The Bottom Line To Investors From Tax Inversions: No Above Average Returns

Tyler Durden's picture

While it remains to be seen if Obama can put an end to what has been the hottest M&A trend in 2014, namely engaging in tax redomiciling "inversion" deals, it is clear that the C-suite is delighted to continue pursuing deals which minimize the cash outflows to the US Treasury, with some 52 redomiciling deals done since 1983, 22 taking place since 2009 and another 10 being finalized and many more in the works. But what is the track record of tax inversions when it comes to the bottom line, namely investor returns.  According to a Reuters calculation, "companies that have done such "inversion" deals have failed to produce above-average returns for investors."

The details, from looking back three decades at 52 completed transactions, the review showed:

  • 19 of the companies have subsequently outperformed the Standard & Poor's 500 index;
  • 19 have underperformed;
  • 10 have been bought by rivals;
  • 3 have gone out of business;
  • 1 has reincorporated back in the United States.

More from Reuters:

Among the poorest performers in the review were oilfield services and engineering firms, all from Texas. Among them was the first of these companies to invert, McDermott International Inc (MDR.N), which moved its tax home-base to Panama in 1983.


Drugmakers are dominating the latest wave of inversions and most of them have outperformed the benchmark index. So far in 2014, five U.S. pharmaceutical firms have agreed to redomicile to Ireland, Canada or the Netherlands. Deals that have not been completed were excluded from the review.


It is impossible to know how the companies might have fared in the market had they not inverted. Innumerable factors other than taxes influence a stock's performance, and no two of these deals are identical, complicating simple comparisons.


But the analysis makes one thing clear: inversions, on their own, despite largely providing the tax savings that companies seek, are no guarantee of superior returns for investors.


"For some companies, these inversions are really smart business moves. For others, they're less smart ... You don't always know if it's going to work," said James Hines, professor of law and economics at the University of Michigan and one of a handful of academics who have closely studied these deals.

Drilling down on case study #1: Foster Wheeler:

The analysis, using Reuters data and analytics, measured simple share price performance against the S&P 500 index using two benchmarks - the date when each company completed its inversion deal, and the date when each deal was announced. With only four exceptions, the inverted companies that were still in business since doing their deals either uniformly underperformed or outperformed on both benchmarks.


For instance, U.S. engineering and construction group Foster Wheeler AG announced in November 2000 - when its stock was worth about $45 per share - that it was inverting to Bermuda. The deal, a statement said, was "expected to benefit Foster Wheeler and its stockholders for several reasons."


Since the announcement, the company's stock has lagged the S&P 500 by 50 percent; since the deal was concluded in May 2001, it has trailed the index by 83 percent. Foster Wheeler agreed in January 2014 to be acquired by UK rival Amec Plc for about $32.69 per share in Amec stock and cash at the time. The deal is expected to close in the fourth quarter.

Case #2: Eaton:

Ohio's Eaton Corp Plc, a maker of power management products, in 2012 moved its tax domicile to low-tax Ireland by acquiring Cooper Industries, itself an inverted company that reincorporated from the United States to Bermuda in 2002 and then Dublin in 2009. "The acquisition of Cooper was a strategic decision to add scale and breadth to our global electrical business ... The acquisition of Cooper was transformational for our business," said Eaton spokesman Scott Schroeder in emailed comments.


When the deal was announced, Eaton Chief Executive Sandy Cutler said it would shave about $160 million off Eaton's annual tax bill. He said business motivations, not tax reductions, were the key reasons for the transaction. Eaton's effective tax rate in 2013 was only 0.6 percent, down from 2.5 percent in 2012 and from 12.9 percent in 2011, said Eaton's 2013 annual report to federal regulators.


"The lower effective tax rate for 2013, compared to 2012, was primarily attributable to the effects associated with the acquisition of Cooper, along with greater levels of income in lower tax jurisdictions and additional foreign tax credit utilization," Eaton said in the Securities and Exchange Commission filing.


Despite the tax savings, Eaton has underperformed the S&P 500 by 5 percent since completing the Cooper deal in November 2012. But, measuring from the day when the deal was announced in May 2012, Eaton's share price has outperformed the index by 9 percent, Reuters data showed.

Case #3, biotech Xoma, fared so badly it un-inverted 13 years after rushing to expatriate:

The first U.S. drug company in the 52 to complete an inversion was biotechnology group Xoma Corp, which shifted to Bermuda in 1998. Thirteen years later, the company returned its tax domicile to the United States, saying in a statement it wanted to reduce exposure to possibly adverse tax legislation and to come back to a more familiar legal system.


