Coronavirus Alternatives Blog

How the Pandemic Has Reshaped Merger Arbitrage Opportunities

17 August 2021

4 min read

Scott Schefrin| Portfolio Manager—AB Custom Alternative Solutions

Junichiro Goto, CIIA, CMA| Managing Director—Multi-Asset Class Business Development

Christopher Mason, CFA| Product Manager—AB Multi-Asset Solutions

As the road back from the COVID-19 pandemic continues, the reopening has been accompanied by healthy merger and acquisition (M&A) activity—which was, in many cases, shelved during the pandemic. Management teams are feeling a growing urgency to reshape their businesses, but also surging optimism: in the second quarter, The Conference Board’s Measure of CEO Confidence reached an all-time high.

Firms are seeking ways to broaden their scope and increase scale while boosting growth and resiliency. Shoring up supply chains disrupted by the pandemic, diversifying manufacturing footprints, applying technology to advance business operations—with interest rates still low and competition intensifying, there’s a strong incentive for management teams to act.

Healthy M&A activity reflects the enthusiasm. In the second quarter of 2021, global M&A volume was up more than 225% year over year: $1.6 trillion versus $475 billion in the second quarter of 2020, according to Dealogic. Through the first half of 2021, the market has seen roughly $3 trillion in total deal value, making the first half of 2021 the most active half-year on record.

Deal Activity Has Rebounded from Pandemic Lows

Global Merger and Acquisition Activity (USD Trillion)

Bar chart of quarterly total assets involved in merger and acquisition activity since 2018.

Past performance and current forecasts do not guarantee future results.
As of June 30, 2021
Source: Dealogic

More Deals, Fewer Breaks: Favorable Trends

We believe that two key trends bode very well for merger arbitrage performance: the increased deal flow we’ve described and an expected decline in the frequency of deals that fall through, or “break.”

The current healthy level of deal activity makes it easier for investment managers to diversify the deal-specific risks across a larger number of transactions. This diversification is an important tool in limiting the negative impact of a single deal that fails to play out as expected. The ability to achieve better diversification, in our view, supports higher return potential in the merger arbitrage arena.

The second favorable trend is the buttressing of merger agreements that has taken place in response to the enormous disruptions wrought by COVID-19.

Merger agreements are now being crafted in ways that make them stronger, often including specific clauses to prevent acquiring organizations from using the pandemic as a “material adverse event” and a reason to exit a previously agreed-to transaction. We anticipate that this behavior will likely reduce the number of broken deals, which were above average in 2020 due to the pandemic’s unprecedented nature.

From the broader perspective, we think the post-COVID-19 backdrop stands a good chance to play out similarly to the experience in the wake of the 2008 global financial crisis. With those disruptions, M&A deal activity first slowed down dramatically, followed by a rebound in activity accompanied by stronger merger agreements and below-average deal breaks.

It’s also promising that many private-equity firms and corporations have a significant level of dry powder, with the world awash in liquidity. In our experience, many firms use M&A as a tool for growing revenue, acquiring competitors to rationalize pricing or addressing supply chain challenges. Indeed, we’re seeing many management teams thumbing through those playbooks now.

Environment Stacks Up Well for Systematic Merger Arbitrage

Merger arbitrage strategies have provided consistent returns over both the short and long term. Of the 40 HFRI¹ strategies, merger arbitrage has produced the second-highest Sharpe ratio, the fifth-smallest maximum drawdown, and an average annualized return of 7.4%, with only two down years since its inception in December 1989.

In taking advantage of rejuvenated M&A activity, our view is that the landscape favors a systematic approach to merger arbitrage. For one thing, many traditional hedge funds have actively invested in merger arbitrage, and the primary added value has been their ability to select the right deals to invest in. Often, their information edge drives success: mainly, the insight into which deals were more likely to close or break.

But the nature of the market for merger arbitrage strategies has evolved. Oversight changes such as Regulation Fair Disclosure, which is intended to reduce the amount of selective information disclosure, coupled with greater technology-enabled information dissemination, has significantly eroded the ability to turn information into an advantage over peers. This has created more space for systematic merger arbitrage approaches to thrive.

Traditional hedge fund managers typically charge investors relatively high fees to access merger arbitrage strategies, including both a management fee and performance fee. The two-and-20 fee structure, with an annual fee of 2% of assets under management plus 20% of profits beyond a specified benchmark, is quite common.

By investing in merger arbitrage systematically, we believe that investors are able to access more of the returns associated with merger arbitrage risk premia with much lower fees. Why is this? Many traditional merger-focused hedge strategies focus on fundamental deal selection. This approach can be effective, but it also could lead to higher portfolio concentration, as managers allocate more capital to the deals they believe are most likely to close.

