accounting data.
e practical part of this study is an advisory and useful tool for companies that plan to
merger during crisis periods. In a dicult business arena as signalize any crisis period maybe
Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2022, 23(5): 1170–1193 1187
merger be the only way to survive and provide a stable protability and accounting perfor-
mance for shareholders. Even if mergers include many risks regarding any of merger charac-
teristics, such as the industry relatedness, the merger combination of merged companies, etc.,
this study proposes that mergers are a safer path to preserve protability and survive during
crisis periods. However, this study has several limitations. e sample of the study include
only Greek companies listed and, therefore, did not contain non-listed companies. In addi-
tion, the merging transactions between the Greek economic crisis are evaluated with some
specic theoretical frameworks that use a particular methodology, as described above, and
employ some quantitative variables and specic qualitative variables. Dierent methodologies
with some other variables may lead in dierent results on this topic.
For future research could be proposed to perform a similar analysis within dierent time
intervals, and included in the sample and companies not listed or from dierent countries. In
addition, in this study the merger eect is examined of one year before and aer the comple-
tion of merger event. Last, the results on the nancial statements may provide dierent eects
from mergers in the long-run, for example, in three years or ve years aer merger and may
dier from these of this study.
References
Abdelmoneim, Z., & Abdelrahman Fekry, M. (2021). Using managerial and market tools to measure
the impact of acquisition operations on rm performance. Investment Management and Financial
Innovations, 18(1), 315–334. https://doi.org/10.21511/im.18(1).2021.26
Abdou, H. A., Agbeyo, O. O., Jones, K., & Sorour, K. (2016). e impact of M&A on the Nigerian
nancial market: A pre-post analysis. Investment Management and Financial Innovations, 13(1–1),
138–150. https://doi.org/10.21511/im.13(1-1).2016.01
Aggarwal, P., & Garg, S. (2019). Impact of mergers and acquisitions on accounting-based performance
of acquiring rms in India. Global Business Review, 20(1), 1–19.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150919852009
Alhenawi, Y., & Krishnaswami, S. (2015). Long-term impact of merger synergies on performance and
value. Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 58(1), 93–118.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.qref.2015.01.006
Alhenawi, Y., & Stilwell, M. (2017). Value creation and the probability of success in merger and acqui-
sition transactions. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 49(1), 1041–1085.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11156-017-0616-2
Al-Hroot, Y. (2016). e impact of mergers on nancial performance of the Jordanian industrial sec-
tor. International Journal of Management and Business Studies, 6(1), 9–13. http://www.ijmbs.com/
Vol6/1/1-dr-yusuf-ali-khalaf-al-hroot.pdf
Amihud, Y., & Lev, B. (1981). Risk reduction as a managerial motive for conglomerate mergers. Bell
Journal of Economics, 12(2), 605–617. https://doi.org/10.2307/3003575
Bhabra, H. S., & Huang, J. (2013). An empirical investigation of mergers and acquisitions by Chinese
listed rms, 1997–2007. Journal of Multinational Financial Management, 23(3), 186–207.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.muln.2013.03.002
Berrioategortua, J., Olasagasti, O., & Florencio, B. (2018). Does company performance improve aer
M&A? A literature review. In S. Finkelstein & C. Cooper (Eds.), Advances in mergers and acquisi-
tions (vol.17, pp. 31–51). Emerald Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-361X20180000017002
1188 M. Pazarskis et al. Merger decisions, accounting information and performance stability inside...
Brahma, S.,Boateng, A., & Ahmad, S.(2018). Motives of mergers and acquisitions in the European
public utilities: An empirical investigation of the wealth-anomaly. International Journal of Public
Sector Management, 31(5), 599–616. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-01-2017-0024
Bruner, R. (2002). Does M&A pay? A survey of evidence for the decision-maker. Journal of Applied
Finance, 12(1), 48–68.
