Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Manufacturing Sector:
Analysis of Economic Value Added in
Different Industries of the
Manufacturing Sector in India
N. M. Leepsa
Chandra Sekhar Mishra
Abstract
Acquirers make M&A (Mergers and Acquisitions) deals which is the true performance measure in evaluating
with the objective of improvement of performance M&A performance as it takes into account the
and wealth creation for the company, or shareholder opportunity cost. As far as M&A in Indian
value creation. However, in the past literature, the manufacturing companies is concerned, limited study
performance of companies after M&A is evaluated has been made and specifically, the performance
using traditional performance measures like Return on evaluation in industry wise analysis is yet to be found in
Assets (ROA), Return on Capital Employed (ROCE), literature using this new measure called EVA.
and Earning per Share (EPS); these measures do not
take into account the cost of capital. Limited studies Keywords: Mergers and Acquisitions, Economic Value
have taken into account Economic value Added (EVA), Added, Manufacturing companies
Compiled from Yook, C.C., 2004. The Measurement of Post-Acquisition Performance using EVA.
Journal of Business and Economics, 42 (3&4). pp. 67-83.
EVA has gained importance in the corporate and future cash flows exceed the cost of capital,
investment world as a more current yardstick for theoretically EVA is a performance measure that is
company performance (Yao, et al., 2009). EVA has 40% directly linked to the creation of shareholder wealth
explanatory ability compared to a maximum of 13% (Yook, 2004). Lakstutienea et al. (2015) studied the
from traditional methods (Uyemura Research, 1996), impact of acquisitions using both profitability ratios
41.5% compared to 36.5% from traditional methods and economic value added and found that both
(Biddle, 1996). EVA is a more effective measure of profitability ratios and economic value added have
M&A performance compared to other traditional decreased after an acquisition in majority of cases.
methods [(Hu &Yitan, 2000); (Wang, 2003); (Qu &
Jianwei, 2003)] cited from (Xiao & Tan, 2007). As the Table 1 shows the advantages and disadvantages of
value of a company depends on the extent to which the economic value added performance metric:
Advantages Disadvantages
EVA is a useful tool for various decisions made Short-term performance measure. It is not suitable
by the management like bonus plan. for long term investment.
EVA makes sure that there is an optimum EVA for the future cannot be measured in the true
capital structure by ensuring that the firm is sense since future returns are uncertain. It is
accurately levered. subjectively estimated.
It indicates the real cash flows to the business EVA does give true performance when influenced
by factors like inflation.
It is highly correlated to the market value of It is not a suitable measure for those companies
the firm and stock returns. EVA improves that have made large investments taking into
performance of the stock. account the long term benefits.
It takes into account all capital costs including EVA does not have incremental value in predicting
the cost of equity. performance of mergers and acquisitions .
The EVA measure achieves the goal of the In practice, the calculation of EVA is comp lex as it
company and minimizes agency conflicts and requires lots of adjustments. For example, the cost
costs. of equity for an unlisted company is difficult to
calculate.
It is a size and situation neutral concept as it EVA only reflects value creation in the specific
adjusts to size of the firm or level of business period while value creation is for the entire life of
activities and companies across industries. It the company.
helps in comparison of different companies
since the change in EVA momentum is taken.
The use of EVA as a performance measure EVA is simply a performance metric and if the
enhances corporate governance practices since company is aware of how to create value, then this
the managers avoid the value destructive measure is not helpful.
activities in the business and invest in those
projects that add value to shareholders’
wealth.
