Assessing the efficacy of structural merger remedies: choosing between theories of harm?
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 19

Motivation PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 113 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Assessing the efficacy of structural merger remedies: choosing between theories of harm? Steve Davies and Matt Olczak, CLEEN New Researchers Workshop, University of East Anglia June 2008. Motivation. Motta et al (2002) important trade-off inherent in structural merger remedies:

Download Presentation

Motivation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Motivation

Assessing the efficacy of structural merger remedies: choosing between theories of harm?Steve Davies and Matt Olczak, CLEEN New Researchers Workshop, University of East AngliaJune 2008


Motivation

Motivation

Motta et al (2002) important trade-off inherent in structural merger remedies:

  • Create a viable competitor.

  • Avoid symmetry - makes collective dominance more likely.

    Motta (2004) ideally a merger should be cleared subject to remedies ONLY if neither single dominance (SD) or collective dominance (CD) are expected to result post remedy.

    Previous literature on the efficacy of merger remedies:

    - Ex-post evaluations conducted by CA’s:

    e.g. FTC (1999) and EC (2005) - focus on 1).

    - Davies and Lyons (2007).


Motivation

Outline

A model for assessing the ‘competiveness’ of alternative market structures

Using the model to assess the ‘competitiveness’ of market structures:

Pre merger

Resulting from structural merger remedies

3) Consider markets where the CA made a decision NOT to intervene


Structural model estimated using post merger market shares sum s1 s2 ratio s2 s1

  • Davies et al (2008) Structural Model

  • Sample:

  • 62 mergers from 1990-mid 2004 in which the EC seriously considered CD.

  • 25/62 mergers involved a intervention in 1 or more market (4 mergers prohibited) – here can control for X factors e.g. barriers to entry, price transparency

Structural Model - estimated using POSTmerger market shares SUM=S1+S2 & RATIO=S2/S1

N=222 markets (30 CD & 88 SD):

** indicates significance at 99% level Pseudo R2 = 0.445 Correct predictions 79%


Graphical implications of estimated structural model

Graphical implications of estimated structural model

SD

CD

NI


Assessing competitiveness of market structures pre and post merger

Assessing competitiveness of market structures pre and post merger

92 markets in which the EC intervened (& Pre MS data available):

36/92 ‘uncompetitive’ PRE merger

FINDING 1: Almost 40% of markets present pre-merger structures which would have been identified by the Commission as displaying dominance (23% SD and 16% CD) – had they been the result of a merger.


Remedy outcomes

Remedy outcomes

66 markets (17 mergers) able to identify the post remedy market structure:

FINDING 2: in 31 (47%) of the cases in this sample, divestment remedies have resulted in market structures (15 SD & 16 CD) which the EC would have sought to remedy had they been the result of a merger, rather than a remedy.

Possible interpretations:

  • EC applies inconsistent criteria between assessing a merger and designing a remedy.

  • ‘Sympathetic’ possibility: when framing a remedy constrained by pre merger status quo. If status quo is characterised by CD or SD so too will be any structure attainable by a remedy.


The scale of divested assets

The scale of divested assets


Return to the status quo

Return to the status quo

  • FINDING 3: the ‘typical’ divestment remedy returns the market share of the merged entity to the pre-merger share of the larger party.

    And typically the purchaser is an entrant, Thus:

  • FINDING 4: the most common outcome following a structural remedy is return to the pre merger market structure.

    But we have seen the pre merger outcomes are not always ‘competitive’.


Overall support for sympathetic explanation pre merger outcome can constrain remedy effectiveness

Overall support for ‘sympathetic’ explanation – pre merger outcome can constrain remedy effectiveness

Motta (2004) ideally a merger should be cleared subject to remedies ONLY if no CD or SD expected post remedy

– often too stringent a requirement given pre merger market structures.


Collective v single dominance

Collective v Single Dominance

25 cases where dominance PRE=Dom & MERGER=Dom and remedy ineffective:

19 PRE & POST presented same type of dominance

(14 SD & 5 CD)

Remaining 6:

  • WEAK FINDING 5:hintEC appears more tolerant of CD than SD


Non intervention markets

Non-intervention markets

When PRE=Dom & MERGER=Dom:

may ‘prefer’ MERGER to DOM and therefore not intervene

Examining markets where the EC did not intervene reveals in particular 11 where:

i) PRE=SD and MERGER=SD

ii) the merged entity is NOT the number 1 firm post merger

Why did no intervention occur:

  • SD intervention requires merged entity to be number 1 ranked firm.

    Instead consider an intervention on CD grounds? However:

    2) Merger counteracts the largest outsiders pre-existing dominant position


Taking into account rank merged entity

Taking into account rank merged entity

Take into account an additional issue not reflected in original structural model – RANK of the merged entity:

Re-estimate structural model dividing sample:

  • Merged-entity number 1 MN logit: SD,CD,NI

  • Merged-entity number 2 binary probit: CD,NI


Revised predicted theories of harm

Revised predicted theories of harm

SD (#1)

CD (#1)

CD (#2)

NI (#1)

NI (#2)


Alternative depiction with s1 and s2 on axes

Alternative depiction (with S1 and S2 on axes)

SD (#1)

NI (#2)

NI (#1)

NI (#2)

CD (#1)

CD (#2)

CD (#1)

NI (#2)


Greater tolerance for cd when merged entity is not the market leader

Greater tolerance for CD when merged entity is not the market leader

  • FINDING 6: for a given post merger market structure, the EC is less likely to remedy on grounds of CD if, post merger, the merged entity would be the number 2 firm.

    EXAMPLE: consider a post merger market structure with S1=40% & S2=30%. The EC is predicted to find:

    -CD if the merged entity is number 1

  • NI if the merged entity is number 2


Explanations for finding 6

Explanations for Finding 6

  • When the merged entity is number 2, a structural remedy:

    - Can reduce symmetry (and thus CD concerns)

    - Cannot reduce the size of the market leader

    Any remedy moves the market structure closer to a position of SD

    If, (as in weak-finding 5) SD is viewed as more of a concern than CD this explains a greater tolerance of CD in such markets

    For markets in area where predict CD ONLY if ME = #1 use revised model to predict probability of SD pre merger:


Conclusions

Conclusions

  • Assessment of the ‘competitiveness’ of the outcomes arising from structural merger remedies:

  • Significant proportion of EC interventions result in an uncompetitive market structure

  • Pre merger status quo imposes a significant constraint

  • Weak evidence EC more disposed to CD than SD

  • In markets where the merged entity is number 2:

  • EC more tolerant of CD in markets where would intervene if merger entity number 1 firm

  • Imposing a remedy for CD leaves an outsider closer to a singly dominant position


Postscript

Postscript

  • Additional evidence from decisions made under the new ECMR (post May 2004):

  • Interventions for Unilateral effects (UE)/SD typically in markets where under the old Merger Regulation SD would be predicted

  • Continued reluctance to intervene when merged entity number 2

  • CE findings very rare and coupled together with UE


  • Login