Caves, R. (1989). Mergers, takeovers, and economic eciency; Foresight vs. hindsight. International
Journal of Industrial Organization, 7(1), 151–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-7187(89)90051-9
Chatterjee, S., & Meeks, G. (1996). e nancial eects of takeover: Accounting rates of return and
accounting regulation. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 23(5–6), 851–868.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5957.1996.tb01155.x
Chen, A.-S., Chu, H-H., Hung, P.-H., & Cheng, M.-S. (2020). Financial risk and acquirers’ stockholder
wealth in mergers and acquisitions. North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 54, 100815.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.najef.2018.07.016
Cheng, Y. (2019). Empirical research on mergers’ leverage dynamics and post-merger integration dura-
tion.Managerial Finance, 45(10/11), 1488–1507. https://doi.org/10.1108/MF-05-2018-0196
Clark, K., & Ofek, E. (1994). Mergers as a means of restructuring distressed rms: An empirical inves-
tigation. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 29(4), 541–565.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2331109
Cosh, A., Hughes, A., & Singh, A. (1980). e causes and eects of takeovers in the U.K.: An empirical
investigation for the late 1960s at the microeconomic level. In D. Mueller (Ed.), e determinants
and eects of merger: An international comparison (pp. 227–270). Gunn and Horn Publications.
Cui, H., & Chi-Moon Leung, S. (2020). e long-run performance of acquiring rms in mergers and
acquisitions: Does managerial ability matter? Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics,
16, 100185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcae.2020.100185
Dargenidou, C., Gregory, A., & Hua, S. (2016). How far does nancial reporting allow us to judge
whether M&A activity is successful? Accounting and Business Research, 46(5), 467–499.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2016.1182702
Dickerson, A., Gibson, H., & Tsakalotos, E. (1997). e impact of acquisitions on company perfor-
mance: evidence from a large panel of U.K. rms, Oxford Economic Papers, 49(3), 344–361.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2663598
Dimopoulos, T., & Sacchetto, S. (2017). Merger activity in industry equilibrium. Journal of Financial
Economics, 126(1), 200–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneco.2017.06.014
Furne, C. H., & Rosen, R. J. (2011). Mergers increase default risk. Journal of Corporate Finance, 17(4),
832–849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpn.2011.03.003
Francis, J., & Martin, X. (2010). Acquisition protability and timely loss recognition. Journal of Account-
ing and Economics, 49(1–2), 161–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2009.09.003
Fu, F., Lin, L., & Ocer, M. S. (2013). Acquisitions driven by stock overvaluation: Are they good deals?
Journal of Financial Economics, 109(1), 24–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneco.2013.02.013
Golubov, A., Petmezas, D., & Travlos, N. (2013). Empirical mergers and acquisitions research: A review
of methods, evidence and managerial implications. In A.Bell, C.Brooks, & M.Prokopczuk (Eds.),
Handbook of research methods and applications in empirical nance (pp. 287–313). Edward Elgar
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9780857936097.00021
Ghosh, A. (2001). Does operating performance really improve following corporate acquisitions? Journal
of Corporate Finance, 7(2), 151–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0929-1199(01)00018-9
Grigorieva, S. (2020). How M&A deals inuence corporate performance in developed and emerging
capital markets: A review of empirical results in the literature. In I.Ivashkovskaya, S.Grigorieva,
& E.Nivorozhkin (Eds.), Strategic deals in emerging capital markets. Advanced studies in emerging
markets nance (pp. 33–61). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23850-6_2
Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2022, 23(5): 1170–1193 1189
Gupta, I., Raman, T. V., & Tripathy, N. (2021), Impact of merger and acquisition on nancial perfor-
mance: Evidence from construction and real estate industry of India. FIIB Business Review.
https://doi.org/10.1177/23197145211053400
Ibrahim, Y., & Raji, J. O. (2018). Cross-border merger and acquisition activities in Asia: e role of
macroeconomic factors. Studies in Economics and Finance, 35(2), 307–329.
https://doi.org/10.1108/SEF-06-2017-0146
Jandik, T., & Lallemand, J. (2014). Value impact of debt issuances by targets of withdrawn takeovers.