In contrast, strategies applying rules-based implementation are typically more diversified. This can create advantages, including the broader capture of deals that may receive competitive bids or higher offers. Also, many systematic merger-arbitrage strategies use leverage to manage risk and diversify, as opposed to increasing potential returns on high-conviction ideas. This practice can allow systematic strategies to incorporate new deals without having to replace existing deals that will be profitable.

To sum things up, given the patterns and trends we see in the M&A space as the economic reopening from the pandemic plays out, we believe that the environment remains highly supportive for systematic merger arbitrage strategies.

¹ HFR indices are broadly constructed indices designed to capture the breadth of hedge fund performance trends across strategies and regions.

The views expressed herein do not constitute research, investment advice or trade recommendations and do not necessarily represent the views of all AB portfolio-management teams and are subject to revision over time.

About the Authors

Scott Schefrin

Scott Schefrin is the Portfolio Manager of the AB Hedge Fund Solutions’ Systematic Merger Arbitrage strategy. From 2011 to 2015, Scott worked at Magnetar Capital, where he served as a portfolio manager for the firm’s event-driven business and was a member of its investment committee. Prior to joining Magnetar, Schefrin was a senior managing director and head of merger arbitrage at Cantor Fitzgerald. From 1993 to 2008, he worked at Bear Stearns, where he was global head of the firm’s risk arbitrage, event-driven and capital structure arbitrage businesses from 2003. In this capacity, he served as portfolio manager of the firm’s $2.5 billion global proprietary portfolio and manager of its 35+ member professional team. From 2000 to 2005, Schefrin was also president and general partner of North Creek Partners, the investment advisor to the Bear Stearns Global Equity Arbitrage Funds ($675 million in AUM). He was also a senior managing director and a member of the President’s Advisory Council at Bear Stearns. Schefrin holds a BS from the University of Michigan and an MBA from Columbia Business School.

Junichiro Goto, CIIA, CMA

Junichiro Goto is a Vice President and Managing Director of Multi-Asset Class Business Development. Prior to joining AB in 2006, he worked at Mizuho Research Institute, consulting on asset management and pension plan design for public and corporate pension funds. Goto holds a BS in industrial and systems engineering from Keio University and an MBA from Hitotsubashi University. He is an associate member of the Institute of Actuaries of Japan, a Certified International Investment Analyst (CIIA) and a Certified Member Analyst of the Securities Analysts Association of Japan (CMA). Location: Tokyo

Christopher Mason, CFA

Christopher Mason is a Vice President and Product Manager for AB’s Multi-Asset Solutions team. His primary responsibilities include portfolio strategy and communications for AB’s Multi-Asset income thematic strategies. Prior to joining AB in 2019, Mason served as an investment analyst at Wellington Management with product management responsibilities for core and emerging-market equity strategies. Prior to Wellington, he served as a senior analyst at Cerulli Associates, focusing on industry trends in the institutional asset management industry. Mason holds a BS in management from Boston College with concentrations in finance and accounting and is a CFA charterholder. Location: Nashville

This information is for exclusive use of the wholesale person to whom it is provided and is not to be relied upon by any other person. It is not intended for retail or public use and may not be further distributed without prior written consent of ABAL.
This webpage has been prepared by AllianceBernstein Australia Limited (“ABAL”)—ABN 53 095 022 718, AFSL 230 698. Information in this webpage is only intended for persons that qualify as “wholesale clients,” as defined by the Corporations Act 2001, and is not to be construed as advice. This webpage is provided solely for informational purposes and is not an offer to buy or sell securities. The information, forecasts and opinions set forth in this webpage have not been prepared for any recipient’s specific investment objectives, financial situation or particular needs. Neither this webpage nor the information contained in it are intended to take the place of professional advice.
You should not take action on specific issues based on the information contained in this webpage without first obtaining professional advice. Past performance does not guarantee future results. Projections, although based on current information, may not be realized. Information, forecasts and opinions can change without notice and ABAL does not guarantee the accuracy of the information at any particular time. Although care has been exercised in compiling the information contained in this webpage, ABAL does not warrant that this webpage is free from errors, inaccuracies or omissions. ABAL disclaims any liability for damage or loss arising from reliance upon any matter contained in this webpage except for statutory liability which cannot be excluded.
No reproduction of the materials on this webpage may be made without the express written permission of ABAL. This information is provided for persons in Australia only and is not being provided for the use of any person who is in any other country.

How the Pandemic Has Reshaped Merger Arbitrage Opportunities

More Deals, Fewer Breaks: Favorable Trends

Environment Stacks Up Well for Systematic Merger Arbitrage

More For You