4.2. Evaluating Competition Among Firms

This subsection discusses evidence and tools the Agencies look to when assessing competition among firms. The evidence and tools in this section can be relevant to a variety of settings, for example: to assess competition between rival firms (Guideline 2); the ability and incentive to limit access to a product rivals use to compete (Guideline 5); or for market definition (Section 4.3), for example when carrying out the Hypothetical Monopolist Test (Section 4.3.A).

For clarity, the discussion in this subsection often focuses on competition between two suppliers of substitute products that set prices. Analogous analytic tools may also be relevant in more general settings, for example when considering: competition among more than two suppliers; competition among buyers or employers to procure inputs and labor; competition that derives from customer willingness to buy in different locations; and competition that takes place in dimensions other than price or when terms are determined through, for example, negotiations or auctions.

Guideline 2 describes how different types of evidence can be used in assessing the potential harm to competition from a merger; some portions of Guideline 2 that are relevant in other settings are repeated below.

4.2.A. Generally Applicable Considerations

The Agencies may consider one or more of the following types of evidence, tools, and metrics when assessing the degree of competition among firms:

Strategic Deliberations or Decisions

The Agencies may analyze the extent of competition among firms, for example between the merging firms, by examining evidence of their strategic deliberations or decisions in the regular course of business. For example, in some markets, the firms may monitor each other’s pricing, marketing campaigns, facility locations, improvements, products, capacity, output, input costs, and/or innovation plans. This can provide evidence of competition between the merging firms, especially when they react by taking steps to preserve or enhance the competitiveness or profitability of their own products or services.

Prior Merger, Entry, and Exit Events

The Agencies may look to historical events to assess the presence and substantiality of direct competition between the merging firms. For example, the Agencies may examine the impact of recent relevant mergers, entry, expansion, or exit events on the merging parties or their competitive behavior.

Customer Substitution

Customers’ willingness to switch between different firms’ products is an important part of the competitive process. Firms are closer competitors the more that customers are willing to switch between their products, for example because they are more similar in quality, price, or other characteristics.

Evidence commonly analyzed to show the extent of substitution among firms’ products includes: how customers have shifted purchases in the past in response to relative changes in price or other terms and conditions; documentary and testimonial evidence such as win/loss reports, evidence from discount approval processes, switching data, customer surveys, as well as information from suppliers of complementary products and distributors; objective information about product characteristics; and market realities affecting the ability of customers to switch.

Impact of Competitive Actions on Rivals

When one firm takes competitive actions to attract customers, this can benefit the firm at the expense of its rivals. The Agencies may gauge the extent of competition among firms by considering the impact that competitive actions by one firm have on the others. The impact of a firm’s competitive actions on a rival generally depends on how many sales a rival would lose as a result of the competitive actions, as well as the profitability of those lost sales. The Agencies may use margins to measure the profitability of the sale a rival would have made. [Endnote 72]

Impact of Eliminating Competition Between the Firms

In some instances, evidence may be available to assess the impact of competition from one or more firms on the other firms’ actions, such as firm choices about price, quality, wages, or another dimension of competition. This can be gauged by comparing the two firms’ actions when they compete and make strategic choices independently against the actions the firms might choose if they acted jointly. Actual or predicted changes in these results of competition, when available, can indicate the degree of competition between the firms.

To make this type of comparison, the Agencies sometimes rely on economic models. Often, such models consider the firms’ incentives to change their actions in one or more selected dimensions, such as price, in a somewhat simplified scenario. For example, a model might focus on the firms’ short-run incentives to change price, while abstracting from a variety of additional competitive forces and dimensions of competition, such as the potential for firms to reposition their products or for the merging firms to coordinate with other firms. Such a model may incorporate data and evidence in order to produce quantitative estimates of the impact of the merger on firm incentives and corresponding choices. This type of exercise is sometimes referred to by economists as “merger simulation” despite the fact that the hypothetical setting considers only selected aspects of the loss of competition from a merger. The Agencies use such models to give an indication of the scale and importance of competition, not to precisely predict outcomes.