Journal of Corporate Finance, 29(1), 475–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpn.2014.10.002
Jensen, M., & Ruback, R. (1983). e market for corporate control: e scientic evidence. Journal of
Financial Economics, 11(1–4), 5–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(83)90004-1
HaiYue, L., YiXian, L., Rui, Y., & XiaoPing, L.(2019).How do Chinese rms perform before and aer
cross-border mergers and acquisitions?Emerging Markets Finance and Trade,55(1), 1–17.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1540496X.2018.1556636
Harrison, J., Hart, M., & Oler, D. (2014). Leverage and acquisition performance. Review of Quantitative
Finance and Accounting, 43(3), 571–603. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11156-013-0385-5
Harrison, J. (2005). What drives merger waves? Journal of Financial Economics, 77(3), 529–560.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneco.2004.05.004
Harford, J., Klasa, S., & Walcott, N. (2009). Do rms have leverage targets? Evidence from acquisitions.
Journal of Financial Economics, 93(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneco.2008.07.006
Healy, P., Palepu, K., & Ruback, R. (1992). Does corporate performance improve aer mergers? Journal
of Financial Economics, 31(2), 135–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(92)90002-F
Healy, P., Palepu, K., & Ruback, R. (1997). Which takeovers are protable: Strategic or nancial?. Sloan
Management Review, 38(4), 45–57. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/which-takeovers-are-prot-
able-strategic-or-nancial
Hoshino, Y. (1982). e performance of corporate mergers in Japan. Journal of Business Finance and
Accounting, 9(2), 153–165. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5957.1982.tb00982.x
Hu, N., Zhang, Y., & Tan, S. (2016). Determinants of Chinese cross-border M&As. Annals of Economics
and Finance, 17(1), 209–233. http://aeconf.com/Articles/May2016/aef170110.pdf
Hummel, J., & Amiryany, N. (2015). Determinants of acquisition performance: A multi-industry anal-
ysis. In J. Humell & N. Amiryany (Eds.), Advances in mergers and acquisitions (pp. 143–169). Em-
erald Group Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-361X20150000014009
Kaplan, S. (1989). Campeau’s acquisition of federated: Value destroyed or value added. Journal of Fi-
nancial Economics, 25(2), 191–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(89)90081-0
Karampatsas, N., Petmezas, D., & Travlos, N. (2014). Credit ratings and the choice of payment method
in mergers and acquisitions. Journal of Corporate Finance, 25(2), 474–493.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpn.2014.01.008
Kumar, M. (1984). Growth, acquisition and investment. Cambridge University Press.
Kusewitt, J. (1985). An explanatory study of strategic acquisition factors relating to performance. Stra-
tegic Management Journal, 6(2), 151–169. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250060205
Kyei-Mensah, J. (2019). Stock liquidity, rm size and return persistence around mergers and acquisi-
tions announcement. Investment Management and Financial Innovations, 16(2), 116–127.
https://doi.org/10.21511/im.16(2).2019.10
Lang, L., Stulz, R., & Walkling, R. (1989). Managerial performance, Tobin’s Q, and the gains from suc-
cessful tender oers. Journal of Financial Economics, 24(1), 137–154.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(89)90075-5
Lev, B., & Mandelker, G. (1972). e microeconomic consequences of corporate mergers. Journal of
Business, 45(1), 85–104. https://doi.org/10.1086/295427
1190 M. Pazarskis et al. Merger decisions, accounting information and performance stability inside...
Lebedev, S., Peng, M., Xie, E., & Stevens, C. (2014). Mergers and acquisitions in and out of emerging
economies. Journal of World Business, 50(1), 651–662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2014.09.003
Lewellen, W. (1971). A pure nancial rationale for the conglomerate merger. Journal of Finance, 26(2),
521–537. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1971.tb00912.x
Lois, P., Pazarskis, M., Drogalas, G., & Karagiorgos, A. (2021). On mergers and acquisitions in Greece–
before and aer the onslaught of the economic crisis. Journal of Developing Areas, 55(2), 355–366.
https://doi.org/10.1353/jda.2021.0049
Lys, T., & Vincent, L. (1995). An analysis of value destruction in AT&T’s acquisition of NCR. Journal
of Financial Economics, 39(2–3), 353–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(95)00831-X
Manson, S., Stark, A., & omas, H. (1995). A cash ow analysis of operational gains from takeovers
(Certied research report No. 35). e Chartered Association of Certied Accountants, London, UK.