Profitability /
Earnings Growth
Leverage /
Capital Structure
Company's Age /
Established Company
Factors Affecting
Economic Value Added
Company's Size /
Regulator Attention
Investment
Environment
Companies that have a high potential to grow in future merger liquidity performance improved for
have high EVA, because high sales lead to high NOPAT shareholders of acquirer companies (Pawaskar, 2001);
and hence, high EVA. NOPAT increases when the (Kumar & Rajib, 2007). A company improves efficiency
company has potential to earn more or increase through M&A (Weston, et al., 2010). A cash deal
profitability. Similarly, large size firms have better EVA provides better returns to the shareholders of both the
than small size firms since large companies have the acquirer and the target companies. Stock financed
ability to generate higher NOPAT. Additionally, old and acquisitions are better than cash financed acquisitions
established firms have higher EVA as they have control (Pautler, 2001); (Frederikslust et al., 2005);
over efficiency and expenses. It is also observed that (Depamphilis, 2010). Those who are successful in the
with increase in leverage, there would be an increase first merger show declining performance later. M&A
in the stock returns and thus economic value added experience leads to poor performance (Conn, et al.,
would increase (Mauritania & Saputra, 2009). 2004); (Suh, et al., 2013); (Phelan & Mantecon, 2005).
2.3. Related literature on M&A performance using 2.4. Related literature on EVA and M&A Performance
traditional measures Empirical analysis done till date has been carried out
There is a decline in profitability after a merger. A mostly using traditional performance measures to find
merger results in either no gains or very little out the difference in the pre and post M&A period.
profitability each year (Ravenscraft & Scherer, 1987); Stern, et al. (2007) have suggested that EVA analysis is
(Singh, 1975); (Newbould, 1970); cited from (Daga, a better measure for analyzing the performance of
2007). There is no post-merger improvement of proposed acquisitions in terms of whether the
companies' solvency position (Kumar, 2009). The post acquisition creates value or not and to what extent.
Diversified 18 6 24 3 2 5
Machinery 39 12 51 40 14 54
Miscellaneous Manufacturing 5 4 9 9 7 16
Textiles 26 10 36 28 10 38
Transport Equipment 19 11 30 20 9 29
Table 2 shows the sample as per the type of industry of the acquirer and target. As per Table 2, the final sample
consists of 407 M&A deals out of which there are 209 merger deals and 117 acquisition deals.
Chemical 236 256 286 295 307 325 410 411 192
Diversified 8 8 9 9 9 9 10 9 7
Food and Beverage 148 163 199 218 231 263 316 319 134
Machinery 138 143 163 176 163 171 176 209 101
Metal and Metal Products 99 107 164 159 176 179 198 231 90
Textiles 162 159 170 189 196 199 225 258 132
Table 3 shows the sample of control firms taken for the study. Control firms are those companies which have not
undertaken any M&A deals during the sample period. Control firms are selected based on the type of Industry.
Industry medians are taken for the EVA and rate of EVA measures.
5.3. Financial Parameter: EVA description scope of this study since such information and data are
The pre and post-M&A performances are compared not easily available. From equity holders' point of view,
using Economic Value Added (EVA®) (a metric of economic value added can be found as below:
economic profit) as the measure of performance to
observe whether M&A performance shows any Economic Value Added = Net Profit – Cost of Equity
different results compared to past studies. *Average Net Worth
Details for EVA calculation:
The Formula for EVA is as follows: • For the study, the rate of EVA (EVA/Average Net
EVA= Net Operating Profit before Interest and after Tax worth) is taken so that it would adjust for the size
(NOPAT) – (WACC × Invested Capital) of the companies.
• Beta values have been collected from the CMIE
Where, WACC stands for Weighted Average Cost of prowess database. The beta of a scrip is
Capital. computed by CMIE and stored in the database. It
Ke= Rf + βi (Rm-Rf) is the slope of the regression line derived by
Where regressing the weekly returns of the scrip against
Rf = Risk Free Rate of Return (Here 7%) the weekly returns on the COSPI. The regression
Rm= Rate of Return on Market Index (Here 15%) is done every year in April and it uses the latest
Ke= Cost of Equity five years of weekly returns for the scrip and for
βi = Beta the COSPI. COSPI stands for 'CMIE Overall Share
Price Index'.
