Unilateral Effects

This document is available in three formats: this web page (for browsing content), PDF (comparable to original document formatting), and PowerPoint. To view the PDF you will need Acrobat Reader, which may be downloaded from the Adobe site. For an official signed copy, please contact the Antitrust Documents Group.

Unilateral Effects

Federal Trade Commission and Justice Department
Merger Workshop
February 18, 2004

Joseph Kattan
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Washington, DC

The Insight of the 1992 Guidelines

  • New insight of 1992 guidelines is that unilateral effects can arise outside monopoly context
    • Daimler-Chrysler not the same as Daimler-BMW
    • Return to sub-markets?
  • Most important change in merger law since 1982 Merger Guidelines
  • Synthesis of economic theory and practical judgment about merger investigations
  • Profound impact on merger enforcement

What the Guidelines Say

  • Focus is on localized competition where “individual sellers compete more directly with those rivals selling closer substitutes”
  • Requires “a significant share of sales” to “consumers who regard the products of the merging firms as their first and second choices”
  • 35% screen for merged entity’s market share
  • Pragmatic tests reflecting quality of analytical tools available in merger investigations

The Lawyer’s Approach

  • The lawyer’s approach focuses on defining markets and identifying next best substitutes
  • Why? That’s what the Guidelines say
  • Analysis driven by interviews and documents
    • Too many documents
  • The economist’s critique: Lawyers use models but don’t articulate them sufficiently
  • 35% share screen and next-best substitutes analysis embody assumptions about the effects of cannibalization on merged firm’s incentives

The Economist’s Alternative

  • Economists are less tethered to the Guidelines
    • Institutional bias against the market definition-driven approach of the Merger Guidelines and case law
  • Attempt to get closer to the “real answer” through econometrics or merger simulations
    • Models with well-articulated specifications
  • Data is to economists what documents are to lawyers
    • Both want too much
  • The jargon of dead Frenchmen

The Role of Simulations

  • Modeling and simulations can be useful if sufficiently attuned to market realities and based on defensible assumptions
  • Small differences in assumptions can often make big differences in results
  • What are we trying to show?
    • Magnitude of price increase?
    • Whether to get to next step of analysis?
  • The risk of false empiricism

Some Issues With Simulations

  • Merger simulations are likely to find more problematic mergers than the lawyer’s approach
  • Models are designed to predict a price increase
    • How does the plaintiff’s expert defend a model that predicts a price increase for safe harbor mergers?
  • Economist’s retort: “But this is before entry, repositioning, and efficiencies are considered”
    • That still means shifting the burden of proof to the merging parties

More Issues With Simulations

  • What happens to next-best substitutes in a world of logit models?
    • IIA assumption of identical cross-elasticities of all products with respect to a given product
  • More complex models impose great costs and have insatiable appetite for data
    • Issues with retail-level data as proxy for wholesale competition
    • Assumptions regarding elasticities over relevant range
  • Do models follow the Guidelines?
    • Source of anticompetitive unilateral effects
    • Burden of proof

Another Burden of Merger Review

  • Even proponents concede that modeling can be very expensive but may yield little of value
    • Costly for parties to get data, clean it up for economists, and analyze it
  • Scheffman critique raises valid implementation and theoretical issues
  • Reassuring to read Froeb critique of $100,000 rebuttal report
  • Merger proponents forced to perform defensive modeling
Updated June 25, 2015

Was this page helpful?

Was this page helpful?
Yes No