Pricing Experience Goods: The Effects of Customer Recognition and Commitment

In a two‐period model of nondurable experience goods, we compare the profit and social welfare effects of behavior‐based price discrimination (BBPD) and price commitment (PC) (relative to time‐consistent pricing) in a monopoly. We find that when the static, full‐information monopoly price is higher (lower) than the mean consumer valuation, PC yields higher (lower) profits and social welfare than BBPD. We also identify the market conditions under which BBPD does not increase firm profits and provide an explanation as to when the firm should discriminate against its first‐time and repeat customers, respectively.     

Competition with Aftermarket Power When Consumers Are Heterogeneous

We study a model of competitive foremarkets and partly monopolized aftermarkets. We show that high aftermarket power prompts firms to engage in inefficiently aggressive below‐cost pricing in the foremarket. This inefficiency is driven by the presence of consumers with valuations below marginal cost. While for intermediate aftermarket power their presence leads to a competition‐softening effect, for high aftermarket power firms attract increasing numbers of unprofitable consumers by aggressively pricing below cost. For high aftermarket power, firms' equilibrium profits can therefore be decreasing in aftermarket power but are always higher than for low aftermarket power. If firms engage in price discrimination by bundling the foremarket and aftermarket goods or by reducing their aftermarket power, they avoid selling to unprofitable consumers but also reduce the competition‐softening effect. This decreases firms' equilibrium profits but increases consumer and social welfare.     

The impact of access to consumer data on the competitive effects of horizontal mergers and exclusive dealing

We examine the influence of firms’ ability to employ individualized pricing on the welfare consequences of horizontal mergers. In a two‐to‐one merger, the merger reduces consumer surplus more when firms can price discriminate based on individual preferences compared to when they cannot. However, the opposite holds true in a three‐to‐two merger, in which the reduction in consumer surplus is substantially lower with individualized pricing than with uniform pricing. Further, the merger requires an even smaller marginal cost reduction to justify when an upstream data provider can make exclusive offers for its data to downstream firms. We also show that exclusive contracts for consumer data pose significant antitrust concerns independent of merger considerations. Implications for vertical integration and data mergers are drawn.     

Merger Failures

This paper proposes an explanation as to why some mergers fail, based on the interaction between the pre‐ and post‐merger processes. We argue that failure may stem from informational asymmetries arising from the pre‐merger period, and problems of cooperation and coordination within recently merged firms. We show that a partner may optimally agree to merge and abstain from putting forth any post‐merger effort, counting on the other partner to make the necessary efforts. If both follow the same course of action, the merger goes ahead but fails. Our unique equilibrium allows us to make predictions on which mergers are more likely to fail.     

Can the Timing of Negotiations Impact the Consequences of Mergers?

This paper uses a theoretical model to examine whether variation in the timing of negotiations between buyers and sellers can alter the effects of mergers between sellers. The model shows that mergers between horizontally overlapping firms lead to price increases regardless of how negotiations take place. In contrast, mergers between firms in different markets can only lead to higher compensation for the combined firm when negotiations occur sequentially. However, any price effects from out‐of‐market mergers stem from a mechanical redistribution of existing market power and not from a loss in competition. Published 2014. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.     

Bargains Followed by Bargains: When Switching Costs Make Markets More Competitive

In markets where consumers have switching costs and firms cannot price‐discriminate, firms have two conflicting strategies. A firm can either offer a low price to attract new consumers and build future market share or a firm can offer a high price to exploit the partial lock‐in of their existing consumers. This paper develops a theory of competition when overlapping generations of consumers have switching costs and firms produce differentiated products. Competition takes place over an infinite horizon with any number of firms. This paper shows that the relationship between the level of switching costs, firms' discount rate, and the number of firms determines whether firms offer low or high prices. Similar to previous duopoly studies, switching costs are likely to facilitate lower (higher) equilibrium prices when switching costs are small (large) or when a firm's discount rate is large (small). Unlike previous studies, this paper demonstrates that the number of firms also determines whether switching costs are pro‐ or anticompetitive, and with a sufficiently large (small) number of firms switching costs are pro‐ (anti‐) competitive.     