Several accounting adjustments have been suggested • The yield on the 15-year Long Term Government
by Stern and Stewart for finding NOPAT and invested Bond is considered as the Risk-Free Rate of
capital. These accounting adjustments are beyond the Return while Compound Annual Growth Rate
Table 4: Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test for Acquirers in the Chemical Industry
10.1. Post M&A EVA performance in the Diversified The top five acquirers that performed well in the post
Industry M&A period were Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd,
There were 24 acquirers in the diversified industry in Siemens Ltd (considered as two acquirers since it made
the entire sample of firms that adopted the M&A two acquisitions), Clariant Chemicals (India) Ltd and
strategy. There were six acquisitions and 18 merger Salzer Electronics Ltd. Acquisitions made were
deals from 1st January 2000 to 31st March 2008 in the Tengpani Tea Co. Ltd, Siemens V D O Automotive Ltd,
diversified industry. Since the acquirers were Flender Ltd, Vanavil Dyes & Chemicals Ltd and Salzer
diversified firms, all opted for M&A deals in unrelated Controls Ltd. All of these were merger deals and the
industries. Around six diversified acquirers chose a acquiring companies had targets that were smaller in
target from the chemical industry, four from the food size than them. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd
and beverage industry, six from the machinery acquired Waldies Ltd in 2006 but didn't do well;
industry, two from transport equipment, two from however, after the deal in 2008, it performed well.
miscellaneous manufacturing and four from the
textiles industry. There were around 13 diversified The following table shows the results of the Wilcoxon
acquirers that had prior M&A experience while 11 Signed Ranks Test for acquirers in the diversified
companies did not have prior M&A experience. There industry:
were 19 listed acquirers in the diversified industry
Table 5: Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test for acquirer in the Diversified Industry
The average performance of all the sample acquirers the year just before M&A and three years after M&A,
turned from a positive rate of pre-M&A EVA (0.09) to a this industry has brought positive change in EVA for 18
negative rate of post-M&A EVA (-0.02) with a 11% acquirers. The diversified industry's venture into M&A
change in the post-M&A period. There were more was unsuccessful probably because the target
firms with negative rate of EVA in the pre-M&A (16 companies were from an industry that did not match
firms) than those with a positive rate of EVA (seven the degree of diversification required by the firms.
firms). In case of M&A deals in the year 2000, two
deals made positive changes in EVA while one deal had 10.3. Post M&A EVA performance in the Food and
a negative change in EVA. The rate of EVA of M&A Beverage Industry
deals done in the year 2003 had positive values in both There were 56 acquirers in the food and beverage
the pre and post M&A periods, but the change in the industry in the sample of firms that had adopted an
rate of EVA of three firms was negative. In 2004, two M&A strategy. There were 17 acquisitions and 39
unrelated merger deals were done; both the deals merger deals from 1st January 2000 to 31st March 2008
earned positive rate of EVA. The three merger deals in the food and beverage industry. The food and
and one acquisition deal that were done in the year beverage acquirers opted for 45 related deals and 11
2005 brought a negative change in the EVA. Two deals unrelated deals. Around five food and beverage
of 2006 and four deals of 2007 earned negative change acquirers chose a target from the chemical industry,
in the rate of EVA after M&A. The three merger deals one from the diversified industry, five from the
in 2008 could realize positive change in the rate of EVA machinery industry, two from miscellaneous
while one acquisition that was done in 2008 was a manufacturing, two from non-metallic and mineral
negative change in the rate of EVA. For acquirers in the products and three from the textiles industry. There
diversified industry, M&A deals were done to reduce were around 25 acquirers in the food and beverage
costs and improve efficiencies through various sources industry that had prior M&A experience while 31
of business. If the performance is compared between companies did not have prior M&A experience. There
Table 6: Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test for acquirer in the Food and Beverage Industry
Test Statistics Negative Positive Ties Z Asymp. Sig.
