Research Programs
More
What are you looking for?
Showing Latest Publications
TOTM The new issue of the Journal of Law & Economics is available online. This is an exciting development for me because the issue includes my . . .
The new issue of the Journal of Law & Economics is available online. This is an exciting development for me because the issue includes my paper with Ben Klein on The Economics of Slotting Contracts (SSRN version available here), and because it has been a very long wait to see the paper in final form (note the new release is of the August 2007 issue of JLE).
Read the full piece here.
TOTM Amit Gandhi, Luke Froeb, Steven Tschantz and Gregory Werden have published “Post-Merger Product Repositioning” in the Journal of Industrial Economics. (HT: Luke). Read the full . . .
Amit Gandhi, Luke Froeb, Steven Tschantz and Gregory Werden have published “Post-Merger Product Repositioning” in the Journal of Industrial Economics. (HT: Luke).
TOTM That is what Judge Posner has to say about Leegin in his new book, How Judges Think. I’m only a few chapters in, but so . . .
That is what Judge Posner has to say about Leegin in his new book, How Judges Think. I’m only a few chapters in, but so far, its a fascinating read. I’ll probably blog some more about parts of the book later. In particular, I’ve been thinking recently about how the complexity of substantive antitrust analysis affects judicial decision-making.
TOTM The Financial Times reported yesterday that an embarrassed GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt had to tell GE shareholders that the 10% growth in earnings for 2008 . . .
The Financial Times reported yesterday that an embarrassed GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt had to tell GE shareholders that the 10% growth in earnings for 2008 that he had promised analysts in March was not going to be possible. GE missed its quarterly forecasts and halved its 2008 forecast to 5% growth in earnings (as opposed to the 10% growth promised). The Financial Times article mentioned a “sense of shock among the investor community” and noted that one analyst, after Immelt’s downward revision, “compared GE’s promise of long-term improvements to the Chicago Cubs, the US baseball club that hasn’t won a championship in 100 years.”
TOTM On the flight back from my spring break ski trip, I had a chance to read the recent Tenth Circuit opinion reversing the insider trading . . .
On the flight back from my spring break ski trip, I had a chance to read the recent Tenth Circuit opinion reversing the insider trading conviction of former Qwest CEO, Joseph Nacchio. Mr. Nacchio had been convicted of 19 counts of insider trading, sentenced to six years in prison (plus two years’ supervised release), fined $19 million, and ordered to disgorge $52 million more. In a 2-1 decision authored by Judge McConnell, the Tenth Circuit reversed Nacchio’s conviction because of the district court’s exclusion of expert testimony by Dan Fischel (my corporations prof). The court also concluded that retrial will not constitute double jeopardy because a properly instructed jury could have found Nacchio guilty of insider trading. To reach that conclusion, the court had to delve extensively into the law of insider trading and the evidence presented at trial.
TOTM With all of the recent talk of the “optimal regulatory structure” and proposals about regulatory consolidation and reorganization (here is Glom Blogger David Zaring on . . .
With all of the recent talk of the “optimal regulatory structure” and proposals about regulatory consolidation and reorganization (here is Glom Blogger David Zaring on the Big Reorg), I wonder if the discussion might carry over into antitrust and the recurring “dual enforcement” question.
TOTM Geoff and Paul like the result in XM/ Sirius but are puzzled by the DOJ press release, in particular as it pertains to analyzing ex . . .
Geoff and Paul like the result in XM/ Sirius but are puzzled by the DOJ press release, in particular as it pertains to analyzing ex ante competition, or “competition for the field,” in the form of payments to automobile manufacturers to adopt their services. Geoff thinks the DOJ’s press release contains some funny language appearing to suggest that the existence of exclusive contracts meant that there was not competition. I think the relevant language is in the second sentence of the press release…
TOTM I can’t seem to get my comment on Geoff’s XM-Sirius post below to go through, so I’ll just post it: I would still disagree with . . .
I can’t seem to get my comment on Geoff’s XM-Sirius post below to go through, so I’ll just post it:
I would still disagree with the DOJ when they say “there is not likely to be significant competition…through the car manufacturer channel for many years.” As mentioned, the exclusive contract is competition. Even though they aren’t negotiating new contracts now, the competitively agreed upon prices and rebates are still in effect through 2012.
TOTM One last issue with respect to ex ante competition and merger analysis. What if it could be demonstrated convincingly that XM and Sirius payments to . . .
One last issue with respect to ex ante competition and merger analysis. What if it could be demonstrated convincingly that XM and Sirius payments to automobile manufacturers. The DOJ hints at this possibility in the press release…