Mergers that harm competitors

Standard models of oligopolistic interdependence predict that firms remaining outside of a horizontal merger will benefit from it. Why, then, do nonparticipating firms feel threatened by mergers? This paper shows that under reasonable conditions a non-participating firm is harmed by a merger. The analysis is based on a spatial equilibrium with suppliers and demanders located at fixed points. Mergers harm non-participating firms as a result of the decrease in the level of marginal costs of the merged firm attributable to decreased output in markets where competition is eliminated. This lowered marginal cost makes the merged firm a more formidable competitor in markets in which outsiders participate. This effect is in almost all cases sufficient to make outsiders worse off after a merger. Simulations on a sample of spatial equilibria show that the harm to outsiders is a reliable index of the harm that the merger causes to social welfare.     

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).     

ENTRY DETERRENCE BY NON‐HORIZONTAL MERGER*

We study when and how pure non‐horizontal mergers, whether cross‐product or vertical, can deter new entry. Organizational mergers implicitly commit firms to more aggressive price competition. Because heightened competition deters entry, mergers can occur in equilibrium even when, absent entry considerations, they do not. We show that, in order to prevent a flood of entrants, mergers arise even when a marginal merger costs incumbent firms more than does a marginal entrant.     

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.     

Investment sharing in broadband networks

This paper presents a model of competition between an incumbent firm and an Other Licensed Operator (OLO) in the broadband market, where the incumbent has an investment option to build a Next Generation network (NGN) and it can do so by making an investment sharing agreement with the OLO, or alone. Two different kinds of investment sharing contractual forms are analyzed, a basic investment sharing, where no side-payment is given for the use of the NGN between co-investors, and joint-venture, where a side-payment is set by the co-investing firms. Results show that investment sharing can potentially be beneficial in terms of competition and investments, but the number of firms involved matters and so does the choice of the NGN access price, for insiders and outsiders of the agreement. Even when the presence of firms outside of the agreement force insiders to compete more fiercely, there might be a concern with the potential exclusion of the outsiders from the NGN.     

Mergers and product quality: Evidence from the airline industry

Retrospective studies of horizontal mergers have focused on their price effects, leaving the important question of how mergers affect product quality largely unanswered. This paper empirically investigates this issue for two recent airline mergers. Consistent with the theory that mergers facilitate coordination but diminish competitive pressure for quality improvement, we find that each merger is associated with a quality decrease (increase) in markets where the merging firms had (had no) pre-merger competition with each other, and the quality change can have a U-shaped relationship with pre-merger competition intensity. Consumer gains/losses associated with quality changes, which we monetize, are substantial.     

Horizontal mergers and collusive behavior

In the Industrial Organization literature, it is generally felt that mergers hurt consumers; not only because of the increased industrial concentration they effect, but also because collusion becomes more likely. In this paper we show that, at least in one important case, this intuition is misguided. If a tacitly collusive agreement enforced by trigger strategies is not initially sustainable, mergers will tend to reduce the chance that it becomes sustainable in the future. This is so because the threat point implicit in the agreement becomes more favorable for outsiders.     

Firm-specific time preferences and postmerger firm performance

This study investigates the role of firm-level discount factors in evaluating the impact of mergers on market outcomes. Discount factors reflect time preferences for future cash flows and are used to determine the present value of investment projects such as mergers. Firm-specific discount factors imply that firms may attach different present values to mergers. We elicit firm-specific time preferences and identify firms’ discount factors using firm-specific production data while building on the existence of learning-by-doing in the semiconductor industry. Our estimation results show that firm-specific discount factors explain firms’ production decisions. We also find that firms’ discount factors and merger acquisition strategies explain heterogeneous merger outcomes. Our results show that acquiring firms characterized by low discount factors (impatient firms) are highly efficient and merge with highly efficient and innovative firms. Impatient acquirers achieve relatively higher efficiency gains in the short run than patient acquirers and adopt acquisition strategies that put more weight on achieving instant efficiency gains. In contrast, patient acquirers are least efficient and merge with firms that are larger than themselves. Patient acquirers place more value on achieving efficiency gains in the more distant future.     

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.     

