Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Class 15 Whiteboard Antitrust, Fall, 2012 Horizontal Mergers Randal C. Picker Leffmann Professor of Commercial Law The Law School The University of Chicago.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Class 15 Whiteboard Antitrust, Fall, 2012 Horizontal Mergers Randal C. Picker Leffmann Professor of Commercial Law The Law School The University of Chicago."— Presentation transcript:

1 Class 15 Whiteboard Antitrust, Fall, 2012 Horizontal Mergers Randal C. Picker Leffmann Professor of Commercial Law The Law School The University of Chicago 773.702.0864/r-picker@uchicago.edu Copyright © 2000-12 Randal C. Picker. All Rights Reserved.

2 May 15, 2015Copyright © 2000-12 Randal C. Picker2 Decisions According to an Economist n Maximize Utility Subject to Constraints u U(x1,x2,x3, … xn) u Subject to p1x1 + p2x2 + p3x3 + … + pnxn = B u Xi’s are amounts of each good in the market place u Pi’s are prices u B is amount of money to spend

3 May 15, 2015Copyright © 2000-12 Randal C. Picker3 Buying Diet Cola n Assume u Two relevant goods: Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi u General Form of Utility Function w U(x1,x2) = s(a1x1 + a2x2) u Consumer will spend B on the two products w Budget constraint given by p1x1 + p2x2 = B w B = $10 (set arbitrarily)

4 May 15, 2015Copyright © 2000-12 Randal C. Picker4 Buying Diet Cola n Three Versions of the Demand Function u The Diet Coke Lover w a1 = 1, a2 = 0 Will never buy Diet Pepsi at any price u The Diet Pepsi Lover w a1 = 0, a2 = 1 Will never buy Diet Coke at any price

5 May 15, 2015Copyright © 2000-12 Randal C. Picker5 Buying Diet Cola u Brand Doesn’t Matter w a1 = 1, a2 = 1 Either one works and will just buy the cheapest

6 May 15, 2015Copyright © 2000-12 Randal C. Picker6 Demand: DC by DC Lover Demand Curve 10 P Q Independent of p DP

7 May 15, 2015Copyright © 2000-12 Randal C. Picker7 Demand: DP by DP Lover Demand Curve 10 P Q Independent of p DC

8 May 15, 2015Copyright © 2000-12 Randal C. Picker8 Demand: DC by Indifferent Demand Curve 10 P Q When p DP = 2

9 May 15, 2015Copyright © 2000-12 Randal C. Picker9 Demand: DC by Indifferent Demand Curve 10 P Q When p DP = 5

10 May 15, 2015Copyright © 2000-12 Randal C. Picker10 Substitutes n Definition u Goods for which demand curve of the first depends on the price of the second n Here u DC and DP aren’t substitutes (at all) for two of our consumers u Perfect substitutes for the third

11 May 15, 2015Copyright © 2000-12 Randal C. Picker11 Cost Conditions and Extent of Competition n Introduce Costs u Assume no fixed costs u Marginal cost of making DC = 2 u Marginal cost of making DP = 5 n Competitive Structure u Assume both produced competitively so P = MC

12 May 15, 2015Copyright © 2000-12 Randal C. Picker12 Demand: DC by DC Lover Demand Curve 10 Marginal Cost 2 P Q Independent of p DP

13 May 15, 2015Copyright © 2000-12 Randal C. Picker13 Demand: DP by DP Lover Demand Curve 10 Marginal Cost 5 P Q Independent of p DC

14 May 15, 2015Copyright © 2000-12 Randal C. Picker14 Demand: DC by Indifferent Demand Curve 10 P Q When p DP = 5 Marginal Cost 2

15 May 15, 2015Copyright © 2000-12 Randal C. Picker15 Results n 10 units of DC at $2, 2 units of DP at $5 u DC lover buys 5 units at market price of $2 u DP lover buys 2 units at market price of $5 u Brand indifferent compares price of DC ($2) with price of DP ($5); buys no DP and buys 5 units of DC at $2

