The Department of Justice Versus Alcoa (2000) Lance Light Tim Parrington Lance Light Tim Parrington.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Global Analysis International Trade.
Advertisements

Week 2: Market Power, Market Definition & (Horizontal) Mergers Francis O'Toole Department of Economics Trinity College Dublin 11 th October.
Oligopoly. u u few firms u u either homogeneous or differentiated products u u interdependence of firms - policies of one firm affect the other firms.
Teaching Horizontal Mergers to Undergraduates: The Case of American Airlines and US Airways.
An Age of Big Business Chapter 19 Section 3.
Chapter 15: Oligopoly Definition Price and output determination – game theory Cartels Anti-trust laws and regulation of markets.
Monopoly A monopoly is the sole supplier of a product with no close substitutes The most important characteristic of a monopolized market is barriers.
Georgetown University. The Law and Economics of Horizontal Mergers.
Trade Policies for the Developing Nations Chapter 7 Copyright © 2009 South-Western, a division of Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
Volvo-Scania Merger. Introduction September 1999 : Volvo notified the Commission of the plans to acquire with Scania Reasons for the merger: – Economies.
Mergers. Types of Mergers zHorizontal: merger between two competitors. yGoods are substitutes. zVertical: merger between two firms at different stages.
16. Antitrust Regulation Regulation Antitrust Law & Cases Regulation Antitrust Law & Cases.
1 The Nature of Industry. 2 Later we will study industries called perfect competition, monopoly, monopolistic competition, and oligopoly. The differences.
Chapter 15 Economic Regulation and Antitrust Policy © 2009 South-Western/ Cengage Learning.
© 2008 Prentice Hall Business Publishing Economics R. Glenn Hubbard, Anthony Patrick O’Brien, 2e. Fernando & Yvonn Quijano Prepared by: Chapter 14 Monopoly.
Rhett Smith Jon Michael Brooks
1 Measuring Market Structure. 2 Concentration ratios We have seen that the two polar extremes of market structure are monopoly, with one firm, and perfect.
When you have completed your study of this chapter, you will be able to C H A P T E R C H E C K L I S T Explain the effects of regulation of natural monopoly.
The Four Conditions for Perfect Competition
The Economic System By Dr. Frank Elwell. The Economic System The way that a society is organized to produce and distribute goods and services is the crucial.
When you have completed your study of this chapter, you will be able to C H A P T E R C H E C K L I S T Explain the effects of regulation of natural monopoly.
REVIEW:LECTURES 11.1, 11.2 AND 12.1 MARKET DEFINITION AND HORIZONTAL MERGERS Review17 October 2013 Date ANTITRUST ECONOMICS 2013 Alexis G. Pirchio CPI.
Chapter Key Points Identify the goals of antitrust laws Understand the analysis of monopolization Identify both the potential benefits and harms of mergers.
Sample Questions for Exam 3
Evaluating Monopoly Comparison with Perfect Competition.
Introductory course on Competition and Regulation Pál Belényesi University of Verona October 2006.
Chapter 7 The Nature of Industry
 How firms compete Easy as PIE: Presenting in English 09/03/2011.
Is Any Firm Ever Really a Monopoly?
Monopolistic Competition & Oligopoly ECO 2023 Chapter 11 Fall 2007.
MERGERS Clayton 7 as amended by the Celler-Kefauver Act:
1 The Nature of Industry Chapter 7. 2 Concentration Ratios Measures of how concentrated an industry is. 1. Four Firm Concentration Ratio  percentage.
How to assess vertical mergers cast your vote! Miguel de la Mano* Member of the Chief Economist Team DG COMP, European Commission *The views expressed.
First edition Global Economic Issues and Policies PowerPoint Presentation by Charlie Cook Copyright © 2004 South-Western/Thomson Learning. All rights reserved.
Discussion Session 3. Outline Monopoly Monopolistic Competition Antitrust Policy and Regulation.
Fantasy Just Energy Inc. Merger An Economic Analysis Presented to the Competition Authority 11 March
Horizontal Merger
Introduction to Business LECTURE 2: Introduction to Business MGT
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Hospital Corp of America v. FTC (7 th Cir. 1987) Basic Facts: Hospital Corp, owner of one hospital in Chattanooga,
Business and Society POST, LAWRENCE, WEBER Antitrust, Mergers, and Global Competition Chapter 9.
© 2009 Prentice Hall Business Publishing Essentials of Economics Hubbard/O’Brien, 2e. Fernando & Yvonn Quijano Prepared by: Chapter 9 Monopoly and Antitrust.
The dominance concept: new wine in old bottles Miguel de la Mano * Member of the Chief Economist’s Office DG COMP, European Commission FTC/DOJ Hearings.
Sample Questions for Exam 3 Chapters 12,13,14,15.
Principles of Merger Analysis The Antitrust Masters Course V September 30, 2010 Andrea Agathoklis, Department of Justice Norman A. Armstrong, Jr., Federal.
What ASCs Need to Know About Insurance Mergers Garfunkel Wild, P.C. 411 Hackensack Avenue 6 th Floor Hackensack, New Jersey
1 Economic Regulation and Antitrust Policy Chapter 15 © 2006 Thomson/South-Western.
February 10 th, 2009 Ticketmaster Live Nation. The Players  Ticketmaster Largest primary ticketing provider in the U.S. (80%) Largest primary ticketing.
Day Two, Session One Competitive Effects Andreas Bardong Head of Section Merger Policy, Bundeskartellamt, Germany.
Microeconomics ECON 2302 May 2009 Marilyn Spencer, Ph.D. Professor of Economics Chapter 14.
ECN 3103 Industrial Organisation
© 2004 West Legal Studies in Business, a Division of Thomson Learning 20.1 Chapter 20 Antitrust Law.
Price Leader Firms may, without ever discussing it explicitly, realize that competition is not in their collective best interests. Therefore, they may.
1 Industry Analysis  Basic econ conditions determine industry structure SCP model of firm performance Industry structure => firm conduct => Firm performance.
From Market Concentration to Market Outcome: The evolution of US antitrust agency horizontal merger guidelines Russell Pittman Antitrust Division, U.S.
The Economic Environment of Business – Lecture 5 Competition Policy.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Boeing/McDonnell Douglas Merger (1997) What was Boeing’s and McDonnell’s market shares? Was McDonnell failing.
1 Market Structure Chapter 7. 2 Competitive Markets Forces of supply/demand promote competition 2 basic types of competitive markets: Perfect Monopolistic.
© 2006 Prentice Hall Business Publishing Economics R. Glenn Hubbard, Anthony Patrick O’Brien—1 st ed. c h a p t e r fourteen Prepared by: Fernando & Yvonn.
Chapter 9 Oligopoly and Firm Architecture
Globalization Unit 5.
Chapter 9 Oligopoly and Firm Architecture
Competitors and Competition
Oligopoly.
Time Warner Rules Manhattan
DD209 Running the Economy Block 4 Microeconomics
Monopoly and Antitrust Policy
Oligopoly.
Chapter 7 Section 4.
Monopolistic Competition & Oligopoly
Essentials of the legal environment today, 5e
Presentation transcript:

