Unveiling the Nexus: Exploring the Impact of Corporate Governance on the Financial Performance of Acquiring Companies in the Indian Context

Please improve the motivation for the study.

Thanks for highlighting the same. We have added the motivation of the study in the Introduction. The same has been highlighted in the paper for your reference.  

Write in a concise way discussing your main results, not every finding you have.

Thanks for highlighting the same. We have focused on discussing the main findings of the study in the conclusion part.

You need to summarize your main findings in the introduction. Are the results consistent with previous evidence?

Thanks for pointing it out. We have added the main contribution of the study in the introduction.

You are saying that you want to specifically look at firm performance after M&A;As so that means in reviewing the literature and all discussion you need to focus on that. This means studies that look atthe relation between CG and performance are not directly relevant as they describe unconditional performance. This focus on M&As . what helps you differentiate from earlier research so please stick to it.-

Thanks for pointing it out. Only the relevant literature focusing on M&A and CG have been retained.

5. Table 1 should be included as an appendix.

Thanks for the suggestion. The same has been moved to the appendix.

5. You can have 1 model and explain you will use different dependent variables. You do not need to repeat the same equation 12 times.-

Thanks for pointing it out. The same has been incorporated in the paper.

Discuss how reasonable your descriptive statistics are, e.g., is ROA of 3.15 reasonable?-

Thanks for pointing it out. The same has been

Table 5 is not displayed on the page

 Thanks for pointing it out. The same has been corrected.

Present variance inflation factors for variables since some measures can be highly correlated

 Thanks for pointing it out. The same has been checked and presented in Appendix. The VIF values are within range and therefore problem of multicollinearity is not present.

Control for year and industry effects in the regression

We have controlled for the Industry effect; Further, the Financial sector was excluded as it may bias our result.  

 Clarify what the dependent variable is in each column in Table 6. Same for table 7

Thanks for pointing it out. The suggestion has been incorporated.

Reviewer 2

The expression at the beginning of section 2 should be reviewed.... This section studies previous studies…ˮ.   - In table 2,

Thanks for pointing it out. The same has been corrected.

The last column does not represent percentages (for example, 0.06 is equivalent to 6% to sum up to 100% in the end).  

Thanks for pointing it out. The same has been corrected.

It would be ideal to explain the choice of the 2014-2020 period

Thanks for pointing it out. The explanation of the choice of period has been added in the methodology section. 

Table 3 does not specify the independent variables

Thanks for pointing it out. The same has been corrected.

Formulating hypotheses related to the expected direction of correlation between variables (from column 3 of table 3) would have been helpful.

Thanks for pointing it out. The same has been incorporated in the third column of Table 2. 

Reviewer 3

The findings appear sounds and methodologically robust although the interpretation of results should carefully consider the potential for multicollinearity

Thanks for pointing it out. We have carried out VIF test on the formulated model and the results of the test suggest that the model is from from the issue of multicollinearity.

(Alexandridis et. al, 2017) only states “linkage between acquiring firm performance and the director's representation by an outside firm.” This doesn’t tell is if there actually was any link, what it was (if it existed), or how strong it was

Thanks for pointing it out. We have deleted this study to avoid confusion to the reader as suggested.

If using the abbreviation CG for corporate governance, the abbreviation should be defined the first time

Thanks for highlighting, we have defined the same and used CG at al other places in the text.

The English is mostly fine but there are few typos including capitalisation issues

Thanks for highlighting it. We have gone for professional proofreading to avoid any typos in the final manuscript. 

Feedback

Response

you say that you updated the regressions to include year and industry effects in the regressions but the coefficients are the same. This makes me think you did not update the regression models. You also do not show the updated model when describing your research design. Please update the tables so that the regressions control for year and industry effects

Thanks for pointing it out, we have updated the tables and the equation by taking into account the industry effects and the year effect. We have also updated the same in the methodology section.  

-please compare your empirical results to earlier studies - do you find similar signs and significance on the main variables and controls?

Thanks for pointing this out. The same has been done in the conclusion section. 

-include notes to tables

Thanks for pointing this out. The same has been included below the Tables 5& 6.  

I suggest sending the paper for proof reading, it will make it easier to read. 

Thanks for pointing this out. The paper has been proofread using a paid professional proofreading service.