IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wzb/wzebiv/spii2005-16.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

EU Merger Remedies: A Preliminary Empirical Assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Tomaso Duso
  • Klaus Gugler
  • Burcin Yurtoglu

Abstract

Mergers that substantially lessen competition are challenged by antitrust authorities. Instead of blocking anticompetitive transitions straight away, authorities might choose to negotiate with the merging parties and allow the transactions to proceed with modifications that restore or preserve the competition in the involved markets. We study a sample of 167 mergers that were under the European Commission’s scrutiny from 1990 to 2002. We use an event study methodology to identify the potential anticompetitive effects of mergers as well as the remedial provisions on these transactions. Stock market reactions around the day of the merger’s announcement provide information on the first question, whereas the stock market reactions around the commission’s final decision day convey information about the outcome of the bargaining process between the authority and the merging parties. We first classify mergers according to their effects on competition and then we develop hypotheses on the effects that remedies are supposed to achieve depending on the merger’s competitive outcome. We isolate several stylized facts. First, we find that remedies were not always appropriately imposed. Second, the market seems to be able to predict remedies’ effectiveness when applied in phase I. Third, the market also seems able to produce a good prior to phase II’s clearances and prohibitions, but not to remedies. This can be due either to a measurement problem or related to the increased merging firms’ bargaining power during the second phase of the merger review. ZUSAMMENFASSUNG - (Auflagen im Fusionskontrollverfahren der EU: Eine erste empirische Bewertung) Fusionen, die den Wettbewerb auf einem Markt vermindern oder verhindern, werden von Antitrustbehörden angefochten. Anstatt wettbewerbswidrige Zusammenschlüsse direkt zu blockieren, können die Behörden beschließen, mit den Parteien zu verhandeln und die Fusion mit Auflagen zu genehmigen, durch die der Wettbewerb in den entsprechenden Märkten wieder hergestellt oder aufrechterhalten wird. Wir analysieren eine Stichprobe von 167 Fusionen, die von der Europäischen Kommission zwischen 1990 und 2002 überprüft worden sind. Wir verwenden eine "event study" - Methodologie, um sowohl die möglichen wettbewerbswidrigen Wirkungen von Fusionen als auch die Wirkung der von der Behörde beschlossenen Auflagen zu untersuchen. Die Reaktion der Aktienpreise der beteiligten Unternehmen - sowohl der fusionierenden als auch der Wettbewerber - um den Tag der Fusionsankündigung liefert Informationen für die erste Frage, während die Reaktionen von Aktienpreisen um den Tag der EU-Kommissionsentscheidung Informationen über das Ergebnis der geheimen Verhandlungen zwischen der Behörde und den involvierten Parteien geben. Zuerst klassifizieren wir Fusionen entsprechend ihrer Effekte auf den Wettbewerb und dann entwickeln wir Hypothesen auf die Wirkung, welche die Auflagen in Abhängigkeit von den Wettbewerbseffekten der Fusion erzielen soll. Unsere Analyse ergibt einige stilisierte Fakten. Zuerst finden wir, dass die Auflagen von der EU-Kommission nicht immer adäquat angewandt wurden. Auflagen scheinen jedoch eine Wirkung auf die fusionierenden Unternehmen zu haben. Sie sind besonders effektiv, wenn sie bereits in Phase I des Fusionskontrollverfahrens eingesetzt werden. Jedoch scheint der Markt unfähig zu sein, eine gute Vorhersage für die Wirkung von Auflagen in Phase II zu produzieren. Dieses Ergebnis kann entweder auf einem Meßproblem beruhen oder es wird durch eine erhöhte Verhandlungsstärke der fusionierenden Unternehmen während der zweiten Phase der Fusionskontrolle verursacht.

