Research Programs
More
What are you looking for?
Showing 9 of 1642 Results in Antitrust
TOTM Last week Josh discussed the American Booksellers’ Association’s effort to get the Justice Department to pursue antitrust charges against Walmart, Target, and Amazon for engaging . . .
Last week Josh discussed the American Booksellers’ Association’s effort to get the Justice Department to pursue antitrust charges against Walmart, Target, and Amazon for engaging in a vigorous, consumer-benefiting price war.
Read the full piece here.
TOTM Thanks to all of our participants in the Merger Guidelines Symposium. We hope many of you, as well as our readers, will look back over . . .
Thanks to all of our participants in the Merger Guidelines Symposium. We hope many of you, as well as our readers, will look back over the collected posts and engage in an ongoing dialogue in the comments over the many interesting ideas raised here. You will find all of the posts from the symposium by clicking on the “merger guidelines symposium” link to the right, under the “blog symposia” heading. For you reference, we have also collected all of the posts below.
TOTM Do the Merger Guidelines need revision? No. Thanks for having me. OK. Yes–and market definition/market shares, and in particular the effective incorporation of supply-side effects, . . .
Do the Merger Guidelines need revision? No. Thanks for having me.
OK. Yes–and market definition/market shares, and in particular the effective incorporation of supply-side effects, seem to me like the most pressing issues in need of attention.
TOTM I’m confident that my esteemed colleagues, who have far more expertise about the merger guidelines than I, will offer all sorts of terrific ideas for . . .
I’m confident that my esteemed colleagues, who have far more expertise about the merger guidelines than I, will offer all sorts of terrific ideas for revising the substance of the guidelines. While I would certainly advocate a few specific changes (i.e., revise the HHI thresholds to reflect actual agency practice), I’ll leave the devilish details to the experts and concentrate on one “modest” (quite literally!) revision…
TOTM My sense is that there is no need to revise the DOJ/FTC Horizontal Merger Guidelines, with one exception. As Greg Werden points out, “a thorough revision . . .
My sense is that there is no need to revise the DOJ/FTC Horizontal Merger Guidelines, with one exception. As Greg Werden points out, “a thorough revision would take up to three years and occupy some of the agencies’ best people for a total of more than two thousand hours.”
TOTM I feel no great urgency to revise the Guidelines. True enough, they’re more of an analytical thought experiment than an accurate description of how merger review . . .
I feel no great urgency to revise the Guidelines. True enough, they’re more of an analytical thought experiment than an accurate description of how merger review takes place in the agencies, but who’s really fooled? Perhaps some business people think that the Guidelines are a computer program waiting for the introduction of the relevant data to spit out the answer, but most sophisticated executives contemplating a merger will understand that the Guidelines are just a beginning point for conversation.
TOTM Yes, the Merger Guidelines should be revised; in particular: a. The discussion of concentration thresholds for collusion facilitating mergers must be aligned more closely with . . .
a. The discussion of concentration thresholds for collusion facilitating mergers must be aligned more closely with both recent case law and actual enforcement practices; otherwise they fail to provide guidance. The current Guidelines indicate that concentrations greater than 1800 HHI and a post-merger increase exceeding 100HHI presumptively indicates a challenge. In fact, mergers with post-merger HHIs in excess of both these numbers are routinely permitted. While the standards in the current Guidelines are too aggressive, the George W. Bush administration policy was too lenient. More fundamentally, the HHI creates an illusion of precision in coordinated effects analysis that is simply not warranted, particularly not when market definitions are ambiguous or when the merger market is subject to product differentiation. Further, the “other factors” portion of the Guidelines tends to dominate the analysis. A better approach is reduced reliance on the HHI and more on simpler observations about who the 3 or 4 largest firms in the market are, the effects of eliminating the acquired firm as an independent market entity, and the likely responses of rivals to an output reduction by the post-merger firm.
TOTM Chairman Leibowitz in his Fordham speech last month stated “From my perspective, the current Guidelines do not explain clearly enough to businesses how the agencies . . .
TOTM Yes, the Merger Guidelines should be revised. The Guidelines primary purpose is to “articulate the analytical framework the Agency applies in determining whether a merger . . .
Yes, the Merger Guidelines should be revised.
The Guidelines primary purpose is to “articulate the analytical framework the Agency applies in determining whether a merger is likely substantially to lessen competition.” While the Guidelines have been very successful in articulating a useful economic framework for analyzing mergers, their performance in terms of satisfying that goal has been largely mediocre. If the goal articulated by the Guidelines is an important one, and I do believe that providing some modicum of legal certainty to businesses contemplating merger decisions is valuable goal, then the Merger Guidelines do need revising in order to fulfill their purpose.
