Endogenous Mergers of Complements with Mixed Bundling

This paper studies endogenous mergers of complements with mixed bundling, by allowing both for joint and separate consumption. After merger, partner firms decrease the price of the bundled system. In addition, when markets for individual components are sufficiently important, partner firms find it strategically advantageous to raise the prices of stand-alone products, thus making substitute ‘mix-and-match’ composite products less attractive to consumers. Even though these effects favor the profitability of mergers, merging is not always an equilibrium outcome. The reason is that outsiders respond by cutting their prices to retain their market share, and mergers can be unprofitable when competition is intense. From a welfare analysis, we observe that the number of mergers that are observed in equilibrium may be either excessive (when markets for individual components are important) or suboptimal (when markets for individual components are less important).     

Bagging bundle benefits in broadband and media mergers: Lessons from Sky/Vodafone for antitrust analysis

The historic precedents in telecommunications antitrust findings have tended towards finding harm to competition when network operators integrate downstream and bundle the provision of applications and services. The reason for this is that market power in network provision is thought to be extended into the applications market(s). More recently however, proposed mergers have been between telecommunications and media distribution firms, both of whom have some degree of market power, already sell their own services in bundles, and who may or may not have been offering combined bundles already via contractual agreements. Examples include Sky/Vodafone in New Zealand, and Time Warner/AT&T in the United States as well as Vodafone/Unitymedia in Germany and Media Capital/Altice in Portugal. These complex proposed arrangements pose challenges to competition authorities, whose legal and procedural rules and precedents, especially those defining the relevant markets affected by the merger or vertical integration activity, have been developed from the analysis of simpler cases. These precedents may not be sufficient to analyse current cases, characterized by multiple products catering to heterogeneous consumer preferences, and consumers are not constrained to buying only one variant of the products in each of the upstream and downstream markets.We illustrate the challenges by way of a case study of the proposed merger between Sky and Vodafone, declined by the New Zealand Commerce Commission in February 2017. Limitations in existing market definition processes and the evaluation of market power where bundling already occurs risk overlooking complex demand-side interactions that influence the profitability and efficiency of various structural and contractual strategic choices. We propose that classic merger and antitrust analysis based on econometric cost-benefit analysis can be augmented by using simulation and numerical analysis of a range of bundle offers expected to be relevant in decision-making. We develop a simple model and use it to illustrate how it may be used to inform broadband and content mergers, and other complex antitrust cases, such the assessment of the effects of two-sided markets and firm pricing decisions.     

Economics at the FTC: Retrospective Merger Analysis with a Focus on Hospitals

Economists at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) support the agency’s competition and consumer protection missions. In this year’s essay we discuss efforts at the FTC and elsewhere to examine empirically the competitive effects of mergers. This work has ranged from subjective interview-based reports on post-merger behavior to more objective analyses of post-merger performance based on rigorous empirical analysis of prices. In this essay we discuss the merger retrospective literature generally, and focus on the FTC staff’s recent empirical analyses of consummated hospital mergers.     

Policy Implications of the Effects of Concentration and Multimarket Contact in China’s Airline Market

Unlike many other mergers in developed countries, which might have been assessed and their effects estimated by antitrust authorities before being granted antitrust immunity, the airline mergers that swept China’s airline industry in 2002 occurred with no antitrust challenge. These mergers provide the opportunity to study important market power issues in China’s airline markets. Given that increased concentration and multimarket contact are the main legacies of an airline merger, the effects of mergers on these variables can raise the potential for the exercise of market power. However, an examination of the period 2002–2004 during which the Chinese airline mergers occurred shows that the resulting increased concentration and enhanced multimarket contact did not have important consequences for airfares in Chinese city-pair markets. The presence of Hainan Airlines appears to have played an important role in suppressing the airfares charged by China Eastern and China Southern.     