Suggested Citation

  • Tomaso Duso & Klaus Gugler & Burcin Yurtoglu, 2005. "EU Merger Remedies: A Preliminary Empirical Assessment," CIG Working Papers SP II 2005-16, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB), Research Unit: Competition and Innovation (CIG).
  • Handle: RePEc:wzb:wzebiv:spii2005-16
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://skylla.wz-berlin.de/pdf/2005/ii05-16.pdf
    File Function: Full text (original version)
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. McAfee, R. Preston & Williams, Michael A., 1988. "Can event studies detect anticompetitive mergers?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 199-203.
    2. Lars-Hendrik Röller & Johan Stennek & Frank Verboven, 2006. "Efficiency Gains from Mergers," Chapters,in: European Merger Control, chapter 3 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Song, Moon H. & Walkling, Ralph A., 2000. "Abnormal returns to rivals of acquisition targets: A test of the 'acquisition probability hypothesis'," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 143-171, February.
    4. Scholes, Myron & Williams, Joseph, 1977. "Estimating betas from nonsynchronous data," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 309-327, December.
    5. Jozsef Molnar, 2002. "Preemptive Horizontal Mergers: Theory and Evidence," IEHAS Discussion Papers 0213, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies, Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
    6. Farrell, Joseph & Shapiro, Carl, 1990. "Horizontal Mergers: An Equilibrium Analysis," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(1), pages 107-126, March.
    7. John Simpsom, 2001. "Did May Company's Acquisition of Associated Dry Goods Corporation Reduce Competition? An Event Study Analysis," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 18(4), pages 351-362, June.
    8. Fridolfsson, Sven-Olof & Stennek, Johan, 1999. "Why Mergers Reduce Profits, and Raise Share Prices," Working Paper Series 511, Research Institute of Industrial Economics, revised 03 Dec 2001.
    9. Gugler, Klaus & Mueller, Dennis C. & Yurtoglu, B. Burcin & Zulehner, Christine, 2003. "The effects of mergers: an international comparison," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(5), pages 625-653, May.
    10. Kim, E Han & Singal, Vijay, 1993. "Mergers and Market Power: Evidence from the Airline Industry," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(3), pages 549-569, June.
    11. Slovin, Myron B. & Sushka, Marie E. & Hudson, Carl D., 1991. "Deregulation, contestability, and airline acquisitions," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 231-251, December.
    12. repec:mes:challe:v:33:y:1990:i:3:p:56-58 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Neven, Damien J. & Roller, Lars-Hendrik, 2005. "Consumer surplus vs. welfare standard in a political economy model of merger control," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 23(9-10), pages 829-848, December.
    14. Eckbo, B. Espen, 1983. "Horizontal mergers, collusion, and stockholder wealth," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1-4), pages 241-273, April.
    15. Duso, Tomaso & Roller, Lars-Hendrik, 2003. "Endogenous deregulation: evidence from OECD countries," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 81(1), pages 67-71, October.
    16. Cabral, Luis M. B., 2003. "Horizontal mergers with free-entry: why cost efficiencies may be a weak defense and asset sales a poor remedy," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(5), pages 607-623, May.
    17. Stephen W. Salant & Sheldon Switzer & Robert J. Reynolds, 1983. "Losses From Horizontal Merger: The Effects of an Exogenous Change in Industry Structure on Cournot-Nash Equilibrium," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 98(2), pages 185-199.
    18. Bruce R. Lyons, 2004. "Reform of European Merger Policy," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(2), pages 246-261, May.
    19. Eckbo, B Espen & Wier, Peggy, 1985. "Antimerger Policy under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act: A Reexamination of the Market Power Hypothesis," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 28(1), pages 119-149, April.
    20. Aktas, Nihat & Bodt, Eric de & Roll, Richard, 2004. "European M&A Regulation is Protectionist," University of California at Los Angeles, Anderson Graduate School of Management qt9gd3x41d, Anderson Graduate School of Management, UCLA.
    21. Gregor Andrade & Mark Mitchell & Erik Stafford, 2001. "New Evidence and Perspectives on Mergers," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 15(2), pages 103-120, Spring.
    22. Tomaso Duso & Damien J. Neven & Lars-Hendrik Röller, 2007. "The Political Economy of European Merger Control: Evidence using Stock Market Data," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 50, pages 455-489.
    23. Fee, C. Edward & Thomas, Shawn, 2004. "Sources of gains in horizontal mergers: evidence from customer, supplier, and rival firms," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(3), pages 423-460, December.
    24. Koki Arai, 2004. "An Airline Merger in Japan: A Case Study Revealing Principles of Japanese Merger Control," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 4(3), pages 207-222, September.