Martynova, M., & Renneboog, L. (2008). A century of corporate takeovers: What have we learned and
where do we stand? Journal of Banking and Finance, 32(10), 2148–2177.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankn.2007.12.038
Meeks, G. (1977). Disappointing marriage: A study of the gains from merger. (Occasional Paper 51).
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
Meglio, O., & Risberg, A. (2011). e (mis)measurement of M&A performance-A systematic narrative
literature review. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 27(4), 418–433.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2011.09.002
Moeller, S. B., Schlingemann, F. B., & Stulz, R. M. (2004). Firm size and the gains from acquisitions.
Journal of Financial Economics, 73(2), 201–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneco.2003.07.002
Mueller, D. (1980). e determinants and eects of merger: An international comparison. Gunn and
Horn Publications.
Mueller, D. (1985). Mergers and market share. Review of Economics and Statistics, 67(2), 259–267.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1924725
Netter, J., Stegemoller, M., & Wintoki, M. B. (2011). Implications of data screens on merger and ac-
quisition analysis: A large sample study of mergers and acquisitions from 1992 to 2009. Review of
Financial Studies, 24(7), 2316–2357. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhr010
Pantelidis, P., Pazarskis, M., Drogalas, G., & Zezou, S. (2018). Managerial decisions and accounting per-
formance following mergers in Greece. Investment Management and Financial Innovations, 15(1),
263–276. https://doi.org/10.21511/im.15(1).2018.22
Pawaskar, V. (2001). Eect of mergers on corporate performance in India. Vikalpa: e Journal for
Decision Makers, 26(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0256090920010103
Pazarskis, M., Pantelidis, P., Alexandrakis, A., & Seris, P. (2014). Successful merger decisions in Greece:
Facts or delusions? Corporate Ownership and Control, 11(2), 708–717.
https://doi.org/10.22495/cocv11i2c7p4
Pazarskis, M., Vogiatzoglou, M., Koutoupis, A., & Drogalas, G. (2021). Corporate mergers and account-
ing performance during a period of economic crisis: Evidence from Greece. Journal of Business
Economics and Management, 22(3), 577–595. https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2020.13911
Pervan, M., Višić, J., & Barnjak, K. (2015). e impact of M&A on company performance: Evidence
from Croatia. Procedia Economics and Finance, 23, 1451–1456.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00351-2
Ramaswamy, K. P., & Waegelein, J. (2003). Firm nancial performance following mergers. Review of
Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 20(1), 115–126. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023089924640
Rao-Nicholson,R., & Salaber, J. (2013). e motives and performance of cross-border acquirers from
emerging economies: Comparison between Chinese and Indian rms. International Business Re-
view, 22(6), 963–980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2013.02.003
Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2022, 23(5): 1170–1193 1191
Rao-Nicholson, R., Salaber, J., & Cao, T. H. (2016). Long-term performance of mergers and acquisitions
in ASEAN countries. Research in International Business and Finance, 36(1), 373–387.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2015.09.024
Ravenscra, D., & Scherer, F. (1987). Mergers, sell-os and economic eciency. e Brookings Institu-
tion.
Rodionov, I., & Mikhalchuk, V. (2020). Domestic M&As in Russia: Performance and success factors. In
I.Ivashkovskaya, S.Grigorieva, & E.Nivorozhkin (Eds.), Strategic deals in emerging capital markets
(advanced studies in emerging markets nance)(pp. 189–220). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23850-6_8
Ruback, R. (1983). e cities service takeover: A case study. Journal of Finance, 38(2), 319–330.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1983.tb02236.x
Salter, M., & Weinhold, W. (1979). Diversication through acquisition; Strategies for creating economic
value. Free Press.
