2Market DominanceCampbell’s Soup has accounted for 60% of the canned soup market for over 50 yearsSotheby’s and Christie’s have controlled 90% of the auction market for two decades (each holds 50% of its own domestic market)Intel has held 90% of the computer chip market for 10 years.Microsoft has held 90% of the operating system market over the last 10 yearsOn average, the number one firm in an industry retains that rank for 17 – 28 years!
3Entry/Exit and Profitability BananasApplesSSD’DD’DIts normally assumed that as demand patterns shift, resources are moved across sectors – as the price of bananas rises relative to apples, there is exit in the apple industry and entry in the banana industry (bananas are more profitable)THIS IS INCONSISTANT WITH THE FACTS!!
4Evolving Market Structures….Some Facts Entry is common: Entry rates for industries in the US between 1963 – 1982 averaged 8-10% per year.Entry occurs on a small scale: Entrants for industries in the US between 1963 – 1982 averaged 14% of the industry.Survival Rates are Low: 61% of entrants will exit within 5 years % exit within 10 years.Entry is highly correlated with exit across industries: Industries with high entry rates also have high exit ratesEntry/Exit Rates vary considerably across industries: Clothing and Furniture have high entry/exit, chemical and petroleum have low entry/exit.
5The data suggests that most industries are like revolving doors – there is always a steady supply of new entrants trying to survive.Market Dominated by IncumbentsEntrantsExitsThe key source of variation across industries is the rate of entry (which controls the rate of exit)Is this a result of predatory practices by the incumbents?
6Predatory Pricing vs. Profit Maximizing Remember, firms are also profit maximizing. Specifically, they are always looking for ways to minimize costsMC (Short Run)PP’MC (Long Run)DQQ’MRPredatory pricing describes actions that are profitable only if they drive out rivals or discourage potential rivals!
7Limit PricingConsider the Stackelberg leadership example. Firm one chooses its output first. This leaves Firm two the residual demand. Also, assume that there is a fixed cost of production (F)Market DemandFirm One’s output choiceD(P)
8Limit PricingConsider the Stackelberg leadership example. Firm one chooses its output first. This leaves Firm two the residual demand. Also, assume that there is a fixed cost of production (F)If Firm 2 chooses to enter, it will maximize profits by choosingNegative profits for the entrant will deter entry.MCD(P)MRCan Firm one commit to its entry deterring production level?
9Using capacity choice as a commitment device Recall, that the problem with threatening potential entrants is that the threat needs to be credible (Remember the chain store paradox). One way around this is to “tie your hands” in advance by choice of production capacity.Lets again use a modified version of the Stackelberg leadership gameTwo firms- an incumbent and a potential entrant facing a downward sloping market demandBoth firms have a fixed cost of productionOne the fixed cost has been paid, production requires one unit of labor (at price w) and one unit of capacity (at price r)
10Extensive form of the game Stage 1: Incumbent chooses capacityThis capacity can be increased later, but not decreasedStage 2: Entrant makes entry decisionNo Entry: Incumbent remains a monopolyEntry: Incumbent and Entrant play cournot (Choosing production levels)OR
11Capacity and Marginal Cost In period two, the initial capacity choice for the incumbent is now a fixed cost. Therefore, the incumbent has a cost advantage as long as it stays within its initial capacity choice
12Best ResponsesAs in the initial Cournot analysis, we can derive Firm two’s best response to firm 1However, with the fixed cost, firm 2 must produce at a minimum scale to earn positive profitsPositive ProfitsFirm 2’s “break even point”Negative ProfitsFirm 2
13Best ResponsesFirm 1’s response function has a “kink” at its initial capacity constraint.Given an initial capacity choice by firm 1, this would be the Nash equilibrium in stage twoFirm 2
14Nash Equilibrium with entry deterrence To deter entry, Firm one has to choose its initial capacity such that:Firm 2’s best response will be its break even point (with profits equal to zero)Firm one is operating at its initial capacity chosen in period 1.Firm 2
15Capacity as a Predatory Practice In 1945, the US Court of Appeals ruled that Alcoa was guilty of anti-competitive behavior. The case was predicated on the view that Alcoa had expanded capacity solely to keep out competition – Alcoa had expanded capacity eightfold from 1912 – 1934!!In the 1970’s Safeway increased the number of stores in the Edmonton area from 25 to 34 in an effort to drive out new chains entering the area (It did work…the competition fell from 21 stores to 10)In the 1970’s, there were 7 major firms in the titanium dioxide market (A whitener used in paint and plastics). Dupont held 34% of the market but had a proprietary production technique that generated less pollution. When stricter pollution controls were imposed, Dupont increased its market share to 60% while the rest of the industry stagnated.
