Firm values change substantially between deal announcement and closing, risking renegotiation or termination. For deals that eventually close, does waiting longer to close benefit the acquirer post-M&A? We investigate whether the time that elapses until deal completion is an indicator of post-M&A performance and failure. We find that deals taking an optimum time to implement perform better, supporting the due diligence hypothesis, while taking too long to close is an indication of poor post-M&A performance and subsequent failure, supporting the overdue hypothesis.

This paper aims to show that information asymmetry plays a vital role in the post-M&A performance-time until deal completion nexus. The findings are that the due diligence hypothesis and the overdue hypothesis proposed and tested in Thompson and Kim (2020) are influenced by the information asymmetry of the target during the negotiation process. Thus, mergers that involve more opaque targets that take a shorter time to close perform better, whereas those that take too long to close experience poor post-M&A performance. Conversely, there is no such effect when the mergers involve targets that are transparent and not plagued with large information asymmetry problems. These results hold for the short-term supporting the evidence that information asymmetry problems are severe before the merger is consummated and become attenuated post-merger.