Dynamic performance analysis of U.S. wireline telecommunication companies

Assessing the changes over time in the efficiency of firms participating in competitive markets has always been a major concern to researchers and experts alike. With respect to the US wireline telecommunications sector, recent changes in unbundling regulations, as well as intermodal competition and mergers, have just increased uncertainty in a sector still marked by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Although Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) has become a methodology commonly used in many efficiency assessment applications, in the telecommunications context there is a need to implement an approach that takes into account carry-over activities between consecutive years; because of a wide customer base, financial long-term planning and investments in network elements and facilities are crucial for Local Exchange Carriers (LECs) to succeed. To that end, a Dynamic DEA application is formulated in this paper to evaluate the Incumbent LECs' (ILECs) performance from 1997 to 2007. Finally, a regression analysis has been carried out to establish the impact of competition and regulatory schemes upon carriers' efficiency. The results show that local competition has worsened efficiency, whereas neither intermodal competition nor incentive regulation has such a clear influence.     

On the competitive effects of vertical integration by a research laboratory

An independent research laboratory owns a patented process innovation ready to be used by an industry that produces differentiated goods. We analyze whether the laboratory prefers to license the innovation as an external patentee or to merge with one of the firms in the industry, licensing the innovation as an internal patentee. Under linear demand and Cournot competition, we show first, that the vertical merger is profitable only in the case of small innovations, whereas a merger increases welfare only for significant innovations; second, all profitable vertical mergers reduce welfare. However, some profitable mergers are welfare improving under price competition.     

Structure and Profitability in Banking Markets

We use the structure-performance model and regression analysis to investigate a number of analytical issues that often arise in evaluating competition in connection with bank mergers and that are generally relevant to mergers in other industries. Perhaps our most consistent and strongest finding is that the local market HHI is positively and significantly related to profitability. We also find that the number of organizations and the level of recent deposit growth may provide some additional information on the level of competition. Finally, several variables including market size, the number of large banking firms, deposits per office, and resident migration rates exhibit similar relationships to profitability in the bivariate analysis, suggesting that there may be some characteristic associated with market size, density, or attractiveness that is important for competition.     

Cournot Oligopoly Conditions under which Any Horizontal Merger Is Profitable

Findings in economic theory suggest that horizontalmergers involving firms with aggregate market shareless than 50% are unlikely to be motivated by theconsequent reduction in competitivity. The resultsarise because, absent cost efficiencies, quantity-settingfirms in small mergers are impoverished by the merger.We demonstrate that this conclusion is a consequence ofthe strong restrictions imposed on the demand function,and we identify a well-behaved demand function suchthat any set of merging firms benefits from the reductionin competition even when there are no cost efficiencies.     

Who's acquiring whom? — Experimental evidence of firm size effect on B2B mergers and marketing/sales tasks

A recent study has revealed a marked growth in global mergers and acquisitions between firms from developed and developing countries. Unlike previous merger waves, however, companies in emerging markets are playing an increasingly important role. This highlights the need for greater scrutiny of more, and diverse, aspects of mergers. In particular, the size difference between firms involved in mergers and its impact on merger outcomes are of interest. This paper examines whether the involvement of differing numbers of employees (either from the acquiring firm or from the acquired firm) may influence merger success. Drawing on previous work in understanding organizational culture and merger dynamics, we conduct a laboratory experiment that not only confirms the presence of learning and conflict in organizational cultures in mergers but also presents new findings in relation to the relative size of the firms involved.     

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 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.     

Competition,Collusion, and Spatial Sales Patterns: Theory and Evidence*

This article studies competition in markets with transport costs and capacity constraints. Using a rich micro-level data set of the cement industry in Germany, we study a cartel breakdown to identify the effect of competition on transport distances. We find that when firms compete, they more often serve more distant customers. Moreover, the transport distance also varies in the ratio of capacity relative to demand, but only if firms compete and not when they coordinate their sales. We provide a theoretical model of spatial competition with capacity constraints that rationalizes the empirical results.     

Endogenous horizontal mergers under cost uncertainty

This paper presents a study of endogenous horizontal mergers under cost uncertainty. Before knowing the exact values of their costs, firms decide sequentially whether or not to join a merger. After the merger decision is made, uncertainty is resolved and firms engage in Cournot competition with incomplete information about one another's costs. Due to production rationalization, the merged firms enjoy an advantage over non-merged firms in the sense that the merged firms' expected cost is lower. I show that mergers occur if and only if the uncertainty is large and that the larger the uncertainty, the greater the number of firms that will merge. Although a merger reduces competition and therefore hurts consumers, it improves productivity under cost uncertainty. I find that a merger increases social welfare whenever there are at least four firms in the industry before the merger.