The Department of Justice Versus Alcoa (2000) Lance Light Tim Parrington Lance Light Tim Parrington

Background Alcoa conducts operations in 31 countries and was worth $13 Billion in 1999 and is currently worth approximately $21 Billion Reynolds Metals Company was the 2nd largest Aluminum producer in the United States and 3rd largest in the world. They were worth $7 Billion in 1999 Department of Justice issued a complaint in 2000 when Alcoa announced its proposed $5.4 Billion merger with Reynolds (1999) Alcoa conducts operations in 31 countries and was worth $13 Billion in 1999 and is currently worth approximately $21 Billion Reynolds Metals Company was the 2nd largest Aluminum producer in the United States and 3rd largest in the world. They were worth $7 Billion in 1999 Department of Justice issued a complaint in 2000 when Alcoa announced its proposed $5.4 Billion merger with Reynolds (1999)

Relevant Markets Alcoa and Reynolds primarily produce two types of alumina for the market; SGA (Smelter Grade Alumina) and CGA (Chemical Grade Alumina) There are no ideal substitutes for either SGA or CGA Alcoa and Reynolds are both vertically integrated production companies Only 5 percent of the SGA and CGA purchased in the United States is imported Alcoa and Reynolds primarily produce two types of alumina for the market; SGA (Smelter Grade Alumina) and CGA (Chemical Grade Alumina) There are no ideal substitutes for either SGA or CGA Alcoa and Reynolds are both vertically integrated production companies Only 5 percent of the SGA and CGA purchased in the United States is imported