16 May 15, 2015Copyright © 2000-12 Randal C. Picker16 Results n Social Welfare u Add utilities of the the three types, assuming that utilities are measured in dollars u Subtract cost of production n Here u 5s + 2s + 5s – (10 x 2) – (2 x 5) u 12s - 30

17 May 15, 2015Copyright © 2000-12 Randal C. Picker17 The Mission n What We Can’t See u Utility functions n What We Can See u Behavior changes in response to price changes

18 May 15, 2015Copyright © 2000-12 Randal C. Picker18 Try It n Assume MC of Making DP Drops from $5 to $4: What Happens?

19 May 15, 2015Copyright © 2000-12 Randal C. Picker19 Results n DC Lover u No change n DP Lover u Buys more DP; buys 2.5 units rather than 2 n Brand Indifferent u Price of DP above price of DC still u No change

20 May 15, 2015Copyright © 2000-12 Randal C. Picker20 Results n Social Welfare u 5s + 5s + 2.5s – (10 x 2) – (2.5 x 4) u 12.5s – 30 n Cross-Elasticity and Markets u The price of DP dropped: what happened to sales of DC?

21 May 15, 2015Copyright © 2000-12 Randal C. Picker21 Results u No change in DC sales u No substitution u Not in same market?

22 May 15, 2015Copyright © 2000-12 Randal C. Picker22 Next Change n Unilateral Cost-Unrelated Price Increase in DC u Price of Diet Coke rises from $2 to $5 u Price of Diet Pepsi still at $4 n What happens?

23 May 15, 2015Copyright © 2000-12 Randal C. Picker23 Results n DC Lover u Reduces consumption of DC from 5 units to 2 units; buys no DP n DP Lover u Still buys 2.5 units of DP; 0 units of DC n Brand Indifferent u Price of DC 5 exceeds price of DP 4 u Stops buying 5 units DC, buys 2.5 units DP

24 May 15, 2015Copyright © 2000-12 Randal C. Picker24 What Does this Mean? n We have seen substitution n We can calculate a cross-elasticity of demand u DP sales increased 2.5 units with an increase in the price of DC from $2 to $5 n Are DP and DC in the same market? What can we say about “market power”?

25 May 15, 2015Copyright © 2000-12 Randal C. Picker25 Calculating Market Shares n Volume of Diet Pepsi u (2.5 x Number of Diet Pepsi Lovers + 2.5 x Number of Brand Indifferent) x Price of Diet Pepsi n Volume of Diet Coke u 5 x Number of Diet Coke Lovers x Price of Diet Coke n Market Share of Diet Coke: Vol DC / (Vol DC + Vol DP)

26 May 15, 2015Copyright © 2000-12 Randal C. Picker26 Evaluating Substitution n Are DC and DP Substitutes? u Depends on prices of related products u Not when one product has a cost- advantage over the other (first example) u But exercise of pricing power as to DC induces substitution between DC and DP

27 May 15, 2015Copyright © 2000-12 Randal C. Picker27 The Cellophane Fallacy n Price Determines Scope of Substitution u Whether products are perceived as substitutes is a function of price. High prices—monopoly power—expand the number of goods that will serve as substitutes. u Actual behavior, given monopoly power, would suggest a broader definition of the market than might be appropriate.

28 May 15, 2015Copyright © 2000-12 Randal C. Picker28 The Harm of Monopoly Again n Substitution may mitigate reduction in output u Need to focus not only on reduction in DC output but increase in consumption of substitutes u If MC of DC = 2 and MC of DP = 2 and no market power in DP market, Brand Indifferent could switch over completely and drop in DC sales would overstate harm


Download ppt "Class 15 Whiteboard Antitrust, Fall, 2012 Horizontal Mergers Randal C. Picker Leffmann Professor of Commercial Law The Law School The University of Chicago."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google