The degree of competition in the advertising industry

After a merger wave began among advertising agencies in the late 1960's, the Federal Trade Commission investigated the anticompetitive effects of the mergers and concluded that the industry would remain competitive. In this paper, we employ a method suggested by Bresnahan to investigate the issue of competition in the advertising industry. The method uses industry-level data over the period 1972–87 to consider the determinants of supply and demand for advertising messages and to calculate the degree of market power on the supply side of the market. Statistical results support the hypothesis that the industry was competitive over this period.We thank Robert Coen of McCann-Erickson, Inc., for providing data on advertising costs and expenditures and W. Bradford Todd of the Richards Group for information about the industry. Lacy Glenn Thomas directed us to McCann-Erickson. We also thank James C. Murdoch, two anonymous referees, and the Editor, William G. Shepherd. Pornpong Sumanun provided research assistance. The usual disclaimer applies.     

Harm to Competition Under the 2010 Horizontal Merger Guidelines

In August, 2010, the Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission issued new Guidelines for assessing horizontal mergers under the antitrust laws. These Guidelines were long awaited not merely because of the lengthy interval between them and previous Guidelines but also because enforcement policy had drifted far from the standards articulated in the previous Guidelines. The 2010 Guidelines are distinctive manly for two things. One is briefer and less detailed treatment of market delineation. The other is an expanded set of theories of harm that justify preventing mergers or reversing mergers that have already occurred. The 2010 Guidelines reflect a growing belief that in markets where product differentiation is minimal competition tends to be robust and the structural presumptions stated in previous Guidelines were too harsh. By contrast, where product differentiation is substantial the Guidelines?? approach tended to define markets too broadly, overlooking significantly anticompetitive possibilities. Under the 2010 Guidelines unilateral effects analysis relevant markets can be very small, often limited to three or four firms, and excluding some obvious substitutes. Markets in merger analysis are not defined for their own sake, however, but rather to ascertain whether a particular alteration in market structure covered by the merger provisions will be likely to facilitate a price increase. The 2010 Guidelines address four substantive merger concerns: exclusion, restraints on innovation, unilateral effects, and coordinated effects. The Guidelines have a separate section on mergers limiting ??innovation and product variety,?? treated mainly in the category of unilateral effects. The 2010 Guidelines are more flexible than previous Guidelines and also more catholic about the types of harms that mergers might cause and the techniques that can be used to assess them. Older Guidelines were excessively wed to methodologies that were at the forefront of applied merger analysis when they were drafted, but that tended to make the Guidelines obsolete as new methodologies became available. Not only do methodologies change, they are also specific to the situation. Further, they tend to be well developed in the literature and accessible to experts consulted by those defending a merger as well as to the government economists who employ them. To be sure, there is a tradeoff between flexibility and guidance. Often we can have more of one only by giving up some of the other, and that tradeoff is clearly present in the 2010 Guidelines.     

Economics at the FTC: Non-price Merger Effects and Deceptive Automobile Ads

Economists at the Federal Trade Commission analyze a wide range of activities, practices, and policies in support of the agency’s consumer protection and competition missions as demonstrated by the two economic analyses discussed in this article. The first section of this article describes the economic analysis of a proposed merger’s impact on non-price dimensions of competition in the daily fantasy sports market. The second section builds an economic model to quantify the harm to consumers from deceptive advertising in automobile markets.     

Economics Research at the FTC: Information,Retrospectives, and Retailing

Individual Federal Trade Commission (FTC) cases invariably raise broad questions about consumers, markets, and effective enforcement policy. Recent consumer protection cases raise questions about information regulation. Horizontal merger enforcement has recently focused on retrospective analysis of mergers and the role of the retail sector in predicting the effects of manufacturer mergers. In this paper, we describe research by the FTCs Bureau of Economics that addresses these three areas. We argue that such research is well worth the agencys relatively small resource investment because it demonstrably contributes to more thoughtful policy analysis and better policy outcomes.     

