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).     

Preemptive mergers under spatial competition

Mergers for market power generally benefit outsider firms more than participating firms. Hence, outsiders should welcome such mergers between their competitors but, frequently, this is not the case. Under spatial competition some outsiders gain more than the participating firms but others might benefit less. Thus, if the number of admissible mergers is limited, firms may decide to merge to preempt rival mergers. This paper studies the incentives for preemptive merger by firms engaged in spatial competition.     

Analytical Screens for Electricity Mergers

Electricity mergers pose distinct challenges for competition policy. Electricity demand is highly inelastic in the short run, storage is limited, and transmission constraints limit the ability to substitute generation at other locations. As a result, a merger can affect prices in many different markets and even generators with small market shares may be able to exercise market power. The U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s approach for screening horizontal mergers, based on the concentration thresholds in the Department of Justice/Federal Trade Commission Horizontal Merger Guidelines, can fail to identify mergers that lessen competition, and mergers that fail the FERC screen may have no significant anticompetitive effect. We propose competitive residual demand (CRD) analysis, which examines the supply curves of the markets affected by a merger and considers the ability and incentive of firms to raise prices before and after a proposed merger. CRD analysis is a relatively easy way to address the incentives for generators to exercise market power and relies on data that are often available. Vertical (convergent) mergers between electricity and gas raise additional concerns, and we propose a methodology to screen vertical mergers.     

Merger externalities in oligopolistic markets

We evaluate the external effects of 183 large mergers at the market level by assessing the impact on the main competitors of the merging firms. Using synthetic control groups and difference in difference estimation, we find that the return on assets of rival firms increases significantly after a merger. The size of the effect varies strongly with market characteristics and the intensity of competition.     

Should competition authorities care about conglomerate mergers?

Mergers and acquisitions may change competition even when they do not affect market structure, a case known as conglomerate mergers. In this paper, we explore a wave of acquisitions of higher education institutions by educational groups in Brazil, which allows us to disentangle the effects of conglomerate mergers and of horizontal mergers on price, quantity, and quality indicators. Our findings show that multiunit organizations are able to increase some quality indicators. As for the effect on price and quantity, results are different. For conglomerate mergers, we estimated an increase in the number of freshmen and tuition fees, whereas for acquisitions that lead to horizontal concentration there is no increase in quantity, just in prices. Also these effects are larger the smaller the market share of the acquired HEI. On the whole, our findings are consistent with the hypothesis that multiunit operations increase efficiency, but only conglomerate mergers tend to pass those gains on to consumers. Results also indicate that greater caution should be taken in market extension mergers when the acquired firm has a clear dominant position.     

Market Structure after Horizontal Mergers: Evidence from the Banking Industry

Antitrust agencies use measures of market structure to evaluate the likely competitive effects of proposed mergers, but little is known about how measures of market structure change over time, particularly after consummation of mergers and acquisitions. This paper analyzes the changes in market structure 3 and 5 years after mergers in the US banking industry. Our analysis suggests that concentration decreases and the number of banks increases in banking markets where mergers resulted in high concentration levels. In markets where the level of concentration changed by a relatively large amount, our findings are more ambiguous, as the level of concentration decreases, but no effect is found on the number of competitors.     

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.     

Hold-up of anti-competitive mergers

We construct a model of endogenous mergers and study some issues of whether and how to control mergers, taking into account firms equilibrium response to policy. Anti-competitive mergers benefit competitors more than the merging firms. We show how such free-riding reduces firms incentives to merge (holdup). Firms delay merger proposals, hoping other firms will merge instead. The final result, however, is an overly concentrated market. Merger control may thus preserve competitive markets. In the presence of holdup, even reasonable policies such as requiring divestiture or using cost-benefit analysis, may be worse than not controlling mergers at all.     

The Number of Firms and Production Capacity in Relation to Market Size

Many oligopoly theories predict a positive correlation between market size and the equilibrium number of firms and some also imply that competition is more intense in larger markets. We test these predictions on a sample of driving schools in 250 Swedish regional markets by estimating the relation between the number of firms, production capacity, and market size. The number of firms increases less than proportionally with market size. Market size per capacity unit is smaller in large markets. Since firms produce a fairly homogenous good, we argue that this is evidence that profits per capita is decreasing in market size.     

Horizontal mergers and delegation

This paper shows that the profitability of merger in oligopoly is significantly enhanced if firms delegate the output decision to an agent and then motivate the latter using strategic rent shifting contracts. Two consequences of increased profitability are that the minimum market share that the merging parties require in order to merge profitably without efficiency gains, as well as the maximum market share that the merging parties can possess in order to guarantee that a profitable merger is welfare enhancing, are reduced. A third result is that delegation cannot reduce the set of endogenous mergers.     

Differentiation and Competition in HMO Markets

This paper examines how differentiation among Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) affects local market competition. Most markets for HMOs appear sufficiently unconcentrated; however, differences among HMOs may make competition less intense than the number of competitors would suggest. To investigate this possibility, we distinguish HMOs that serve only local markets from those that operate regional or national networks. We analyze how HMOs of one type affect the profitability of the other using an equilibrium model of entry and product choice. While the two types of HMOs have strong competitive effects within segments, the competitive effect of differentiated firms is negligible.     

