| With the gradual liberalization of the country's market,China's stock reform in 2005 to enter the era of full circulation of the market,the ownership structure gradually from "one dominance" to the state of dispersed ownership,making hostile takeover more and more.However,due to the influence of traditional business ethics and the imperfect supervision system,the current mainstream view holds that this behavior is barbaric.However,as one of the mature manifestations of the capital market,is hostile takeovers really bad? If it is good from a different perspective,what positive effect does it have?This article takes the case of " the Dispute between Vanke and Baoneng" as its research object,and studies the role of hostile acquisition to discover corporate value.The author first sorts out the process of the case and discusses the “barbarian at the door” that has caused widespread controversy and presents two independent perspectives.The author first explored the mainstream view.Why did he believe that the behavior of the “Baoneng Department” was barbaric and wrong? Then,from another point of view,the investigation of hostile takeovers can actually bring good effects.Hostile takeovers are actually valuable discovery functions,not necessarily a bad thing,and are analyzed in detail in Chapter 2.The author believes that the hostile takeover as an external supervisory force reduces the agency costs,and at the same time exposes Vanke's insider governance and plays a role in value discovery.There will be more and more hostile takeovers,and the positive functions it has cannot be ignored.Finally,by reviewing the progress of the value discovery function in this incident,the author believes that China should carry out comprehensive supervision. |