Fifty is the New Forty: EU Merger Policy Permits Higher Market Shares After the 2004 Reform

I analyze empirically all of the European Commission’s decisions regarding “unilateral effects” aspects of horizontal mergers before and after the 2004 reform, which introduced the “significant impediment to effective competition” test in merger policy. I find that, after the reform, the Commission did not change its stance toward mergers to monopoly or quasi-monopoly (almost always challenged) and mergers in un-concentrated markets (almost never). The new test produced more frequent challenges when the combined entity is not the largest firm, but these cases remain rare. The Commission’s stance toward mergers that fall between these polar opposites appears to have been tougher pre-reform ceteris paribus.     

Economic Analyses of Mergers at the FTC: The Cruise Ships Mergers Investigation

This paper provides an overview of how economists atthe Federal Trade Commission assess the potentialcompetitive effects of mergers, with a focus on thetypes of quantitative analyses frequently employed.The paper first outlines the general approach employedat the Federal Trade Commission to review mergers.The paper then describes analyses done in theinvestigation of proposed mergers in the cruiseline industry as a specific example. Of particularinterest in this example are the analyses used toassess the potential for coordinated interaction asa result of the merger.     

An experimental test of automatic mitigation of wholesale electricity prices

In several major deregulated electricity generation markets, the market operator uses an “automatic mitigation procedure” (AMP) to attempt to suppress the exercise of market power. A leading type of AMP compares the offer price from each generation unit with a recent historical average of accepted offer prices from that same unit during periods when there was no transmission-system congestion to impede competition. If one or more units' offer prices exceed the recent historical average by more than a specified margin, and if these offer prices raise the market-clearing price by more than a specified margin, the market operator replaces the offending offer prices with lower ones. In an experiment, we test an AMP of this type. We find that it keeps market prices close to marginal cost if generation owners have low market power in uncongested periods. However, with high market power in uncongested periods, a condition that may apply in many parts of the world, the generation owners are able to gradually raise the market price well above short-run marginal cost in spite of the AMP. We also test the effect of the AMP on the frequency with which high-variable-cost units are used, inefficiently, in place of low-variable-cost units.     

Geographic Market Definition in the Merger Guidelines: A Retrospective Analysis

Since the initial Merger Guidelines in 1968, the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission have revised their merger enforcement screen over the course of six versions. This article examines the evolution of the geographic market component of the Guidelines and the economic implications of changing standards of market delineation on merger enforcement. Using an illustration from the beer industry, we chronicle the development of geographic market definition and its varying effects on merger enforcement over the past 50 years.     

An antitrust analysis of non-profit hospital mergers

This paper considers such issues involved in non-profit hospital mergers as relevant product and geographic markets and the impacts of mergers on competition. The roles of non-price competition, entry barriers, and merger-generated efficiencies are considered. Close attention is given to the relevance of the Justice Department Merger guideline to the hospital industry. Through detailed examination of four litigated or challenged cases, the geographic market is shown to depend upon particular medical services. Outpatient services are found to comprise a separate market from inpatient hospital services, and non-profit status is determined to warrant the usual antitrust merger treatment.     

Upward pricing pressure in two-sided markets: Incorporating rebalancing effects

In two-sided markets it is important to consider rebalancing effects following a merger, i.e. the impact of a change in margin on one side of the market, either due to a price change or to efficiency gains, on the pricing incentives on the other side. We propose modified versions for the indices of pricing pressure (UPP and GUPPI) that take this into account. We show that in two-sided markets where the cross-group externalities are positive the upward pricing pressure will typically be overstated if the rebalancing effect is ignored. Our approach explains why competition agencies should look at both sides of the market when assessing platform mergers.     

25 years of European merger control

We study the determinants of common European merger policy over its first 25 years, from 1990 to 2014. Using a novel dataset at the level of the relevant antitrust markets and containing all relevant merger cases notified to the European Commission, we evaluate how consistently arguments related to structural market parameters – dominance, rising concentration, barriers to entry, and foreclosure – were applied over time and across different geographic market definitions. On average, linear probability models overestimate the effects of structural indicators. Using non-parametric machine learning techniques, we find that dominance is positively correlated with competitive concerns, especially in markets with a substantial increase in post-merger concentration and in complex mergers. Yet, its importance decreased following the 2004 merger policy reform. Competitive concerns are also correlated with rising concentration, especially if entry barriers and foreclosure are of concern. The impact of these structural indicators in explaining competitive concerns is independent of the geographic market definition and does not change over time.     