4.2.B. Considerations When Terms Are Set by Firms

The Agencies may use various types of evidence and metrics to assess the strength of competition among firms that set terms to their customers. Firms might offer the same terms to different customers or different terms to different groups of customers.

Competition in this setting can lead firms to set lower prices or offer more attractive terms when they act independently than they would in a setting where that competition was eliminated by a merger. When considering the impact of competition on the incentives to set price, to the extent price increases on one firm’s products would lead customers to switch to products from another firm, their merger will enable the merged firm to profit by unilaterally raising the price of one or both products above the pre- merger level. Some of the sales lost because of the price increase will be diverted to the products of the other firm, and capturing the value of these diverted sales can make the price increase profitable even though it would not have been profitable prior to the merger.

A measure of customer substitution between firms in this setting is the diversion ratio. The diversion ratio from one product to another is a metric of how customers likely would substitute between them. The diversion ratio is the fraction of unit sales lost by the first product due to a change in terms, such as an increase in its price, that would be diverted to the second product. The higher the diversion ratio between two products made by different firms, the stronger the competition between them.

A high diversion ratio between the products owned by two firms can indicate strong competition between them even if the diversion ratio to another firm is higher. The diversion ratio from one of the products of one firm to a group of products made by other firms, defined analogously, is sometimes referred to as the aggregate diversion ratio or the recapture rate.

A measure of the impact on rivals of competitive actions is the value of diverted sales from a price increase. The value of sales diverted from one firm to a second firm, when the first firm raises its price on one of its products, is equal to the number of units that would be diverted from the first firm to the second, multiplied by the difference between the second firm’s price and the incremental cost of the diverted sales. To interpret the magnitude of the value of diverted sales, the Agencies may use as a basis of comparison either the incremental cost to the second firm of making the diverted sales, or the revenues lost by the first firm as a result of the price increase. The ratio of the value of diverted sales to the revenues lost by the first firm can be an indicator of the upward pricing pressure that would result from the loss of competition between the two firms. Analogous concepts can be applied to analyze the impact on rivals of worsening terms other than price.

4.2.C. Considerations When Terms Are Set Through Bargaining or Auctions

In some industries, buyers and sellers negotiate prices and other terms of trade. In bargaining, buyers commonly negotiate with more than one seller and may play competing sellers off against one another. In other industries, sellers might sell their products, or buyers might procure inputs, using an auction. Negotiations may involve aspects of an auction as well as aspects of one-on-one negotiation. Competition among sellers can significantly enhance the ability of a buyer to obtain a result more favorable to it, and less favorable to the sellers, compared to a situation where the elimination of competition through a merger prevents buyers from playing those sellers off against each other in negotiations.

Sellers may compete even when a customer does not directly play their offers against each other.

The attractiveness of alternative options influences the importance of reaching an agreement to the negotiating parties and thus the terms of the agreement. A party that has many attractive alternative trading partners places less importance on reaching an agreement with any one particular trading partner than a party with few attractive alternatives. As alternatives for one party are eliminated (such as through a merger), the trading partner gains additional bargaining leverage reflecting that loss of competition. A merger between sellers may lessen competition even if the merged firm handles negotiations for the merging firms’ products separately.

Thus, qualitative or quantitative evidence about the leverage provided to buyers by competing suppliers may be used to assess the extent of competition among firms in this setting. Analogous evidence may be used when analyzing a setting where terms are set using auctions, for example, procurement auctions where suppliers bid to serve a buyer. If, for some categories of procurements, certain suppliers are often among the most attractive to the buyer, competition among that group of suppliers is likely to be strong.

Firms sometimes keep records of the progress and outcome of individual sales efforts, and the Agencies may use these data to generate measures of the extent to which customers would likely substitute between the two firms. Examples of such measures might include a diversion ratio based on the rate at which customers would buy from one firm if the other one was not available, or the frequency with which the two firms bid on contracts with the same customer.