Xoma has posted losses since 2010 and, despite returning to California, has underperformed the S&P500 by 95 percent since it went to Bermuda. A spokeswoman said Xoma had no comment.

So with a spotty track record, what is the impetus behind the M&A surge, aside for eager bankers and lawyers happy to collect this advisory fees? Perhaps for once the president is right and it really is just "herd mentality" and doing what is the faddy corporate transaction du jour:

Concern is growing in Washington about inversions. President Barack Obama has criticized a "herd mentality" by companies seeking deals to escape U.S. corporate taxes.


Of the 52 inversions and similar redomiciling deals done since 1983, 22 have occurred since 2008, with 10 more being finalized and many more said to be in the works.


Following recent deals by major companies such as Medtronic Inc (MDT.N), bankers and analysts have said that another burst of deals is waiting to be unveiled in September.

In any event, if the president has his way, it seems that inversions won't be a hot topic for much longer, and instead yet another government intervention will simply unleash yet another and far more direct way of avoiding paying US corporate taxes: foreign companies buying US-domiciled corporations outright, something which China is surely quite eager to pursue.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
PR Guy's picture



Sounds like too big a project for BO. Here's what happens when big projects go bad:


We have a lot of problems here in Ireland with US companies coming here and pretending they don't owe any tax anywhere in the world, even owing any here for that matter.


junction's picture

For Obama, inversions are just another diversion to keep the conversation away from the real question: Who is Obama?  "[Obama's] the greatest enemy to press freedom in a generation.”  James Risen, New York Times reporter in an interview in the Guardian newspaper [UK].  Obama's college records are sealed, most of his immediate family worked for the CIA directly or as proxies, his certificate of live birth looks to be cobbled from the Nordyke certificate and his social security number was a phoney.  One thing about Obama is certain: if you even indicate to others you have the goods on Obama's "legend," as reporter Michael Hastings did, you are a dead man walking.  

firstdivision's picture

The only thing I care to know is if a company does perform an inversion, does the US end any subsidies that the company receives?

Dr. Engali's picture

Of course not, they get the best of both worlds. Tax breaks, and a welfare check courtesy of the sucker known as the U.S tax payer. Isn't cronyism grand? 

RaceToTheBottom's picture

CEOs are the most uncreative resources out there.  

They just watch what others have done and if they were fired, then emulate the hot new idea.

Until you start giving thema  downside, they will continue to do what benefits themselves....

mastersnark's picture

So the performance for these companies is identical to any other 52 randomly selected companies?

Thanks, Reuters, this was very helpful.

piliage's picture

Not only that, this analysis completely misses the point of why companies are doing it. US companies are taxed on global income at 35%, most others aren't. UK corporate tax is only 15% in the UK, for example. Pfizer is sitting on $73 bil it can't do anything with overseas, if it brings it back to the US, a third is handed to Obama and his cronies in Congress. It isn't only about Future returns, its about making this cash stack productive now.

This is a crap article.

Kirk2NCC1701's picture

Ah, but have the Execs or select Shareholders benefited?  Somebody did - other than CPAs and tax lawyers.

Stuck on Zero's picture

Absolutely the CEOs benefitted.  They now have overseas bonuses, profits, and salaries that can 99% escape all taxation.  Screw the shareholder ... benefit the CEO.


Buckaroo Banzai's picture

For US citizens, personal income taxes are liable to taxation no matter where you live.

Only US corporate income taxes can be avoided via off shoring.

Stuck on Zero's picture

B.S. Check your laws.  Taxes only occur on repatriation. They never repatriate, instead the money is held in a Caymans bank which purchases all of the U.S. assets in a foreign corporate name.  We have thousands of multi-million dollar homes in this area held in the name of overseas corporations but occupied by Americans. 

ejmoosa's picture

Well, it may not lead to an above average return because the companies that choose to do this are already under such a tax burden that they are doing this to survive in the future.

Wouldn't you escape the tax burdens you currently have if you could?

Anyone that has more of their own money in their own coffers at the end of the game gets it.

Anyone paying more than they have to "voluntarily" is a sucker.





slightlyskeptical's picture

So these companies sell out the country and thus it's citizens and then one expects that they will actually turn over any benefit to their shareholders. Silly rabbits.