    25. Brady, Una & M. Feinberg, Robert, 2000. "An examination of stock-price effects of EU merger control policy," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 18(6), pages 885-900, August.
    26. Bittlingmayer, George & Hazlett, Thomas W., 2000. "DOS Kapital: Has antitrust action against Microsoft created value in the computer industry?," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 329-359, March.
    27. Ajeyo Banerjee & E. Woodrow Eckard, 1998. "Are Mega-Mergers Anticompetitive? Evidence from the First Great Merger Wave," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 29(4), pages 803-827, Winter.
    28. Stillman, Robert, 1983. "Examining antitrust policy towards horizontal mergers," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1-4), pages 225-240, April.
    29. Elzinga, Kenneth G, 1969. "The Antimerger Law: Pyrrhic Victories?," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 12(1), pages 43-78, April.
    30. Ellert, James C, 1976. "Mergers, Antitrust Law Enforcement and Stockholder Returns," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 31(2), pages 715-732, May.
    31. Singal, Vijay, 1996. "Airline Mergers and Competition: An Integration of Stock and Product Price Effects," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 69(2), pages 233-268, April.
    32. Eckbo, B Espen, 1992. " Mergers and the Value of Antitrust Deterrence," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 47(3), pages 1005-1029, July.
    33. Aktas, Nihat & de Bodt, Eric & Roll, Richard, 2004. "Market Response to European Regulation of Business Combinations," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 39(04), pages 731-757, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Patrice Bougette & Stéphane Turolla, 2006. "Merger Remedies at the European Commission: A Multinomial Logit Analysis," Working Papers 06-08, LAMETA, Universitiy of Montpellier, revised Feb 2008.
    2. Goran Serdareviæ & Petr Teplý, 2011. "The Efficiency of EU Merger Control During the Period 1990–2008," Czech Journal of Economics and Finance (Finance a uver), Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, vol. 61(3), pages 252-276, July.
    3. Thomas Hoehn, 2010. "Structure Versus Conduct - A Comparison of the National Merger Remedies Practice in Seven European Countries," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(1), pages 9-32.
    4. Jo Seldeslachts & Joseph A. Clougherty & Pedro Pita Barros, 2007. "Remedy for Now but Prohibit for Tomorrow: The Deterrence Effects of Merger Policy Tools," CIG Working Papers SP II 2007-02, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB), Research Unit: Competition and Innovation (CIG).
    5. Paolo Buccirossi & Lorenzo Ciari & Tomaso Duso & Sven-Olof Fridolfsson & Giancarlo Spagnolo & Cristiana Vitale, 2008. "A Short Overview of a Methodology for the Ex-Post Review of Merger Control Decisions," De Economist, Springer, vol. 156(4), pages 453-475, December.
    6. Patrice Bougette & Stéphane Turolla, 2008. "Market structures, political surroundings, and merger remedies: an empirical investigation of the EC’s decisions," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 125-150, April.
    7. Gregory Werden, 2008. "Assessing the Effects of Antitrust Enforcement in the United States," De Economist, Springer, vol. 156(4), pages 433-451, December.
    8. Wayne-Roy Gayle & Robert Marshall & Leslie Marx & Jean-François Richard, 2011. "Coordinated Effects in the 2010 Horizontal Merger Guidelines," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 39(1), pages 39-56, August.
    9. Pedro Barros & Joseph Clougherty & Jo Seldeslachts, 2010. "How to Measure the Deterrence Effects of Merger Policy: Frequency or Composition?," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(1), pages 1-8.
    10. Panagiotis Fotis & Michael Polemis & Nikolaos Zevgolis, 2011. "Robust Event Studies for Derogation from Suspension of Concentrations in Greece during the Period 1995–2008," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 67-89, March.
    11. Joseph A. Clougherty & Tomaso Duso, 2009. "The Impact of Horizontal Mergers on Rivals: Gains to Being Left Outside a Merger," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(8), pages 1365-1395, December.
    12. Duso, Tomaso & Gugler, Klaus & Yurtoglu, Burcin, 2010. "Is the event study methodology useful for merger analysis? A comparison of stock market and accounting data," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 186-192, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Merger Control; Remedies; European Commission; Event Studies.;

    JEL classification:

    • L4 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies
    • K21 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Antitrust Law
    • C12 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Hypothesis Testing: General
    • C13 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Estimation: General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wzb:wzebiv:spii2005-16. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Jennifer Rontganger). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/cicwzde.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.