Ranks Ranks (2-tailed)
The average rate of EVA for all the companies' pre and post M&A periods. Likewise, there were 11
performance declined by 10% from the pre-M&A rate acquirers where the change in the rate of EVA was
of EVA of -0.02 to the post-M&A rate of EVA of -0.11. positive even though there was a negative rate of EVA
For acquisition deals, the rate of decline was by two in both pre and post M&A periods.
percent while for merger deals, the rate of decline was
by 12%. About 25 acquirers had a negative rate of EVA 10.5. Post M&A EVA performance in the Metal and
in the pre-M&A period while 32 acquirers had a Metal Products Industry
negative rate of EVA in the post-M&A period. About 24 There were 41 acquirers in the metal and metal
acquirers had a negative rate of EVA in both pre and products industry in the sample that had adopted an
post M&A periods and 19 had a positive rate of EVA in M&A strategy. There were 14 acquisitions and 27
both pre and post M&A periods. In case of 11 merger deals from 1st January 2000 to 31st March 2008
acquirers, the change in the rate of EVA was negative in the metal and metal products industry. The metal
even though there was a positive rate of EVA in both and metal products acquirers opted for 33 related
transport equipment and one from the textiles Southern Iron & Steel Co. Ltd in 2007, and Interfit
industry. There were around 26 metal and metal firms Techno Products Ltd that acquired Interfit India Ltd in
2007. The worst performance was by the acquirer
that had prior M&A experience while 15 companies
Manaksia Ltd that undertook a merger deal with Spark
did not have prior M&A experience. There were 33
Exports Ltd in 2005. It was an unrelated deal. The
acquirers in the metal and metal products industry
business cycle and inventories are two important
that were listed while eight acquirers were not listed
factors in the metal industry. Apart from these, other
on the stock exchanges. Considering the size of the
factors that influence the industry are changes in
target in relation to the acquirer, around 34 metal and
metals production, strategic stockpiling, foreign
metal products acquirers preferred small targets while
exchange rates, speculation and production costs¹.
seven preferred large targets. There were 20 large
These factors, apart from M&A, would have made
acquirers and 21 small acquirers in the metal and these companies good or poor performers in the metal
metal products industry. Cash was the mode of and metal products industry.
payment for 18 acquirers while 23 acquirers preferred
stock as the mode of payment. The following table shows the results of the Wilcoxon
Signed Ranks Test for acquirers in the metal and metal
The top acquirers in terms of change in the rate of EVA products industry:
in the post-M&A period were Ess Dee Aluminium Ltd
Table 8: Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test for acquirers in the Metal and Metal Products Industry
The average performance of all the companies in this 2003, five had a negative change in the rate of EVA and
industry declined by seven percent from the pre-M&A two had a positive change in the rate of EVA although
rate of EVA of 0.24 to the post-M&A rate of EVA of - both in the pre and post M&A periods had a positive
0.17. There were five acquirers that had negative rate of EVA. There are six deals in 2004, five deals in
values of rate of EVA in the pre-M&A period, out of 2005 and four deals in 2006 that had a positive rate of
which two had a negative rate of EVA in the post-M&A EVA in the pre-M&A period but had a negative change
period and three had positive rate of EVA; there was a in the rate of EVA. The performance turned better in
positive change in EVA for all the five acquiring firms. 2007 and 2008 when the change in the rate of EVA was
There were 12 acquirers that had a positive rate of EVA positive for all the six acquirers in 2007 and three
in the pre-M&A period but negative rate of EVA in the acquirers in 2008.
