Common institutional ownership—where multiple firms share the same institutional investors—has increasingly come under scrutiny for its effects on corporate mergers and acquisitions (M&A). New research reveals intricate mechanisms by which these ownership structures influence acquisition decisions, creating profound implications for corporate governance and market outcomes. Recent empirical analyses demonstrate that common institutional ownership not only increases the likelihood of M&A events but also plays a critical role in enhancing deal quality and post-merger performance. This dual effect calls for a deeper understanding of the underlying drivers, particularly in terms of information advantages and governance enhancements.
At the heart of the observed influence lies the information mechanism. Institutional investors with long-term holdings develop a robust repository of firm-specific and industry-specific knowledge, allowing them to better assess the true value of acquisition targets. By mitigating informational asymmetries traditionally plaguing the M&A process, these investors reduce risks associated with poor target selection and increase the likelihood of successful deals. The accumulated experience of institutional owners acts as a knowledge conduit, transmitting valuable insights that improve decision-making quality before, during, and after M&A transactions.
One crucial facet of this mechanism involves the transfer of M&A experience across firms within an institutional investor’s portfolio. This phenomenon draws on imprinting theory, which posits that institutional investors internalize governance competencies through repeated exposure to M&A processes. When portfolio companies previously engaged in acquisitions fall under the umbrella of a common institutional owner, the collective experiential knowledge allows for more strategic and effective decisions. Statistical analyses confirm that higher levels of such cross-firm M&A experience significantly correlate with reduced acquisition frequency yet improved market responses and enhanced acquisition performance. This suggests a maturation effect, where seasoned guidance helps avoid unnecessary deals while maximizing the success of those pursued.
Complementing experience is the role of information asymmetry, a persistent challenge in acquisition contexts. Institutional investors’ long-standing industry engagement equips them with privileged insights that diminish knowledge gaps between acquiring firms and their targets. Sophisticated proxies for information asymmetry, such as stock liquidity measures, reveal that common institutional ownership’s governance influence is most potent when asymmetry is high. These investors leverage their informational advantage not only to refine acquisition choices but also to streamline post-merger integration, ultimately contributing to superior deal outcomes.
The governance channel represents another critical path through which common institutional owners exert influence on merger strategies. These investors actively participate in shaping board compositions, enhancing oversight capacities and reducing managerial discretion that might otherwise deviate from shareholder interests. Empirical tests underline the pivotal role of board appointments: directors concurrently serving on boards of both the institutional investor and the portfolio firm act as conduits of governance discipline. Their presence correlates with fewer but higher-quality acquisitions, indicating a calibrated approach to M&A under enhanced supervision.
Beyond direct board participation, common institutional investors curb opportunistic behavior endemic to controlling shareholders. Since controlling shareholders often engage in subtle expropriation tactics—frequently through related-party transactions—robust institutional oversight becomes indispensable. By monitoring and restricting such tunneling behaviors, institutional owners protect corporate assets and align acquisition endeavors with value creation rather than self-interest. Regression analyses segmented by proxies for opportunism demonstrate that the governance effect of common institutional ownership intensifies in contexts where managerial tunneling is more prevalent, underscoring the shielding role these investors play.
The dual information and governance mechanisms elucidate how common institutional ownership shapes M&A dynamics holistically. Accumulated experiential knowledge and refined informational advantages drive optimized deal selections and integration efficiencies, while elevated governance prevents abuses and aligns managerial incentives with broader shareholder value. This synergy highlights common institutional investors as pivotal players not simply in capital provision but as active stewards in corporate strategic evolution.
Furthermore, the findings carry important implications for policymakers and market participants. Recognizing that institutional investors function as more than passive capital allocators invites reconsiderations of regulatory frameworks around ownership concentration and board independence. The delicate balance institutional owners maintain between collaboration and competition demands nuanced oversight to ensure healthy market competition and guard against potential collusive conduct arising from overlapping ownership bases.
From a strategic management perspective, companies may benefit by fostering stronger engagement with their institutional investors who bring board representation and accumulated transaction wisdom. Such partnerships could catalyze more disciplined acquisition strategies, reducing value-destructive deals and accelerating successful integrations. This research thus contributes to an expanding discourse on the governance roles of large shareholders in corporate decision-making.
Notably, the methodology underpinning these insights leverages advanced empirical models assessing M&A outcomes, controlling for a variety of confounding factors. The use of principal component analysis to aggregate liquidity-based proxies enriches the measurement of information asymmetry, offering a refined lens for subgroup analyses. Similarly, categorizing samples by levels of governance opportunism sharpens the interpretative clarity regarding institutional ownership’s conditional effects on deal-making regimens.
While common institutional ownership tends to improve acquisition outcomes overall, it also decreases the volume of M&A activity. This suggests a shift toward quality over quantity, with more deliberate and strategically sound transactions. Institutional owners appear to discourage opportunistic or ill-advised deals, supporting the thesis that experienced governance curtails impulsive mergers while fostering those that substantively enhance firm value.
The study further highlights the evolving nature of institutional investors themselves, who, with growing portfolios and extended holdings, accumulate complex webs of inter-firm relationships and shared knowledge. This network effect grants them unique vantage points but also raises questions about potential conflicts of interest or implicit collusion, calling for ongoing scholarly and regulatory attention.
In sum, common institutional ownership emerges as a sophisticated governance mechanism that transcends traditional shareholder roles. By simultaneously bridging informational gaps and reinforcing governance accountability, it enhances M&A decision-making in ways that bolster firm performance and shareholder wealth. As corporate landscapes grow increasingly interconnected, understanding these dynamics becomes imperative for academics, practitioners, and regulators striving to foster transparent, efficient capital markets.
This research marks a notable advance in corporate finance scholarship. It aligns with recent calls to examine ownership structures not as static attributes but as active determinants of firm behavior and strategy. Future inquiries may explore heterogeneous effects across jurisdictions, sectors, or institutional types, as well as longitudinal impacts on corporate innovation and competitiveness. The intersections of financial economics, organizational theory, and corporate governance promise fertile ground for deepening these insights.
Ultimately, as the financial ecosystem continues to evolve, common institutional ownership offers a window into the complex interplay of capital, information, and control. Its dual capacity to generate value through informed decision-making and robust oversight underscores the nuanced roles institutional investors play in contemporary capitalism. Stakeholders keen to unlock sustainable growth would do well to consider these mechanisms when evaluating corporate governance models and M&A strategies.
Subject of Research: The influence of common institutional ownership on mergers and acquisitions through information and governance mechanisms.
Article Title: Governance or collusion? The M&A effects of common institutional ownership.
Article References:
Zhou, F., Chen, L., Zhao, L. et al. Governance or collusion? The M&A effects of common institutional ownership.
Humanit Soc Sci Commun 12, 855 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05276-y
Image Credits: AI Generated