Sequential mergers under incomplete information

We study sequential mergers under incomplete information where the follower is ignorant about the leader's merger synergy. When the follower's own synergy is sufficiently large, incomplete information induces both firms to merge more. These additional mergers benefit both firms and total welfare but hurt consumers. If the follower's synergy is very small, the leader is unable to take any strategic action, and most results are reversed. The analysis suggests that incomplete information strengthens the strategic complementarity between the two mergers and thereby increases the likelihood of a merger wave.     

The Impact of the Big 8 Mergers on Market Power: Evidence from the Hong Kong Market

This study examines the impact of the Big 8 mergers on market power in an audit market where the merging firms have little presence. Audit fee changes for each merger participating firm are identified and fee changes for several post‐merger years are examined. The pre‐merger differential market power between the merging and non‐merging long‐established Big 8 firms (Price Waterhouse and KPMG Peat Marwick) in Hong Kong provides a unique opportunity to examine whether the mergers could help the merging firms to increase their market power. The results are consistent with the hypotheses that the audit fees of the merging firms were significantly lower than that of the non‐merging, long‐established Big 8 firms before the mergers, but the audit fees of the merged firms increased significantly to a level comparable with that of the latter group after the mergers. In addition, the market share of the merged firms increased significantly after the mergers. However, no association is found between market concentration and market power. Overall, the results show that the Big 8 mergers have helped the merged firms increase their market power and market share in the Hong Kong audit market where they had little presence.     

Takeover deterrents and cross partial ownership: The case of golden shares

We analyse takeovers in an industry with bilateral capital‐linked firms in cross partial ownership (CPO). Before merger, CPO reduces the profitability of involved firms, confirming the “outsider effect.” However, the impact of CPO upon merger profitability is two‐sided in a Cournot setting. CPO, by cointegrating profits, increases output collusion leading to anticompetitive effects with facilitated mergers in most cases. Nonetheless, a protective threshold exists for which CPO arrangements can reduce the incentives for hostile takeovers. This has potentially significant regulatory implications. An illustrative example showcases the potential relevance of CPO as a defence against hostile takeovers across different industries.     

Price Discrimination in Input Markets: Downstream Entry and Efficiency

The extant theory on price discrimination in input markets takes the structure of the downstream industry as exogenously given. This paper endogenizes the structure of the downstream industry and examines the effects of permitting third‐degree price discrimination on market structure and welfare. We identify situations where permitting price discrimination leads to either higher or lower wholesale prices for all downstream firms. These findings are driven by upstream profits being discontinuous due to costly entry. Moreover, permitting price discrimination fosters entry which often improves welfare. Nevertheless, entry can also reduce welfare because it may lead to a severe inefficiency in production.     

Market value,market share,and mergers: Evidence from a panel of U.S. firms

Improving shareholder value has often been cited as a merger determinant. Because mergers create larger firms and less competition, they may increase shareholder value through higher market share and stock‐market value. We investigate merger impacts on firms' stock‐market value and market share. We construct panel data from 4 different data sources on public merging and non‐merging U.S. manufacturing firms for 1980–2003. Instrumental variables and factors such as R&D, patents, and citations control for endogeneity. We find that mergers are positively correlated with stock‐market value and market share.     

我国总体并购活动与宏观经济变量的关联性研究——对我国并购浪潮成因的分析

本文对我国总体并购活动与GDP增长率、货币供应量、利率、股价及汇率的关联性实证研究结果表明，并购周期与经济周期具有较强的相关性，具有长期均衡关系；货币供应量、利率、股价和汇率等与总体并购活动具有长期稳定的关系，但短期内，利率与并购活动显著地负相关；货币供应量对总体并购活动有微弱的正相关关系；股价指数和汇率对总体并购活动有负影响，且影响程度很弱。这说明，经济周期和利率是我国并购浪潮形成的主要原因。     

Choosing the Quality of the Fit between Complementary Products

In this paper, I examine how firms should position their complementary products. I assume that there are two competing firms, each producing two complementary products. Each firm decides whether to employ strategies that enhance the quality of the fit (the degree of complementarity) between its pair of complementary products before competing in prices. The consumers have heterogeneous tastes for the four possible bundles. They are willing to pay a price premium in order to purchase a bundle from the same firm if this firm chose to make such bundle more attractive. I find that increasing the degree of complementarity between a firm's complementary products intensifies price competition and often leads to smaller profits. Only when complementarity‐enhancing strategies significantly increase the demand for a firm's matching bundle, does the firm benefit from employing them. The highest profits for both firms are obtained when both firms do not employ complementarity‐enhancing strategies. Deteriorating the quality of the fit between one's own and a rival's complementary products is never profitable.     