post-M&A period with a 39% decline in performance
on average. There were three firms that had a positive 10.6. Post M&A E VA performance in the
rate of EVA and two firms had a negative rate of EVA in Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industry
both pre and post M&A periods. There were nine acquirers in the miscellaneous
manufacturing industry in the whole sample that
In the year 2000, one merger and one acquisition deal adopted an M&A strategy. There were four
were done in this industry; both increased the rate of acquisitions and five merger deals from 1st January
EVA by one percent in the post-M&A period. Similarly 2000 to 31 st March 2008 in the miscellaneous
in 2001, two deals were done which resulted in a manufacturing industry. The miscellaneous
positive change in EVA. In 2002, six M&A deals were manufacturing acquirers opted for eight related deals
done, out of which all had a better rate of EVA except and one unrelated deal. One acquirer in the
Interfit India Ltd that acquired Interfit Techno Products miscellaneous manufacturing industry chose a target
Ltd, which turned its positive pre-M&A rate of EVA to a from metal and metal products and the rest of the
negative rate of EVA. Out of the seven deals done in acquirers chose targets from miscellaneous
Table 9: Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test for acquirers in the Miscellaneous Industry
The pre-M&A rate of EVA was negative for two firms while three had a negative change in the rate of EVA. In
but both the companies had a positive rate of EVA in case of one acquirer, there was no change in the rate of
the post-M&A period and the change in the rate of EVA EVA before and after the M&A. The top performer was
from pre to post M&A period was also positive. Six Nova Corporation Ltd which acquired Nova Iron &
acquiring firms had a positive change in the rate of EVA Steel Ltd. Even though it was a small unlisted acquirer
The change in the rate of EVA was positive for 20 years 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 recorded
acquirers. The pre-M&A rate of EVA was negative for a positive change in the rate of EVA post-M&A. There
ten acquirers, which turned positive in the post-M&A were eight deals done in 2006 which had a negative
period. There were five acquirers that had a positive pre-M&A rate of EVA for the acquirer, but after the
rate of EVA in both the pre and post M&A periods but M&A, the EVA turned positive and the overall change
their performance declined and the change in the rate resulted in them being in the top four acquirers in the
of EVA was negative. terms of performance measured by the rate of EVA.
M&A deals made in the year 2000 brought a negative 10.8. Post M&A EVA performance in Textiles Industry
change in the rate of EVA even if companies had a The textile Industry is one of the oldest industries in
positive rate of EVA in both the pre and post M&A the manufacturing sector in India. There were 36
periods. They were small size listed acquirers. Two acquirers in the textile industry in the complete sample
deals in 2001 recorded a positive change in EVA that adopted an M&A strategy. There were ten
through M&A. Two deals in 2002 recorded a negative acquisitions and 26 merger deals from 1st January 2000
change in the rate of EVA. The M&A deals done in the to 31st March 2008 in the textile industry. The textile
The average performance of all the sample firms in the capital in 2000 and 2001 might have been higher. In
textile industry improved by 33% from the pre-M&A 2000, interest rates were at an all-time high, which
rate of EVA (-0.07) to the post-M&A rate of EVA (0.25). increased the cost of debt². There was one deal in 2002
Around 90% of the sample firms had a negative rate of which turned a positive rate of EVA to a negative rate
EVA in the pre-M&A period and 3% in the post-M&A of EVA post-M&A. There were three deals in 2003, six
period. About 97% of the sample firms had a positive deals in 2004, six deals in 2005, eight deals in 2006, five
rate of EVA and change in EVA was positive for all the deals in 2007 and one deal in 2008; all of them resulted
firms. in a positive change in the rate of EVA in the post-M&A
period. From 2003 to 2008, the rate of EVA recorded
In the year 2000, three deals were done in this better performance in the textile industry. Out of the
industry; all three were failures and of these, two were 29 deals during 2003 to 2008, 24 (83%) acquirers
the worst performers. In 2001, three deals were done; turned their negative rate of EVA to a positive rate of
all of them were the worst performers. The cost of EVA in the post-M&A year.
