Why Mergers Reduce Profits and Raise Share Prices: A Theory of Preemptive Mergers

We explain the empirical puzzle why mergers reduce profits and raise share prices. If being an "insider" is better than being an "outsider," firms may merge to preempt their partner merging with a rival. The stock-value of the insiders is increased, since the risk of becoming an outsider is eliminated. We also explain why shareholders of targets gain while acquirers typically break even. These results are derived in an endogenousmerger model, predicting the conditions under which mergers occur, when they occur, and how the surplus is shared. ZUSAMMENFASSUNG - (Warum Fusionen Profite reduzieren und Aktienpreise steigen lassen) Es wird ein "Mechanismus der Gewinnung eines Vorsprungs durch Fusion" aufgezeigt, der eventuell das empirische Rätsel, warum Fusionen Profite reduzieren und Aktienpreise steigen lassen, erklären kann. Eine Fusion kann starke negative externe Effekte bei den Unternehmen auslösen, die nicht an der Fusion beteiligt sind. Wenn es besser ist ein "Insider" zu sein als ein "Outsider", kann es sein, dass Firmen Fusionieren um dem zuvorzukommen, dass ihre Partner mit jemand anderem fusionieren. Desweiteren ist der Wert eines fusionierenden Unternehmens vor der Fusion niedrig, da er das Risiko ein Outsider zu werden reflektiert. Diese Ergebnisse werden aus einem Modell endogener Fusionen abgeleitet, welches die Bedingungen unter denen eine Fusion stattfindet, wann sie stattfindet und wie der Überschuss verteilt werden wird, vorhersagt.Mergers, Acquisitions, Defensive Mergers, Coalition Formation

Why Event Studies Do Not Detect Anti-Competitive Mergers

Anticompetitive mergers increase competitors' profits, since they reduce competition. Using a model of endogenous mergers, we show that such mergers nevertheless may reduce the competitors' share-prices. Thus, event-studies can not detect anti-competitive mergers. Mergers & Acquisitions; Event Studies; Antitrust; Coalition Formation

Market Power in the Nordic Wholesale Electricity Market: A Survey of the Empirical Evidence

We review the recent empirical research concerning market power on the Nordic wholesale market for electricity, Nord Pool. There is no evidence of blatant and systematic exploitation of system level market power on Nord Pool. However, generation companies seem from time to time able to take advantage of capacity constraints in transmission to wield regional market power. Market power can manifest itself in a number of ways which have so far escaped empirical scrutiny. We discuss investment incentives, vertical integration and buyer power, as well as withholding of base-load (nuclear) capacity.Electricity Markets; Deregulation; Market Power; Hydro Power; Transmission Constraints

Anti- versus Pro-Competitive Mergers

In a framework where mergers are mutually excluding, I show that firms pursue anti- rather than (alternative) pro-competitive mergers. Potential outsiders to anti-competitive mergers refrain from pursuing pro-competitive mergers if the positive externalities from anti-competitive mergers are strong enough. Potential outsiders to pro-competitive mergers pursue anti-competitive mergers if the negative externalities from the pro-competitive mergers are strong enough. Potential participants in anti-competitive mergers are cheap targets due to the risk of becoming outsiders to pro-competitive mergers. Firms may even pursue an unprofitable and anti-competitive merger, when alternative mergers are profitable and pro-competitive

A Consumer Surplus Defense in Merger Control

A government wanting to promote an efficient allocation of resources as measured by the total surplus, should strategically delegate to its competition authority a welfare standard with a bias in favour of consumers. A consumer bias means that some welfare increasing mergers will be blocked. This is optimal, if the relevant alternative to the merger is another change in market structure that will even further increase the total surplus. Furthermore, a consumer bias is shown to enhance welfare even though it blocks some welfare increasing mergers when the relevant alternative is the status quo.Merger Control; Competition Policy; Consumer Surplus

A Consumer Surplus Defense in Merger Control

A government wanting to promote an efficient allocation of resources as measured by the total surplus, should strategically delegate to its competition authority a welfare standard with a bias in favour of consumers. A consumer bias means that some welfare increasing mergers will be blocked. This is optimal, if the relevant alternative to the merger is another change in market structure that will even further increase the total surplus. Furthermore, a consumer bias is shown to enhance welfare even though it blocks some welfare increasing mergers when the relevant alternative is the status quo

Industry Concentration and Welfare - On the Use of Stock Market Evidence from Horizontal Mergers

There is diverging empirical evidence on the competitive effects of horizontal mergers: consumer prices (and thus presumably competitors' profits) often rise while competitors' share prices fall. Our model of endogenous mergers provides a possible reconciliation. It is demonstrated that anticompetitive mergers may reduce competitors' share prices, if the merger announcement informs the market that the competitors' lost a race to buy the target. Also the use of first rumor as an event may create similar problems of interpretation. We also indicate how the event-study methodology may be adapted to identify competitive effects and thus, the welfare consequences for consumers

Should Mergers be Controlled?

Anticompetitive mergers benefit competitors more than the merging firms. We show that such externalities reduce firms' incentives to merge (a holdup mechanism). Firms delay merger proposals, thereby foregoing valuable profits and hoping other firms will merge instead - a war of attrition. The final result, however, is an overly concentrated market. We also demonstrate a surprising intertemporal link: Merger incentives may be reduced by the prospect of additional profitable mergers in the future. Merger control may help protect competition. Holdup and intertemporal links make policy design more difficult, however. Even reasonable policies may be worse than not controlling mergers at all

Why Event Studies Do Not Detect Anti-Competitive Mergers

Anticompetitive mergers increase competitors' profits, since they reduce competition. Using a model of endogenous mergers, we show that such mergers nevertheless may reduce the competitors' share-prices. Thus, event-studies can not detect anti-competitive mergers

Market Power in the Nordic Wholesale Electricity Market: A Survey of the Empirical Evidence

We review the recent empirical research concerning market power on the Nordic wholesale market for electricity, Nord Pool. There is no evidence of blatant and systematic exploitation of system level market power on Nord Pool. However, generation companies seem from time to time able to take advantage of capacity constraints in transmission to wield regional market power. Market power can manifest itself in a number of ways which have so far escaped empirical scrutiny. We discuss investment incentives, vertical integration and buyer power, as well as withholding of base-load (nuclear) capacity