Threshold tests for the control of mergers: The Australian experience

Merger policy in Australia has been formulated for a small open economy. Tight merger control has been avoided in order not to impede rationalisation and improved international competitiveness. From 1977 to early 1993 a merger or acquisition was only prohibited if it would lead to a firm gaining a dominant position in a substantial market. As a result, few mergers were stopped and some which would probably have substantially lessened competition were allowed to proceed without detailed investigation. Since January 1993 a threshold test of substantial lessening of competition has applied — a reversion to the test included in the original 1974 Trade Practices Act. This is likely to mean that more proposed mergers will come under scrutiny and the trade-offs between efficiency gains and anti-competitive detriments will need to be evaluated in a greater number of individual cases. New draft merger guidelines released in November 1992 generally reflect contemporary thinking in industrial economics.     

横向合并控制中的资产剥离问题——基于古诺竞争的分析

本文基于古诺竞争构建了一个"三阶段"的博弈模型,分析了外资企业合并控制中的资产剥离问题,探讨了资产剥离的有效性及福利效应。研究发现:在一定条件下,资产剥离能够削弱合并带来的单边效应,改善社会福利,增加合并被批准的可能性。在此基础上,本文探讨了消费者福利标准与社会总福利标准之间的差别,认为提高社会总福利的资产剥离很有可能会降低消费者福利。同时,本文还详细模拟了外资企业与国内企业竞拍剥离资产的过程,认为竞拍结果的不同取决于市场规模的大小以及资产剥离的数量。最后,得出结论并为中国资产剥离的实施提出建议。     

Impact of Vertical Mergers on Industry Profitability: An Empirical Evaluation

Vertical integration has become an important business strategy to respond to the needs of a consumer-driven marketing system. Although one of the perceived benefits of vertical ownership integration is improved profitability of the integrated firm, empirical literature mostly ignores this issue. Using a sample of U.S. food manufacturing industries, this study examines the impact of vertical mergers on profitability. Findings show that vertical mergers negatively impact profits. This may be due to the failure of vertical mergers to create differential advantages, such as cost savings, for the integrated firm.     

Digging Deep to Compete: Vertical Integration,Product Market Competition and Prices

This article establishes a causal effect of product market competition on vertical integration. I exploit a hitherto unexplored natural experiment in the U.S. coal mining industry and a unique mine‐level organizational data set. Following an exogenous increase in product market competition, the incidence of vertical integration fell by 33% within the treatment group relative to the counterfactual. I find novel evidence that transition to the lower degree of vertical integration is driven by competition's reducing market prices by 32% which decreased the incentive to conduct vertical mergers. I discuss several possible interpretations of these changes.     

RELATIONSHIPS,COMPETITION AND THE STRUCTURE OF INVESTMENT BANKING MARKETS*

It is well known that competition can destroy incentives to invest in firm‐specific relationships. This paper examines how the tension between relationships and competition is resolved in the investment banking market, which for decades has been characterized by both relationships and competition. The model studies the impact on relationships of four different dimensions of competition: non‐exclusive relationships, competition from arm's‐length intermediaries, non‐price competition, and endogenous entry. The analysis shows how market equilibrium adjusts so that relationships are sustained in the face of such competition. Banks are shown to establish relationships without either local or aggregate monopoly power. The model rationalizes two distinct empirical regularities of market structure: the invariance of market concentration to market size; and a pyramidal market structure with an oligopoly comprising similar‐sized players at the top and a large number of small banks at the bottom. The analysis may also shed light on the industrial organization of other professional service industries.     

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.     

Merger Guidelines and the Limits of Our Understanding

The merger guidelines have evolved from a structural standard for determining the legality of mergers to an open-ended evaluation that attempts to predict whether some specific harm to competition is likely. These efforts have been unsuccessful; moreover, mergers generally contribute no positive economic gain. Blocking mergers that may have little or no adverse effect on competition will not cause significant economic harm; but the failure to interdict mergers that do cause harm imposes significant costs on the economy. Merger enforcement policy should return to the structural method of the 1968 Guidelines as well as impose stricter structural standards.     

The Profit-Structure Relationship in Legally Protected Banking Markets Using Efficiency Measures

Our various tests suggest that our sample banks that are shielded from competition by severe intrastate branching restrictions have market power. This analysis has allowed us to test rigorously the adverse effects of legal and possibly market barriers to entry. We reject the notion that profits are a result of superior $x$-efficiency. We conclude if these results are corroborated by further research (e.g., using other measures of profit, efficiency, capital, etc), and if these and/or other barriers remain, the Federal Reserve should be concerned with the competitive impacts of rural, in-market bank mergers.     

Ecological investigation of firm effects in horizontal mergers

Using an ecological lens, we extend strategic management and industrial organization theory to investigate the performance effects of horizontal mergers. We theorize that firms differ in their ability to benefit from horizontal mergers; that the products involved in the merger differ in their ability to attain and sustain any increase in performance above their premerger level; and that resource niches in which each product competes differ in terms of competitive constraints. We then test these predictions using longitudinal data specified at the product–market level, a unit of analysis that is less influenced by aggregation bias than are industry, firm, and even line-of-business level data. Our findings demonstrate how organizational ecology, when coupled with strategic management and industrial organization economic theories, can enrich our understanding of horizontal mergers. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.