4.2.D. Considerations When Firms Determine Capacity and Output

In some markets, the choice of how much to produce (output decisions) or how much productive capacity to maintain (capacity decisions) are key strategic variables. When a firm decreases output, it may lose sales to rivals, but also drive up prices. Because a merged firm will account for the impact of higher prices across all of the merged firms’ sales, it may have an incentive to decrease output as a result of the merger. The loss of competition through a merger of two firms may lead the merged firm to leave capacity idle, refrain from building or obtaining capacity that would have been obtained absent the merger, lay off or stop hiring workers, or eliminate pre-existing production capabilities. A firm may also divert the use of capacity away from one relevant market and into another market so as to raise the price in the former market. The analysis of the extent to which firms compete may differ depending on how a merger between them might create incentives to suppress output.

Competition between merging firms is greater when (1) the merging firms’ market shares are relatively high; (2) the merging firms’ products are relatively undifferentiated from each other; (3) the market elasticity of demand is relatively low; (4) the margin on the suppressed output is relatively low; and (5) the supply responses of non-merging rivals are relatively small. Qualitative or quantitative evidence may be used to evaluate and weigh each of these factors.

In some cases, competition between firms—including one firm with a substantial share of the sales in the market and another with significant excess capacity to serve that market—can prevent an output suppression strategy from being profitable. This can occur even if the firm with the excess capacity has a relatively small share of sales, as long as that firm’s ability to expand, and thus keep prices from rising, makes an output suppression strategy unprofitable for the firm with the larger market share.

Output or capacity reductions also may affect the market’s resilience in the face of future shocks to supply or demand, and the Agencies will consider this loss of resilience in assessing whether the merger may substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly.

4.2.E. Considerations for Innovation and Product Variety Competition

Firms can compete for customers by offering varied and innovative products and features, which could range from minor improvements to the introduction of a new product category. Features can include new or different product attributes, services offered along with a product, or higher-quality services standing alone. Customers value the variety of products or services that competition generates, including having a variety of locations at which they can shop.

Offering the best mix of products and features is an important dimension of competition that may be harmed as a result of the elimination of competition between the merging parties.

When a firm introduces a new product or improves a product’s features, some of the sales it gains may be at the expense of its rivals, including rivals that are competing to develop similar products and features. As a result, competition between firms may lead them to make greater efforts to offer a variety of products and features than would be the case if the firms were jointly owned, for example, if they merged. The merged firm may have a reduced incentive to continue or initiate development of new products that would have competed with the other merging party, but post-merger would “cannibalize” what would be its own sales. [Endnote 73] A service provider may have a reduced incentive to continue valuable upgrades offered by the acquired firm. The merged firm may have a reduced incentive to engage in disruptive innovation that would threaten the business of one of the merging firms. Or it may have the incentive to change its product mix, such as by ceasing to offer one of the merging firms’ products, leaving worse off the customers who previously chose the product that was eliminated. For example, competition may be harmed when customers with a preference for a low-price option lose access to it, even if remaining products have higher quality.

The incentives to compete aggressively on innovation and product variety depend on the capabilities of the firms and on customer reactions to the new offerings. Development of new features depends on having the appropriate expertise and resources. Where firms are two of a small number of companies with specialized employees, development facilities, intellectual property, or research projects in a particular area, competition between them will have a greater impact on their incentives to innovate.

Innovation may be directed at outcomes beyond product features; for example, innovation may be directed at reducing costs or adopting new technology for the distribution of products.

[Endnote 72] The margin on incremental units is the difference between incremental revenue (often equal to price) and incremental cost on those units. The Agencies may use accounting data to measure incremental costs, but they do not necessarily rely on accounting margins recorded by firms in the ordinary course of business because such margins often do not align with the concept of incremental cost that is relevant in economic analysis of a merger.

[Endnote 73] Sales “cannibalization” refers to a situation where customers of a firm substitute away from one of the firm’s products to another product offered by the same firm.