Answer to reader quiz: likelihood of takeover

August 18th, 2009

Share |

In our previous article, we gave our readers a short quiz to assess the likelihood of a takeover. The purpose of this quiz was not to be a lesson on takeover analysis- the takeover discussion was a red herring to distract you from the core of the issue. As Pete, one of our readers said,

Whilst looking at these takeover targets from a “what has happened in the past” perspective seems intelligent, takeovers rely on much more than is mentioned in those points.

Instead, the purpose of this quiz is to show you a very common mental pitfall that will deceive the minds of many unsuspecting investors.

Now, let’s take a look at this paragraph in the quoted Eureka Report article:

Of the six [takeover likelihood criteria], I find that the presence of strategic shareholdings is the strongest predictor of corporate activity; in fact, since 2000 about 60% of listed Australian companies receiving takeover bids had such strategic shareholders already on their register, even though only about 20% of total companies in the ASX 300 index fulfil this condition.

Upon reading that paragraph, it is easy to conclude that if a company fulfils all the six criteria, then its likelihood of takeover (based on statistical probability and assuming that all takeover bids are successful) is at least 60%.

Unfortunately, even if you believe that statistical probability is an accurate gauge of takeover probability (those who believe in that must read Failure to understand Black Swan leads to fallacious thinking), that number is wrong. The reason why 60% is the wrong number is because it is skewed by survivorship bias.

As we quoted an article in Mental pitfall: Survivorship Bias, the

… tendency for failed companies to be excluded from performance studies because they no longer exist. It often causes the results of studies to skew higher because only companies which were successful enough to survive until the end of the period are included.

That 60% is based on companies who were taken over. It does not include companies who fulfil those criteria and were not taken over. If we take the entire sample of all companies that fulfil those criteria, the proportion of those who was taken over could well be far below 60%.

Today’s lesson on survivorship bias is very instructive on how statistics can be misused to lie and deceive.

Tags: ,

  • Anon

    China is already in a correction – a leading indication of things for us?

  • Anon

    China is already in a correction – a leading indication of things for us?

  • Anon

    China is already in a correction – a leading indication of things for us?

  • Hi Anon!

    Not only China, but the Dow and Dow Transport index seems to be indicating a correction. We wouldn’t be surprised if Australia follows.

    Today, the rally petered out before the close of market. Seems like a bad sign for the longs.

  • Hi Anon!

    Not only China, but the Dow and Dow Transport index seems to be indicating a correction. We wouldn’t be surprised if Australia follows.

    Today, the rally petered out before the close of market. Seems like a bad sign for the longs.

  • Anon

    Hey CIJ do you reckon we could have another health/biotech bubble? There was similar bubbles in 1991 and 2003. Given the favourable demographics speculators have something to latch onto.
    I notice warren has bght some new health shares. He bght a stake in Beckton Dickinson (BDX). The company is a maker of medical supplies and devices.

  • Anon

    Hey CIJ do you reckon we could have another health/biotech bubble? There was similar bubbles in 1991 and 2003. Given the favourable demographics speculators have something to latch onto.
    I notice warren has bght some new health shares. He bght a stake in Beckton Dickinson (BDX). The company is a maker of medical supplies and devices.

  • Anon

    The MIS sector is begining to move.

  • Anon

    The MIS sector is begining to move.

  • Hi anon!

    We don’t follow the health/bio-tech sector that closely. So, we better not express our opinion on individual stocks. In general, the market tend to over-exaggerate broad themes and overpay for stocks, which means a correction will be inevitable at some point in time.

  • Hi anon!

    We don’t follow the health/bio-tech sector that closely. So, we better not express our opinion on individual stocks. In general, the market tend to over-exaggerate broad themes and overpay for stocks, which means a correction will be inevitable at some point in time.

  • Hi anon!

    We don’t follow the health/bio-tech sector that closely. So, we better not express our opinion on individual stocks. In general, the market tend to over-exaggerate broad themes and overpay for stocks, which means a correction will be inevitable at some point in time.