Sharma, D., & Ho, J. (2002). e impact of acquisitions on operating performance: Some Australian
evidence. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 29(1–2), 155–200.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5957.00428
Sun, Z., Vinig, T., & Daniël Hosman, T. (2017). e nancing of Chinese outbound mergers and ac-
quisitions: Is there a distortion between state-owned enterprises and privately owned enterprises?
Research in International Business and Finance, 39(1), 377–388.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2016.09.005
Tampakoudis, I., & Anagnostopoulou, E. (2020). e eect of mergers and acquisitions on environmen-
tal, social and governance performance and market value: Evidence from EU acquirers. Business
Strategy and the Environment, 29(5), 1865–1875. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2475
Tampakoudis, I.,Nerantzidis, M.,Soubeniotis, D.,& Soutsas, A. (2018). e eect of corporate govern-
ance mechanisms on European mergers and acquisitions. Corporate Governance, 18(5), 965–986.
https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-05-2018-0166
Tanna, S., & Yousef, I. (2019). Mergers and acquisitions: Implications for acquirers’ market risk. Man-
agerial Finance, 45(4), 545–562. https://doi.org/10.1108/MF-09-2018-0446
Tao, F., Liu, X., Gao, L., & Xia, E. (2017). Do cross-border mergers and acquisitions increase short-term
market performance? e case of Chinese rms. International Business Review, 26(1), 189–202.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2016.06.006
Tao, Q., Sun, W., Zhu, Y., & Zhang, T. (2017). Do rms have leverage targets? New evidence from
mergers and acquisitions in China. North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 40(1), 41–54.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.najef.2017.01.004
anos, I., &Papadakis, V. (2012). e use of accounting-based measures in measuring M&A perfor-
mance: A review of ve decades of research. In C. L. Cooper & S. Finkelstein (Eds.) Advances in
Mergers and Acquisitions (Vol. 10, pp. 103–120). Emerald Group Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-361X(2012)0000010009
Triantafyllopoulos, Y., & Mpourletidis, K. (2014). Mergers and acquisitions and economic crisis. A case
study approach from a qualitative analysis in Greece. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 148,
437–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.07.063
Utton, M. A. (1974). On measuring the eects of industrial mergers. Scottish Journal of Political Econ-
omy, 21(1), 13–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9485.1974.tb00173.x
Yeh, T.-M., & Hoshino, Y. (2002). Productivity and operating performance of Japanese merging rms:
Keiretsu-related and independent mergers. Japan and the World Economy, 14(3), 347–366.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0922-1425(01)00081-0
1192 M. Pazarskis et al. Merger decisions, accounting information and performance stability inside...
Young Chae, W., Byun, J., Moon Sub Choi, P., & Yang, R. (2018). Do corporate governance and culture
matter in cross-border acquisitions? Some Chinese evidence. Investment Management and Financial
Innovations, 15(1), 90–105. https://doi.org/10.21511/im.15(1).2018.09
Zhang, W., Wang, K., Li, L., Chen, Y., & Wang, X. (2018). e impact of rms’ mergers and acquisitions
on their performance in emerging economies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 135(1),
208–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.05.015
APPENDIX
Table A1. Analytical presentation of qualitative variables broken down by merger characteristics
Number of rms
per year
Period of the
economic crisis Industry Type Merger
combination
Industry
relatedness
2014 (n = 7)
11342
21221
31411
41221
51321
61411
71332
2015 (n = 10)
11132
21232
31321
41321
51211
61411
71242
81211
91211
10 1 2 2 1
2016 (n = 9)
12242
22132
32321
42232
52441
62341
72111
82132
92232
Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2022, 23(5): 1170–1193 1193
Number of rms
per year
Period of the
economic crisis Industry Type Merger
combination
Industry
relatedness
2017 (n = 9)
13142
23421
33342
43242
53421
63432
73411
83111
93121
2018 (n = 6)
13121
23332
33242
43411
53411
63411
End of Table A1