16A merger is generally a dominant strategy!! There have been numerous cases involving predatory pricing throughout history.Standard OilAmerican Sugar Refining CompanyMogul Steamship CompanyWall MartAT&TToyotaAmerican AirlinesThere are two good reasons why we would most likely not see predatory pricing in practiceIt is difficult to make a credible threat (Remember the Chain Store Paradox)!A merger is generally a dominant strategy!!
17Predation vs. MergerAgain, lets use the Stackelberg Leadership model from before. Two firms (incumbent and entrant) – both with marginal cost (c). They face the market demand curveWe have already shown the following
18As a monopoly, Firm A would earn higher profits: The predatory pricing strategy would be to charge a price equal to marginal cost today (earn zero profits) to prohibit entry and then act as a monopolist tomorrowTomorrowTodayAverageAt the very least, you could offer to merge with the entrant and split the profits 50/50TodayTomorrowAverage
19Can predatory pricing be a rational strategy? The Bottom Line…There have been numerous cases over the years alleging predatory pricing. However, from a practical standpoint we need to ask three questions:Can predatory pricing be a rational strategy?Can we distinguish predatory pricing from competitive pricing?If we find evidence for predatory pricing, what do we do about it?
20Price Fixing and Collusion Prior to 1993, the record fine in the United States for price fixing was $2M. Recently, that record has been shattered!DefendantProductYearFineF. Hoffman-LarocheVitamins1999$500MBASF$225MSGL CarbonGraphite Electrodes$135MUCAR International1998$110MArcher Daniels MidlandLysine & Citric Acid1997$100MHaarman & ReimerCitric Acid$50HeereMacMarine Construction$M49In other words…Cartels happen!
22Cartel FormationIn a previous example, we had three firms, each with a marginal cost of $20 facing a market demand equal toIf we assume that these firms engage in Cournot competition, then we can calculate price, quantities, and profitsFirm OutputIndustry OutputTotal industry profit is $93Market PriceFirm Profits
23Cartel FormationIn a previous example, we had three firms, each with a marginal cost of $20 facing a market demand equal toIf these three firms can coordinate their actions, they could collectively act as a monopolistSplitting the profits equally gives each firm profits of $41.67!!
24Cartel FormationWhile it is clearly in each firm’s best interest to join the cartel, there are a couple problems:With the high monopoly markup, each firm has the incentive to cheat and overproduce. If every firm cheats, the price falls and the cartel breaks downCartels are generally illegal which makes enforcement difficult!Note that as the number of cartel members increases the benefits increase, but more members makes enforcement even more difficult!
25Cooperate Cheat $20 $20 $10 $40 $40 $10 $15 $15 Cartels - The Prisoner’s DilemmaThe problem facing the cartel members is a perfect example of the prisoner’s dilemma !ClydeCooperateCheat$20 $20$10 $40$40 $10$15 $15Jake
26But we know that cartels do happen!! We can assume that carte members are interacting repeatedly over timeCartel agreement made at time zero.12345TimePlay Cournot GamePlay Cournot GamePlay Cournot GamePlay Cournot GamePlay Cournot GamePlay Cournot GameCartel members might cooperate now to avoid being punished laterHowever, we’ve already shown that if there is a well defined endpoint in which the game ends, then the collusive strategy breaks down (threats are not credible)
27Multiple Nash Equilibria can allow collusion to happen Acme$105$130$160$ $7.32$ $7.25$ $5.53$ $8.25$ $8.50$10 $7.15$ $9.38$ $10$ $9.10What is the Nash Equilibrium in this game?AlliedThe existence of multiple equilibria allow for the possibility of credible threats (and, hence, collusion)
28Multiple Nash Equilibria can allow collusion to happen AcmeAs in the previous case, a price of $160 can’t be enforced in the last period of play, which causes things to unravel$105$130$160$ $7.32$ $7.25$ $5.53$ $8.25$ $8.50$10 $7.15$ $9.38$ $10$ $9.10AlliedConsider this strategy:“We both charge $160 until the last period. That period we will both charge $130. If you cheat, I will punish you by charging $105.