Merger Review by the Federal Communications Commission: Comcast–NBC Universal

The Communications Act of 1934 created a dual review process in which mergers in the communications industry are reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) as well as the antitrust authorities. Commentators have criticized dual review not only as costly and redundant, but also as subject to substantive and procedural abuse. The process of clearing the 2011 Comcast–NBC Universal merger provides a useful case study to examine whether such concerns are justified. A review of the empirical context reveals that the FCC intervened even though the relevant markets were not structured in a way that would ordinarily raise anticompetitive concerns. In addition, the FCC was able to use differences between its review process and that used by the Justice Department to extract concessions from the merging parties that had nothing to do with the merger and which were more properly addressed through general rulemaking. Moreover, the use of voluntary commitments also allowed the FCC to avoid subjecting certain aspects of its decision to public comment and immunized it from having to offer a reasoned explanation or subjecting its decision to judicial review. The aftermath of the merger provides an opportunity to assess whether the FCC’s intervention yielded consumer benefits.     

The effects of mergers in markets for differentiated products

Several authors have studied conditions in which price-increasing forces associated with mergers in ahomogenous oligopoly might be offset by price-decreasing forces associated with rationalization of production. Analogously, in the case of mergers between producers ofdifferentiated products, economies of scope are a possible price-decreasing force. The interrelationship of demands can be another one. Edgeworth showed the possible strength of this latter force in demonstrating that the imposition of taxes on substitute products can cause the prices of all of them to fall. That paradoxical result is directly relevant since effects of mergers are shown to be equivalent to those of properly chosen taxes. Nevertheless, it is shown that the Edgeworth phenomenon does not carry over to mergers i.e., demand forces on their own are not sufficient for mergers to lead to reductions in all prices — although some price reductions are possible. The paper also develops conditions for all prices to rise after a merger. General conjectural variation models in both price and quantity are considered. Finally, it is shown that mergers cannot increase welfare in linear models with Bertrand or Cournot competition. The implications of the results for merger policy are briefly discussed.     

The 2010 Revised Merger Guidelines and Modern Industrial Economics

The new Horizontal Merger Guidelines provide greater transparency into how the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission staffs review horizontal mergers than did the guidelines they replaced. While they reflect some advances in economic techniques for predicting the competitive consequences of mergers (most notabley the Upward Pricing Pressure test), greater attention to costs and efficiencies could further improve merger review.     

Does competition increase quality? Evidence from the US airline industry

This paper studies the impact of competition on quality provision in the US airline industry exploiting a novel source of exogenous variation in competition. While mergers among market incumbents may stifle competition, a merger may increase the probability of entry if the merging airlines were not operating prior to merger in the market but each of them had presence at different route endpoints. We find non-merging incumbent airlines increase their flight frequency upon entry threat and accommodate entry of the newly merged airline by lowering flight frequency upon entry. While non-merging incumbents reduced arrival delays only upon entry of the newly merged airline, we find that incumbents decrease their cancelation rates and departure delays both upon merger announcement and entry of the newly merged airline. Our evidence suggests an increase in competition may increase consumer surplus, because non-merging incumbents increase quality and convenience, while keeping their prices unchanged.     

Mergers when firms compete by choosing both price and promotion

We analyze the bias from predicting merger effects using structural models of price competition when firms actually compete using both price and promotion. We extend the standard merger simulation framework to allow for competition over both price and promotion and ask what happens if we ignore promotional competition. This model is applied to the super-premium ice cream industry, where a merger between Nestlé and Dreyer's was challenged by the Federal Trade Commission. We find that ignoring promotional competition significantly biases the predicted price effects of a merger to monopoly (5% instead of 12%). About three-fourths of the difference can be attributed to estimation bias (estimated demand is too elastic), with the remainder due to extrapolation bias from assuming post-merger promotional activity stays constant (instead it declines by 31%).