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.     

Mergers and synergy: Lessons from contemporary telecommunications history

Using contemporary historical data, the analysis reported in this article has evaluated the impact of the various mergers of the local exchange companies that took place between 1988 and 2001 on financial performance. Performance was measured using an important metric normally used to measure synergies of firms undergoing mergers. The analysis has revealed that the relative cash flow variable for firms worsened after mergers. If the synergy motive had been primary in influencing merger decisions, and also approvals, then the past mergers approved led to decreased performance levels and corresponding welfare losses for American consumers; thus, the mergers of communications common carriers were not in the interest of the public, the shareholders and customers. On the other hand, given the negative outcomes, views that the quiet life, hubris or a quest for possible market power motivated the mergers could be discarded. The lessons of such contemporary historical analysis have suggested that antitrust oppositions to contemporary telecommunications sector mergers may have basis in fact and salient evidence.     

A Structural Approach to Market Definition With an Application to the Hospital Industry

Market definition is common in merger analysis, and often the decisive factor in antitrust cases. This has been particularly relevant in the hospital industry, where many merger challenges have been denied due to disagreements over geographic market definition. We compare geographic markets produced using frequently employed ad hoc methodologies to structural methods that directly apply the ‘SSNIP test’ to California hospitals. Our results suggest that markets produced using previous methods overstate hospital demand elasticities by a factor of 2.4 to 3.4 and were likely a contributing factor to the permissive legal environment for hospital mergers.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

The 1984 justice department guidelines toward horizontal mergers

This paper examines the treatment of economic efficiency in the 1984 revision of the Department of Justice's antitrust Merger Guidelines. An overview of the evolution of the guidelines toward horizontal mergers is presented emphasizing three key areas where changes have occurred. A model is developed following O. Williamson framework is extended to link changes in market concentration (as measured by the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index) that result from a horizontal merger to changes in market power (as measured by price-cost margins). Finally, the cost reductions (economies) required to offset increases in market power are developed in a simulation model. The paper concludes with an application of the model to the LTV-Republic Steel merger.     

The Australian merger guidelines: A comparison with the U.S. merger guidelines

Modern Australian antitrust had not begun when the first U.S. merger guidelines appeared in 1968. Even now, twenty five years later, no similarly detailed, formal administrative guidelines have been developed in Australia. This paper reviews the way in which the AustralianTrade Practices Act 1974 handles mergers and market definition, and considers how the Courts and the Trade Practices Commission, Australia's sole antitrust enforcement agency, have handled market definition and evaluated mergers. The key role played by the Trade Practices Tribunal, a quasi-judicial body, in influencing the Australian approach to mergers and market definition is highlighted. Contrasts are made with the 1992 American guidelines, and reasons for the different approaches are suggested.     

Market Definition?

The 2010 horizontal merger guidelines issued by the antitrust agencies de-emphasize market definition, which has been a foundation of merger law for decades and was required by previous guidelines. The justification for this change is that unilateral adverse price effects caused by mergers of firms that produce differentiated products are best assessed using analyses that do not depend on market definition. Though the guidelines unquestionably serve a value in illuminating actual agency practice, any marginal benefit in dropping the exercise of market determination from the merger review process is likely to be small, and the marginal cost may be substantial.     

Conglomerate mergers and subsequent industry effects

The focus of most studies of conglomerate mergers has been on the effects on companies involved. Of more direct relevance to antitrust policy is the question of industry effects of this type of merger. This article looks at eleven cases of “large firm/leading firm” conglomerate mergers completed between 1958 and 1970 and examines census data to see if structure or performance of the acquired “leading firm's” market was altered due to the merger. The results suggest that industry structure is not significantly affected, but that there may be adverse performance effects when the acquired firm is a leader in an unconcentrated market with substantial entry barriers.     

“High-Tech” Antitrust: Incoherent,Misguided, Obsolete,or None of the Above? Comments on Crandall-Jackson and Wright

That prominent antitrust cases have been in the “high-tech” arena is not surprising, since high-tech industries are often susceptible to the scale economies that lead to highly concentrated or monopoly markets. Crandall and Jackson’s observations on the IBM case are on point. Regarding AT&T, the salient observation is that recent changes in legal doctrine may make it impossible to bring antitrust cases in regulated industries. The problem with the Microsoft case was not that it was right or wrong, but that it was fundamentally incoherent. Wright’s critique of the Federal Trade Commission’s case against Intel is problematic because buyers in exclusion cases tend to be better off, not victims as they would be under collusion or anticompetitive mergers. As these observations apply more generally to cases in sectors that are not associated with high-tech, I offer a few thoughts on some antitrust issues that are particular to high-tech sectors, specifically how the prospect of innovation could affect market definition in merger cases and, more broadly, whether dynamic efficiencies reduce the need for antitrust enforcement.     

