Search Results

Larry makes a strong argument below for why the proposed SEC rules changes reported today in the WSJ should not be heralded as some great opening up of US securities markets, but that the changes are little more than political posturing to prevent addressing the real problem of the costs imposed by securities regulation more generally. I don’t disagree that the proposed rules changes Larry targets are, at best, window dressing to release some (well-justified) pressure created by innovative market-based solutions to circumvent the rules that lie more at the root of the securities market problem.  So long as the costs associated with “public” placements are so high, investors and issuers will continue to look for ways to expand their access to capital within the “private” placement market, which by definition excludes many (especially smaller) investors.

That said, I will point out that one of the quotes in the article bemoaning this proposal comes from an institutional investor–one of the groups that is more likely to benefit from the current 500 entity cap. If raising the cap would not open up the market meaningfully to new potential investors, I wouldn’t expect to see such negative comments from one of the groups who will face this greater competition in the supply of private equity. So while the proposed changes certainly don’t address the real problem, it seems they may make the market a bit more open (and less subject to contrived and costly work-arounds like special purpose vehicles) than it currently is.

However, among the rules changes being proposed is one that should open up the market to greater access even to smaller investors (up to whatever new cap might replace the current 500 entity rule). And it’s a rule  change that appears a direct response to something Larry blogged about here just earlier this year.

According to the WSJ report, the SEC “is considering relaxing a strict ban on private companies publicizing share issues, known as the ‘general solicitation’ ban.” The current regulations are currently under Constitutional scrutiny as a potential violation of 1st Amendment speech rights, as a result of a case by Bulldog Investors that Larry discussed in his earlier post.  Again, how far will the ‘relaxing’ go and will it be a substantive change in the underlying problem, or just another hanging of curtains? But there should be no doubt that more open communication about private equity investment opportunities should further open the market to smaller investors.

All this to say, I believe Larry is on point for the big picture, but the proposed regulation changes don’t seem to be all bad. Of course, the devil is in the details–so we’ll have to reserve judgment until the specifics are revealed before having more confidence in that conclusion.

Filed under: disclosure regulation, IPOs, securities regulation, Sykuta

Does anyone really still believe that the threat of antitrust enforcement doesn’t lead to undesirable caution on the part of potential defendants?

Whatever you may think of the merits of the Google/ITA merger (and obviously I suspect the merits cut in favor of the merger), there can be no doubt that restraining Google’s (and other large companies’) ability to acquire other firms will hurt those other firms (in ITA’s case, for example, they stand to lose $700 million).  There should also be no doubt that this restraint will exceed whatever efficient level is supposed by supporters of aggressive antitrust enforcement.  And the follow-on effect from that will be less venture funding and thus less innovation.  Perhaps we have too much innovation in the economy right now?

Reuters fleshes out the point in an article titled, “Google’s M&A Machine Stuck in Antitrust Limbo.”  That about sums it up.

Here are the most salient bits:

Not long ago, selling to Google offered one of the best alternatives to an initial public offering for up-and-coming technology startups. . . . But Google’s M&A machine looks to be gumming up.

* * *

The problem is antitrust limbo.

* * *

Ironically that may make it less appealing to sell to Google. The company has announced just $200 million of acquisitions in 2011 — the smallest sum since the panic of 2008.

* * *

The ITA acquisition has sent a warning signal to the venture capital and startup communities. Patents may still be available. But no fast-moving entrepreneur wants to get stuck the way ITA has since agreeing to be sold last July 1.

* * *

For a small, growing business the risks are huge.

* * *

That doesn’t exclude Google as an exit option. But the regulatory risk needs to be hedged with a huge breakup fee. . . . With Google’s rising antitrust issues, however, the fee needs to be as big as the purchase price.