“The benchmark interest rate in India was last recorded at 8 percent. Interest rate in India is reported by the Reserve Bank of India. Historically, from 2000 until
2012, the Indian interest rate averaged 6.5 percent reaching an all time high of 14.5 percent in August of 2000 and a record low of 4.3 percent in April of 2009.”
source: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/india/interest-rate
Table 12: Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test for acquirers in the Transport Equipment Industry
The pre-M&A EVA was negative for all the acquirers in equipment industry in the year 2002 and all of them
the transport equipment industry. The post-M&A rate failed post-M&A in terms of rate of EVA. These firms
of EVA was positive for only one company, which was a were the worst performers among all acquirers within
good performer, Motherson Sumi Systems Ltd. Eight the sample. All three deals done in the year 2003, two
companies had a positive change in the rate of EVA deals in 2004 and one deal done in 2005 could not
post-M&A while 21 companies failed to earn profits create any positive change in the rate of EVA. There
compared to their cost of capital. But when were seven (23%) deals done in the year 2006; among
performance was observed in the year pre-M&A and in them, one deal was in the top performance list and two
the third year post-M&A, 22 companies were were worst performers. Seven firms had negative EVA
successful with positive change in the rate of EVA. in pre and post M&A periods, out of which two firms
had a positive change in EVA. There were also seven
There were two M&A deals made in the year 2002; deals in 2007 of which two were in the good
both of them were successful as they brought a performance list and one in the worse performance
positive change in average EVA of three years post- list. These acquirers also had negative EVA in both pre
M&A. A significant finding was that two acquirers i.e. and post M&A periods. In 2008, four deals were done
Motherson Sumi Systems Ltd and Federal-Mogul in this industry out of which three merger deals were
Goetze (India) Ltd were large listed companies, which done by Amtek Auto Ltd acquiring Amtek Ring Gears
bought target companies from the same industry, i.e. Ltd, Amtek India Ltd and Ahmednagar Forgings Ltd;
the textile industry. There was only one deal in 2001 in another was Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd merging with
the sample. The acquiring company had a negative Punjab Tractors Ltd. Amtek Auto Ltd was unable to
EVA in both pre and post M&A periods; however, there earn a positive rate of EVA post-M&A while Mahindra
was a positive change in the rate of EVA by four per & Mahindra Ltd was able to create a positive change in
cent. There were three M&A deals in the transport the rate of EVA.
• Baran, D., Hrotko, L. & Olejník, P., 2007. Economic Value Added-EVA. Economics and Management, 12, pp. 669-
675.
• Burksaitiene, D., 2009. Measurement of Value Creation: Economic Value Added and Net Present Value.
Economics and Management, 14, pp. 709-714.
• Chen, S. & Dodd, J. L., 1997. Economic Value Added (EVA™): An Empirical Examination of a New Corporate
Performance. Journal of Managerial Issues, 9(3), pp. 318-333.
• Griffith, J. M., 2006. EVA® and Stock Performance. The Journal of Investing , 15(2), pp. 75-78.
• Hamilton, J., Rahman, S. & Lee, A. C., 2009. EVA: Does Size Matter?. Review of Pacific Basin Financial Markets
and Policies, 12(2), pp. 267-287.
• Hawawini, G., Subramanian, V. &Verdini, P., 2003. Is Performance Driven by Industry or Firm Specific Factors? A
New Look at the Evidence. Strategic Management Journal, 24, pp. 1-16.
• Huang, L., 2011. What Do Economic Value Added of Acquiring Firms Tell Us?. s.l., Intelligent Systems and
Applications (ISA), 2011 3rd International Workshop on IEEE.
• Kan, K. & Ohno, T., 2012. Merger of Major Banks from the EVA Standpoint. Public Policy Review, 8(5), pp. 737-
774.
• Khan, S., Chouhan, V. & Chandra, B., 2012. Measurement of Value Creation Vis-À-Vis EVA: Analysis of Select
BSE Companies. Pacific Business Review International, 5(3), pp. 114-131.
• Larsen, M. J., 2010. A shareholder value evaluation of the merger between Vestas and NEG Micon.
s.l.:Copenhagen Business School.
• Martani, D. & Saputra, Y. E., 2009. The impact of corporate governance to the economic value added listed
company in BEI 2003-2004. China-USA Business Review, 8(3), pp. 26-40.