Patterns of abnormal returns and the competitive effects of horizontal mergers

This paper examines the abnormal stock returns of rivals of firms undertaking horizontal mergers that were challenged by the FTC over the period 1981–1987. At the time of merger announcements, the rivals earn positive abnormal return on average; at the time of the antitrust complaints, the rivals earn normal returns. Past studies have argued that this specific pattern of abnormal returns necessarily indicates that mergers could not have reduced competition. This paper finds that this pattern of abnormal returns is a result of the different effects of antitrust complaints on smaller and larger rivals. The evidence suggests that the mergers may have created efficiencies, but the pattern of abnormal returns is not inconsistent with mergers that may also have resulted in higher product prices.     

Exploring the incremental merger value from multimarket and technology arguments

We address the question through which channels mergers create incremental value to merging firms and consider various product market and technological arguments. Based on the pairwise stable allocation concept, we estimate firms’ pair-specific (incremental) merger value functions. Our results show that technological arguments contribute to the majority of added merger value. We also find that market power arguments across multiple markets contribute to explaining incremental post-merger value. In contrast, multimarket strategic effects do not add merger value. Our estimated match values are aligned with the merging firms’ post-merger stock market performance.     

Estimating Differential Dynamic Merger Effects on Market Structure and Entry in Related Markets

The U.S. and EU merger guidelines emphasize “ease of entry” arguments but little is known about the dynamic impact of realized mergers on market structure. This study provides insights on this topic with the use of detailed firm-level data on the memory chip market. Our estimation results provide evidence for differential merger effects on market structure. These effects depend on whether the mergers are dominated by market-power or efficiency gains. While efficiency-dominated mergers cause exit, market-power-dominated mergers attract entrants, and these effects are increasing over time. We also find that market-power mergers have a larger effect on entry than efficiency mergers have on exit. Our results show that mergers can reduce the number of potential entrants into related product markets and serve as an instrument to “reduce the likelihood of entry”.

     

Merger policy greatly simplified: Building on keyes

This comment urges a recognition of the fact that the main goal of antitrust, as revealed in a century of consequences, is not economic efficiency or consumer protection but the dispersion of power and decision-making in the business world. Building on Lucile S. Keyes' proposal for improving merger guidelines, it argues that the “true” aims of merger policy can be more efficiently pursued by disallowing all mergers involving very large firms that cannot be justified on efficiency grounds and ignoring mergers involving all other firms.     

Mergers with future rivals can boost prices,bar entry,and intensify market concentration

It is theoretically shown that mergers between incumbents and future rivals can boost prices and harm consumers. But in the absence of empirical evidence, no merger has been litigated on this basis. To offer empirical insights, I study the acquisition case of a promising future rival by a large incumbent pharmaceutical firm. First, there is strong and causal evidence that the merger has enabled higher prices for the incumbent. Mergers with future rivals are practically unregulated and, if wisely exploited, they can circumvent antitrust enforcement and serve as entry barriers. Second, in contrast to the mainstream prediction that mergers with future rivals do not alter market concentration, I report a large post-merger increase in the market concentration. I introduce advertisement expenditure as a possible channel of effect between the merger and market concentration. Third, I document spillover effect of the merger on the incumbent's immediate rivals without affecting its distant rivals.     

The Gradual Response of Market Power to Mergers in the U.S. Steel Industry

Studies of the impact of horizontal mergers on market power typically impose an immediate adjustment of market power following a merger. This paper adopts an alternative procedure to estimate the effect of four mergers on market power in the U.S. steel industry. Namely, by estimating a switching regression model that incorporates profit-maximizing behavior, the results show that mergers generally increased market power in the steel industry. However, it did take some time for market power to fully adjust after each merger.     

Forward Contracts,Market Structure and the Welfare Effects of Mergers

We examine how forward contracts affect economic outcomes under generalized market structures. In the model, forward contracts discipline the exercise of market power by making profit less sensitive to changes in output. This impact is greatest in markets with intermediate levels of concentration. Mergers reduce the use of forward contracts in equilibrium and, in markets that are sufficiently concentrated, this amplifies the adverse effects on consumer surplus. Additional analyses of merger profitability and collusion are provided. Throughout, we illustrate and extend the theoretical results using Monte Carlo simulations. We discuss the practical relevance for antitrust enforcement.     

Network effects and merger analysis: instant messaging and the AOL–Time Warner case

The AOL–Time Warner merger, announced in January 2000, was and still is the largest merger ever consummated. The merger plan was submitted to the FTC for antitrust review and to the FCC for license transfer review. The FTC approved the merger with conditions relating to open access. The FCC approved the merger subject to a condition (among others) that mandated interoperability for future (but not present) generations of AOL's popular instant messaging (IM) service, based on the potential leveraging of merger assets together with current IM network effects into market power in next-generation IM services. This condition was controversial and represents a new departure in antitrust analysis for industries imbued with network effects. This paper analyzes AOL's IM service and the ability to leverage merger assets into future market power in the context of the FCC condition; counter-arguments are considered and larger lessons for “new economy” antitrust are drawn from this experience and analysis.