Guide to Antitrust Laws (Mergers)
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
The United States is in the midst of a "merger wave." The number of mergers reported under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act rose from 1,529 in 1991 to a record 3,702 in 1997 -- a 142 percent jump. During this period, the FTC successfully challenged a host of potential mergers, saving consumers millions of dollars that they otherwise would have paid in higher prices. Identifying and challenging anticompetitive mergers is a difficult task that can take thousands of hours of investigative work and often, litigation.
Most mergers actually benefit competition and consumers by allowing firms to operate more efficiently. But some are likely to lessen competition. That, in turn, can lead to higher prices, reduced availability of goods or services, lower quality of products, and less innovation. Indeed, some mergers create a concentrated market, while others enable a single firm to raise prices.
In a concentrated market, there are only a few firms. The danger is that they may find it easier to lessen competition by colluding. For example, they may agree on the prices they will charge consumers. The collusion could be in an explicit agreement, or in a more subtle form -- known as tacit coordination or coordinated interaction. Firms may prefer to cooperate tacitly rather than explicitly because tacit agreements are more difficult to detect, and some explicit agreements may be subject to criminal prosecution.
When a merger enables a single firm to increase prices without coordinating with its competitors, it has created a unilateral effect. A firm might be able to increase prices unilaterally if it has a large enough share of the market, if the merger removes its closest competitor, and if the other firms in the market cant provide substantial competition.
Generally, at least two conditions are necessary for a merger to have a likely anticompetitive effect: The market must be substantially concentrated after the merger; and it must be difficult for new firms to enter the market in the near term and provide effective competition. The reason for the second condition is that firms are less likely to raise prices to anticompetitive levels if it is fairly easy for new competitors to enter the market and drive prices down.
Under these conditions, one of three basic kinds of mergers might facilitate coordinated or unilateral anticompetitive behavior: horizontal mergers, which involve two competitors; vertical mergers, which involve firms in a buyer-seller relationship; and potential competition -- or conglomerate mergers -- in which one of the firms is likely to enter the market and become a potential competitor of the other.
Witness the recent attempt by Staples, Inc., one "superstore" retailer of office supplies, to acquire Office Depot, another giant retailer of office supplies. In many areas of the country, the merger would have reduced the number of superstore competitors, often leaving Staples as the only superstore in the area. Evidence from the companies pricing data showed that Staples would have been able to keep prices up to 13 percent higher after the merger than without the merger. The FTC blocked the merger, saving consumers an estimated $1.1 billion over five years.
Take the merger of Time Warner, Inc., producers of HBO and other video programming, and Turner Corp., producers of CNN, TBS, and other programming. The FTC was concerned that Time Warner could refuse to sell popular video programming to competitors of cable TV companies owned or affiliated with Time Warner or Turner -- or offer to sell the programming at discriminatory rates. That would allow Time Warner-Tuner affiliate cable companies to maintain monopolies against competitors like Direct Broadcast Satellite and new wireless cable technologies. Whats more, the Time Warner-Turner affiliates could hurt competition in the production of video programming by refusing to carry programming produced by competitors of both Time Warner and Turner. The FTC allowed the merger, but prohibited discriminatory access terms at both levels to prevent anticompetitive effects.
Several years ago, the Questar Corp., which operated the only pipeline transporting natural gas to Salt Lake city, tried to acquire a major part of a firm that was planning to begin service to the city. The potential entrant was already having a procompetitive effect on pricing. The FTC blocked the merger, preserving the price benefits for Salt Lake City consumers.
THE TEXT ABOVE IS PUBLIC DOMAIN MATERIAL AUTHORED BY AN AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT AND NOT COPYRIGHTED BY THIS WEBSITE. To locate the original material (which may have been updated) click here.