Filed under: antitrust, business, cost-benefit analysis, google, law and economics, merger guidelines, mergers & acquisitions, technology Tagged: error costs, google, ITA, Venture capital

Fred McChesney is leaving Northwestern (where he is Haddad Professor of Law) for a chair at the University of Miami (HT: Leiter).   As Leiter notes, this is a major pickup for Miami.  McChesney is a first-rate scholar and has done pioneering work in law and economics, public choice, corporate law, and antitrust.   With more and more specialization in law and economics, the number of scholars who make significant contributions using economic theory, empirical work, and understanding of legal institutions is falling over time.  Fred does it all.  And he does it remarkably well.  Congratulations to both Fred and Miami.

Filed under: antitrust, economics, law and economics, law school, markets

Filed under: antitrust, essential facilities, exclusionary conduct, monopolization, net neutrality, technology Tagged: Competition law, FCC, Federal Communications Commission, Free Press, Monopoly, net neutrality, Network neutrality, regulation, Telecommunications Act

Do the 2010 Horizontal Merger Guidelines require market definition?  Will the agencies define markets in cases they bring?  Are they required to do so by the Guidelines?  By the Clayton Act?

Here is Commissioner Rosch in the FTC Annual Report (p.18):

“A significant development in 2010 was the issuance of updated Horizontal Merger Guidelines by the federal antitrust agencies. The 2010 Guidelines advance merger analysis by eliminating the need to define a relevant market and determine industry concentration at the outset.”

Compare with Commissioner Rosch’s reported remarks at the Spring Meeting:

“I want to emphasise: I don’t care what the 2010 guidelines say, you can never do away with market definition,” Rosch said.

Does the latter statement assert that the HMGs do not require market definition at all?  If so, the statement in the former that the agencies don’t need to do it first certainly follows.  And why is it an “advance” to eliminate the need to define a market first but seems to be a bad thing to eliminate it altogether in certain cases?   Of course, as DOJ (and, importantly, UCLA Bruin) economist Ken Heyer points on in his remarks at the same Spring Meeting event, and I’ve written about here and here, most expect the agencies to continue defining markets because federal courts expect it, may require it, and failure to do so will harm the agencies’ ability to successfully bring enforcement actions.  Nonetheless, the statements do not provide much clarity on the Commissioner’s (or, for that matter, Commission’s) views with respect to the new HMGs and the role of market definition.

Over at the DOJ, on the other hand, former Chief Economist Carl Shapiro — congratulations to the newly appointed Fiona Scott Morton —  made clear that agencies’ stance on the role of market definition:

“The Division recognizes the necessity of defining a relevant market as part of any merger challenge we bring.”

No such announcement from the FTC.   And Commissioner Rosch’s remarks do not clarify matters.  On the one hand they seem to indicate the FTC will always define markets; on the other, they imply that they do so despite the fact that the Guidelines say they don’t have to.  With Shapiro gone, the DOJ view is unclear at the moment.  Perhaps all of this is much ado about nothing as a practical matter — though I’m not sure of that.  But if the Agencies both consider market definition a “necessity,” why not just say so?  Why not write: “market definition is required by Section 7 of the Clayton Act and the agencies will, at some point in the analysis, define a relevant market”?

Market definition requirement aside, my views on the positive developments in the new Merger Guidelines and the larger problem they present — asymmetrically updating theories of competitive harm without doing so on the efficiencies side — articulated in this forthcoming paper.

Filed under: antitrust, economics Tagged: antitrust, doj, ftc, market definition, merger guidelines

Congressman Mica’s mission to oust the Federal Trade Commission from its current digs continues.  Mica is the chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and has made the move top priority (Washington Post):

“You won’t believe me, but this is my only priority as chairman,” he says — a fact that has the commissioners sputtering.  “I know the commissioners have fourth-floor balconies with great views of the Capitol,” Mica says dismissively.

Commissioner Rosch responds:

“I have no view,” exclaims Commissioner Tom Rosch, pointing out that (a) he is a Republican and (b) his term will expire before any eviction could take place. “And I suspect that Mica has a bigger office than I do.”  “We need to examine this gentleman’s motives,” Rosch continues. “Is it because he has a grudge against us? . . . Is it that he would like his picture emblazoned on their brochure? . . . Is it ego? . . . I don’t know.”