Mergers,strategic investments and antitrust policy

Established firms can diversify into new markets in two distinct modes: through internal development or through conglomerate merger. Building on a dynamic three-stage bargaining model with variable threats, this paper shows that a lenient antitrust position toward horizontal mergers can induce established firms that would otherwise not have entered to enter via conglomerate merger. The vigor of antitrust enforcement toward horizontal mergers also affects the conglomerate acquisition price but it does not influence the choice of entry mode. Finally, the paper brings to light a heretofore neglected avenue through which conglomerate mergers can increase welfare.     

Bundling and joint marketing by rival firms

We study joint marketing by firms who price discriminate between consumers who patronize only one firm (single purchasers) and those who purchase from both (bundle purchasers). Firms either set the price of the bundle and then compete along side the bundle; or they determine a rebate that is applied to joint purchasers and then set prices. Even though the pricing structure in the joint marketing scheme is determined noncooperatively, the commitment to the joint marketing agreement allows firms to leverage their stand‐alone prices—leading to higher profits and lower consumer surplus in either case, compared to both uniform pricing and independent price discrimination without a joint marketing agreement. Nevertheless the two schemes differ dramatically, in that rebates increase joint purchasing, whereas bundle pricing diminishes bundle purchases.     

The modern corporation as a safe haven for taste-based discrimination: An agency model of hiring decisions

This paper proposes a principal-agent model of labour market discrimination. In this model, the firm manager is a taste-based discriminator and has to make unobservable hiring decisions that determine the shareholder's profits, because workers differ in skill. The model shows that performance-based contracts may moderate the manager's propensity to discriminate, but that they are unlikely to fully eliminate discrimination. Moreover, the model predicts that sectors with high skill leverages discriminate less. Finally, the impacts of a wage gap between groups and of a diversity premium are investigated.     

Horizontal alliances and the merger paradox

Mergers and alliances are two organizational forms which allow firms to combine complementary capabilities to realize strategic goals; they are, in many cases, strategic substitutes. Managerial decision‐makers, therefore, require a framework for choosing between the two strategies. This paper contributes to this decision‐making process by highlighting one advantage of alliances over mergers. Specifically, while the profitability of a cost‐reducing horizontal merger is diminished by the resulting expansion of non‐merging competitor(s), an alliance, where partners collaborate to reduce costs but sell their product independently, enables its partners to realize the benefits of merging but avoid the problem of strengthening competitors. A model is developed which demonstrates the profitability of establishing such an alliance compared to a merger. The implications of this strategy for antitrust review are briefly discussed. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Location decisions and welfare under spatial price discrimination

The welfare effects of regulation are of crucial importance to policy makers. To this end, we present a model of n firms with differentiated costs competing in a linear market within the framework of spatial price discrimination. We prove that the Nash equilibrium locations of firms are always socially optimal irrespective of the number of competitors, the distribution of consumers, firms' cost heterogeneity, the level of privatization, and the number and/or the varieties of the produced goods. We also provide an algorithm on how to find the unique Nash equilibrium in the case of uniformly distributed consumers.     

Vertical merger: monopolization for downstream quasi‐rents

This paper provides a welfare analysis of vertical merger between an input monopolist and downstream firms that compete perfectly in a homogeneous product market. The distinguishing feature of the present model is that the downstream firms face capacity constraints. As a result of downstream quasi‐rents, vertical merger—the extent of merger is gauged by the capacity share of the acquired downstream firm—may either raise or lower final output. An analytical criterion for distinguishing pro‐ and anti‐competitive mergers is derived, which relies entirely on pre‐merger market quantities and the capacity share of the downstream target. A common result is that vertical merger is output‐increasing even when unaffiliated downstream rivals are completely foreclosed. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.