• Mohanty, P., 2006. Modified TVA based Performance Evaluation. IIMB Management Review, 18 (3), pp. 265-
273.
• Morard, B., 2009. Developing a Practical Model for Calculating the Economic Value Added. Economic
Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research, 43(3), pp. 1-16.
• Pandey, I. M., 2005. What drives the Shareholder's Value? Asian Academy of Management Journal of
Accounting and Finance, 1, pp. 105-120.
• Rakshit, D., 2006. EVA Based Performance Measurement: A Case Study. Vidyasagar University Journal of
Commerce, 11, pp. 40-59.
• Ray, S., 2012. Efficacy of Economic Value Added Concept in Business Performance Measurement. Advances in
• Shah, R., Haldar, A., & Nageswara Rao, S. V. D. (2015). Economic Value Added: Corporate Performance
Measurement Tool. Corporate Board, 11(1).
• Schuster, P. & Jameson, M., 2003. The Past Performance and Future Values of Companies. Management
Accounting Quarterly, 4 (4), pp. 41-52.
• Sharma, A. K. & Kumar, S., 2010. Economic Value Added (EVA) - Literature Review and Relevant Issues.
International Journal of Economics and Finance, 2(2), pp. 200-220.
• Shil, N. C., 2009. Performance Measures: An Application of Economic Value Added. International Journal of
Business Management, 4(3), pp. 169-177.
• Singh, P., Suri, P. & Sah, R., 2012. Economic Value Added in Indian Cross Border. International Journal of
Business Research , 12(2), pp. 160-164.
• Stern, J. M., Shiely, J. S. & Ross, I., 2007. The EVA Challenge: Implementing Value Added Change in the
Organisation. Das Summa Summarum des Management , pp. 325-333.
• Stewart, B., 2009. EVA Momentum: The One Ratio That Tells the Whole Story. Journal of Applied Corporate
Finance, 21(2), pp. 74-86.
• Xiao, X. & Tan, L., 2009. Research on M&A Performance of Listed Companies in China Based on EVA. s.l., In
Electronic Commerce and Business Intelligence, 2009. ECBI 2009. International Conference on (pp. 337-340).
IEEE.
• Xie, Y., 2009. The Value Added in Strategic Merger: A Case Study from Chinese Port Industry Restructuring. s.l.:
Doctoral Dissertation, Umea University.
• Yook, K. C., 2004. The Measurement of Post-Acquisition Performance Using EVA. Journal of Business and
Economics, 42(3&4), pp. 67-83.
• Lakstutienea, A., Stankevicieneb, J., Norvaisienec, R., Narbutiened, J., (2015). The Impact of Acquisitions on
Corporate Performance Results during the Period of Economic Slowdown: Case of Lithuania, 20th
International Scientific Conference Economics and Management - 2015 (ICEM-2015), available from
http://ac.els-cdn.com/S1877042815057882/2-s2.0-S1877042815057882-main.pdf?_tid=887d920a-4a80-
11e6-ad8c-00000aacb35d&acdnat=1468582838_02c1827e325a7907d4b0b46e72b4df0a
• Aik, N. C., Hassan, T., & Mohamad, S. (2015). Do Malaysian Horizontal Mergers and Acquisitions Create Value?.
Global Business Review, 16(5 suppl), 15S-27S.
Chandra Sekhar Mishra is Associate Professor (Accounting and Finance) at Vinod Gupta School of
Management, IIT Kharagpur, Kharagpur, West Bengal, India. He is working in the field of Financial
Accounting, Reporting and Analysis, Mergers and Acquisitions, Valuation and Financial Markets. He has
published articles on various aspects of Valuation, Performance Analysis, Captial Structure and Corporate
D i v i d e n d Po l i c y. H e c a n b e r e a c h e d a t c s m i s h r a @ v g s o m . i i t kg p . e r n e t . i n o r
chandrasekhar.mishra@gmail.com