Discussant: Marie-Ann Betschinger Discussion : Repetitive Cross-Border Mergers & Acquisitions by Kyeong H. Lee, Amrita Nain, Qianying (Emma) Xu Discussant: Marie-Ann Betschinger

Summary (I): Main Contribution Contributes to the literature in finance (Ismail, 2008; Aktas et al., 2009 in particular Aktas et al. (2013)) [and in management (Hayward (2002), Barkema and Schijven (2008), Laamanen and Keil (2008))] Most closely related to Aktas et al. (2013): They show that there can be learning gains through repetitive acquisitions, in particular they exist the more similar the deals are. They model the relationship between the time elapsed between deals and the order of a deal. Main contribution: Paper focuses on cross-border deals and highlights that same country-experience matters. .

Summary (II): What do they do and what do they find? Gather a huge sample (53, 940 cross-border deals) Independent Variable: DONC (Deal order number in the same country) Full sample Dependent Variables TBD – as expected: there is a non-linear relationship (convex) Percentage acquired: there is a non-linear relationship (concave) Percentage paid in cash: there is a non-linear relationship (concave) Acquirer CAR: there is a non-linear relationship (convex) Two samples based on the median TBD (Aktas et al., 2013): experience building versus memory loss – then only upper quartile and lower quartile Abnormal TBD: Lower sample works (learning); upper sample does not work (no learning). Acquirer CAR: Lower sample works (concave); upper sample: no effect (no learning)

What I think could be clearer Structure: Maybe first focus on TBD in detail and then turn to possible other dependent variables? For instance, now you have an unadjusted TBD for the full sample and an abnormal TBD for the separate samples as far as I understand “Other” dependent variables stake acquired and cash: Is there any way you can identify the learning effect here (as opposed to, for instance, hubris)? Stake acquired – is the sample sufficient? You drop minority stake acquisition from your sample. You have a median of 100%. In figure 1 you provide a minimum of 92% (by the way, in your descriptive statistics the minimum is 0 ).

A few empirical questions (I) At least some of your dependent variables are not continuous and/or limited from below/above – estimation approach Time trend and time fixed effects in one model? Firm fixed effects? (see Aktas et al., 2013) Selection issue (see Aktas et al., 2013) Could you add outside-of-country-deals as a control variable?

A few empirical questions (II): Minor issues Maybe provide a bit more info on your “DONC”. I guess that the US is going to be even more dominant as a target country for these multiple deals and that a few companies dominate the sample. Median Time between deals is a bit larger than in Hayward (2002) and Aktas et al. (2013) – cross-border nature? You have 387 days Hayward (2002): “an optimal TBD of 220 days” Aktas et al. (2013): median TBDC: 174 days TBD: Why don’t you use a regression approach, since you have multiple factors? Two Samples – why do you only show results of upper and lower quarter? Following Aktas et al. (2013): above median/below median

Further Suggestions Heterogeneity of the cross-border deal portfolio – capture different dimensions simultaneously Variance of the deal portfolio in terms of “country characteristics” (see Aktas et al., 2013) – heterogeneity in terms of geographic distance/institutional distance Look at “acquisition programs” the standard deviation of the yearly number of acquisitions across the focal year Countries are similar? I.e. experience in the US could help in Canada, or experience in Germany, could help in Austria.. and the two preceding years.