29Two Period ExampleAcmePeriod 2: Is charging a price equal to $130 optimal for both firms?$105$130$160$ $7.32$ $7.25$ $5.53$ $8.25$ $8.50$10 $7.15$ $9.38$ $10$ $9.10Yes…it’s a Nash equilibrium!AlliedPeriod 1: Is charging a price equal to $160 optimal for both firms?Yes! If you charge $130 today, you will be punished with $105 tomorrow – it’s a credible threat because ($105, $105) is a Nash Equilibrium!(Cooperation)(Cheating)
30Cooperation also occurs with an infinite horizon (i. e Cooperation also occurs with an infinite horizon (i.e. the game never ends!!)Cartel agreement made at time zero.12345TimePlay Cournot GamePlay Cournot GamePlay Cournot GamePlay Cournot GamePlay Cournot GamePlay Cournot GameFirms will cooperate when its in their best interest to do so!Cartels are easier to maintain when there are higher annual profits and interest rates are low!
31Where is collusion most likely to occur? The central problem with a cartel is as follows:Combined profits under the cartel are greater than the non-cooperative situationHowever, its possible thatMember firms might be able to earn more in the non-competitive case than they would in the cartelCartels require coordination to be maintained…this can be difficult!
32Where is collusion most likely to occur? High profit potentialThe more profitable a cartel is, the more likely it is to be maintainedInelastic Demand (Few close substitutes, Necessities)Cartel members control most of the marketEntry Restrictions (Natural or Artificial)Its common to see trade associations form as a way of keeping out competition (Florida Oranges, Got Milk!, etc)
33April 15,1996 (“Grape Nut Monday”): Post Cereal, the third largest ready-to-eat cereal manufacturer announced a 20% cut in its cereal pricesKellogg’s eventually cut their prices as well (after their market share fell from 35% to 32%)The breakfast cereal industry had been a stable oligopoly for years….what happened?Supermarket generic cereals created a more competitive pricing atmosphereChanging consumer breakfast habits (bagels, muffins, etc)
34Where is collusion most likely to occur? Low cooperation costsIf it is relatively easy for member firms to coordinate their actions, the more likely it is to be maintainedSmall Number of Firms with a high degree of market concentrationSimilar production costsLittle product differentiationSome cartels might require explicit side payments among member firms. This is difficult to do when cartels are illegal!
35Where is collusion most likely to occur? Low Enforcement CostsIf it is relatively easy for member firms to monitor and enforce cartel restrictions their the cartel is more likely to be maintainedExampleSuppose that you and your fellow cartel members have plants/customers located around the country. How should you set your price schedules?
36Mill Pricing (Free on Board) Suppose you have factories in Chicago and Detroit while your chief competitor has plants in Pittsburgh and Baltimore Your customers are located in Cleveland, Dallas, and AtlantaMill Pricing (Free on Board)A common “mill price” is set for everyone. Then, each customer pays additional shipping costs.Basing Point PricingA common “basing point” is chosen. Then, each customer pays factory price plus delivery price from the basing point.Advantages of Basing Point PricingCustomers in each location are quoted the same price from all producers.With FOB pricing, mill price is the strategic variable (i.e. a price cut affects all consumers) while with basing point pricing, each consumer location is a strategic variable. This makes retaliatory threats more credible.
37High Price Low Price $12 $12 $5 $14 $14 $5 $6 $6 Price Matching Acme $12 $12$5 $14$14 $5$6 $6AlliedPrice Matching Removes the off-diagonal possibilities. This allows (High Price, High Price) to be an equilibrium!!
38Detecting CollusionIn general, it is difficult to distinguish cartel behavior from regular competitive behavior (remember, the government does not know each firm’s costs, the nature of demand, etc)Signs of Potential CollusionPhantom Bids (collusive bidding shows lower variance than non-collusive)Little relationship between bids and costsLittle relationship between bids and information setsExcess Capacity (as a means of retaliation)