The text of the bill (HR 690) is available here.

(HT: Steve Salop)

Filed under: antitrust, art, federal trade commission, politics

Recently the Wall Street Journal had an article about medical billing errors.  These can be very costly because they can impact your credit rating.  But there is one billing practice they missed.  Some health care providers (we have found this with two and it is probably more common) begin the billing date as of the date of service but don’t send a bill until insurance has paid their part.  Then when they do send a bill for the coinsurance  it is “late” and they threaten to turn it over to a collection agency.  In other words, the very FIRST bill you may get already has your account as delinquent.

Filed under: consumer protection, personal finance

Recently, I’ve been blogging about the difference between so-called “bias” in vertically integrated economic relationships and consumer harm (e.g., here and here).  The two are different.  Indeed, vertical integration and contractual arrangements are generally pro-consumer and efficient.   Many of the same arguments surrounded the net neutrality debate with critics largely skeptical that the legislation was not needed (antitrust could be used when such contractual arrangements actually generated competitive harm) and would chill pro-competitive behavior.

In January, the Federal Communications Commission has now received its first complaint under the Order against MetroPCS.  So, is the complaint about a monopolist Internet Service Provider (ISP) employing vertical contracts to exclude rivals and harm consumers?  You be the judge.  My colleague Tom Hazlett describes the situation in his (always) excellent Financial Times column:

MetroPCS, hit with its first formal complaint, is an upstart wireless network offering low prices and short-term contracts. As part of their $40 a month “all you can eat” voice, text and data plan, they slipped in a bonus: free, unlimited YouTube videos, customised to run fast and clear.  Activist groups, led by Free Press, went ballistic. Their petition to the FCC declared that the mobile provider was favouring YouTube over other video sites, creating just the sort of “walled garden” that would destroy the internet. “The new service plans offered by MetroPCS give a preview of the future in a world without adequate protections for mobile broadband users,” they wrote.

The complaint performs a great public service, revealing just how net neutrality would “adequately protect mobile broadband users”. In fact, MetroPCS advances the interests of consumers by supporting enhanced access to the applications most popular with users.  Such arrangements do not sabotage internet development, but drive it.

But what about the possibility of consumer harm so prominent in the Net Neutrality Order? As Hazlett explains, not only is such a competitive threat unlikely, but the regulatory restrictions imposed by the Order will impede competition and hurt consumers (in this case, especially targeting the price sensitive customers).  Indeed, the crux of the complaint surrounds an effort by MetroPCS and Google to offer consumers additional choices.  Read on:

MetroPCS possesses no market power. With 8m customers, it is the country’s fifth largest mobile operator, less than one-tenth the size of Verizon. Under no theory could it force customers to patronise certain websites. It couldn’t extract monopoly cash if it tried to.

Indeed, low-cost prepaid plans of MetroPCS are popular with users who want to avoid long-term contracts and are price sensitive. Half its customers are ‘cord cutters’, subscribers whose only phone is wireless and usage is intense. Voice minutes per month average about 2,000, more than double that of larger carriers.
The $40 plan is cheap because it’s inexpensively delivered using 2G technology. It is not broadband (topping out, in third party reviews, at just 100 kbps), and has software and capacity issues. In general, voice over internet is not supported by the handsets and video streaming is not available on the network. The carrier deals with those limitations in three ways.

First, the $40 per month price tag extends a fat discount. Unlimited everything can cost $120 on faster networks. Second, it has also deployed new 4G technology, offering both a $40 tier similar to the 2G product (no video streaming), but also a pumped up version with video streaming, VoIP and everything else – without data caps – for $60 a month. Of course, this network has far larger capacity and is much zippier (reliable at 700 kbps).  PC World rated the full-blown 4G service “dirt cheap”.
Third, to upgrade the cheaper-than-dirt 2G experience, MetroPCS got Google – owner of YouTube – to compress their videos for delivery over the older network. This allowed the mobile carrier to extend unlimited wildly popular YouTube content to its lowest tier subscribers.  Busted! Favouring YouTube is said to violate neutrality. …

The FCC has already erred. Innovators such as MetroPCS and Google should need no
defence in supplying customers’ superior choices. Neither consumers nor the internet are “protected” by rules hostile to co-operative efforts – even if money were to pass between firms – that expand outputs and lower prices. If the FCC is to take such ill-targeted attacks on competitive rivalry seriously, it will do far more to deter the open internet than to preserve it.

Not an auspicious beginning for the Net Neutrality regime — or consumers.

Filed under: antitrust, economics, error costs, exclusionary conduct, google, net neutrality, regulation, technology Tagged: antitrust, economics, FCC, google, Hazlett, net neutrality

I’ve read with interest over the last few days the commentary on Microsoft’s filing of a formal complaint with the EU, Microsoft’s defense of its actions, and the various stories around the web.  Geoff and Paul appropriately focus on the error-cost concerns associated with intervention in high-tech markets; Paul also emphasizes the ironies associated with Microsoft’s new status as antitrust complainant.  There will be ample time to discuss the substantive merits of these complaints as they develop.  But I wanted to make two points in this post that I think haven’t received much attention.

The first combines Geoff and Paul’s concerns.  I do not find it particularly interesting that Microsoft has taken this role.  In fact, these developments have been a long time coming.  Competitors frequently attempt to induce regulators to intervene against rivals.  The fact that Microsoft is the competitor certainly is ironic, but it is also expected.  The real lesson about Microsoft’s involvement in this suit is what inferences we should make about antitrust policy in high-tech markets given Microsoft’s quick decline from the alleged dominant and entrenched monopolist that was the focus of the DOJ enforcement action to its current status as rival seeking to employ the antitrust agencies to weaken its rival.  How quickly things change.  Indeed, that is precisely the point.  Dynamic competition, innovation, and quick moving industries do not mean that antitrust rules should never apply; however, these conditions should warrant caution in intervening in the name of consumers without firm evidence of consumer harm.

The second point is that the discussions I’ve read recently focus almost entirely on the question of whether Google favors its own content over that of rivals.  This is not the first time this type of argument has been made in antitrust.  Indeed, the argument is commonly made that whether in search or otherwise (e.g. vertical integration with YouTube), so-called “bias” or “discrimination” in favor of one’s own content is prima facie evidence of a competitive problem that will lead to consumer harm.  That is not so.  Neither economic theory nor empirical evidence support the assertion that, without more, vertical integration is a competitive.  Quite the contrary, the evidence suggests these arrangements are generally pro-consumer and efficient.  On a case-by-case analysis, the facts might suggest a competitive problem in any given case.  The facts, of course, matter.

Unfortunately, most of the discussion of “search bias” and other forms of vertical integration at issue here has focused on whether these arrangements are good or bad for Google’s rivals, not consumers.  First principles tell us that the competitive effects are what matters.  And there is indeed a reason to be skeptical of competitive harm here.  While some commentary in recent days has offered principles of antitrust analysis that are flat out wrong (see, e.g. here, the observation that the antitrust laws require “Microsoft, as a competitor, to have equal access”), we can rely on Professor Hovenkamp to re-focus the discussion on first principles:

“You do need to show consumer harm,” said Herbert Hovenkamp, an antitrust expert at the University of Iowa College of Law. “That becomes more difficult with search engines, where it is easy for consumers to switch to another search engine. That is different than in PC operating systems in the Microsoft case, where the technological lock-in was more obvious.”

Indeed.  It is important to note that this is case is in the EU, not the US.  While both jurisdictions emphasize the need to show consumer harm, the EU appears to be significantly more willing than US courts to infer harm to competition from harm to competitors.  I will leave more substantive analysis of the allegations here for another day as more facts develop.  But I suspect that the ultimate outcome here will turn on, in large part, precisely how faithful the EU analysis is to antitrust’s “first”-first principle: intervention requires evidence of consumer harm.

Filed under: antitrust, economics, error costs, exclusionary conduct, google, monopolization, technology