SSNIP Test The DOJ will typically employ a SSNIP test to evaluate the effects of a proposed merger by assuming a small (but significant) increase in price About 60% of the total SGA production is internally consumed by smelters owned by the vertically integrated SGA producers Importation of CGA and SGA into North America is unlikely to increase significantly in response to an anticompetitive increase in price (of SGA and CGA) because costs are too high The DOJ will typically employ a SSNIP test to evaluate the effects of a proposed merger by assuming a small (but significant) increase in price About 60% of the total SGA production is internally consumed by smelters owned by the vertically integrated SGA producers Importation of CGA and SGA into North America is unlikely to increase significantly in response to an anticompetitive increase in price (of SGA and CGA) because costs are too high

Market Concentration Alcoa controlled 14.5 million metric tons of SGA production capacity ~29% of the worldwide market (1999) Reynolds controlled approximately 4.4 million metric tons of total SGA production capacity ~9% of the market. Alcoa’s market share would increase to nearly 40 percent of total SGA market capacity if the merger is successful Alcoa controlled 14.5 million metric tons of SGA production capacity ~29% of the worldwide market (1999) Reynolds controlled approximately 4.4 million metric tons of total SGA production capacity ~9% of the market. Alcoa’s market share would increase to nearly 40 percent of total SGA market capacity if the merger is successful

Change in HHI DOJ evaluated that the HHI for the world SGA market will increase by 530 points Projected Post-merger HHI of 1,800 Pre-merger HHI of 1,270 Increased production share will also increase Alcoa’s North American market share from 39% to 59% (market moves towards oligopoly) Post-merger: the top three CGA producers will account for almost 90 percent of total production DOJ evaluated that the HHI for the world SGA market will increase by 530 points Projected Post-merger HHI of 1,800 Pre-merger HHI of 1,270 Increased production share will also increase Alcoa’s North American market share from 39% to 59% (market moves towards oligopoly) Post-merger: the top three CGA producers will account for almost 90 percent of total production

Anticompetitive Effects The DOJ’s complaint proposed the following anticompetitive effects: 1) Future competition between Alcoa and Reynolds will be completely eliminated 2) Consumer surplus will be partially depleted after the acquisition (lack of production competition) 3) Prices for SGA and CGA are projected to increase worldwide because of the high market concentration 4) Overall production quantity of SGA and CGA is likely to decrease The DOJ’s complaint proposed the following anticompetitive effects: 1) Future competition between Alcoa and Reynolds will be completely eliminated 2) Consumer surplus will be partially depleted after the acquisition (lack of production competition) 3) Prices for SGA and CGA are projected to increase worldwide because of the high market concentration 4) Overall production quantity of SGA and CGA is likely to decrease

Market Concetration Effects It is a proposed 5 to 4 merger Demand for SGA and CGA is extremely inelastic By reducing its output in the SGA market domestically, Alcoa will have enough projected market share to profit from an increase in price; this is caused by a unilateral reduction in output to third- party SGA and CGA smelters and consumers It is a proposed 5 to 4 merger Demand for SGA and CGA is extremely inelastic By reducing its output in the SGA market domestically, Alcoa will have enough projected market share to profit from an increase in price; this is caused by a unilateral reduction in output to third- party SGA and CGA smelters and consumers

Theory of Harm Violation of the Sherman Act Section 2 Unilateral Action (Classical) SGA Market: Control 40% of market, and can use power to dominate the market CGA Market: Control 60% of the market, significant power to manipulate price Greater likelihood to Collude Homogenous product, transparent prices, high concentration of market Entry & Efficiencies Entry isn’t possible; Takes 4 years and $1 billion to build a plant capable of competing Efficiencies argument used by the two firms Violation of the Sherman Act Section 2 Unilateral Action (Classical) SGA Market: Control 40% of market, and can use power to dominate the market CGA Market: Control 60% of the market, significant power to manipulate price Greater likelihood to Collude Homogenous product, transparent prices, high concentration of market Entry & Efficiencies Entry isn’t possible; Takes 4 years and $1 billion to build a plant capable of competing Efficiencies argument used by the two firms

Final Judgment Merger allowed, following divestitures US requirements: Corpus Christi refinery (owned 100%) With contract for providing raw product for 2 years Worsley Interest (owned 56%) EU Requirements: Longview, Washington smelter (owned 25%) Stade, Germany refinery (owned 50%) Merger allowed, following divestitures US requirements: Corpus Christi refinery (owned 100%) With contract for providing raw product for 2 years Worsley Interest (owned 56%) EU Requirements: Longview, Washington smelter (owned 25%) Stade, Germany refinery (owned 50%)

Our Opinion Corpus Christi divestiture (not enough) too high of costs, bought by private investment firm Worsley interest divestiture (good choice) Low cost with ability to expand But it was sold to another large firm Could still promote collusion Didn’t evaluate vertical repercussions at all Overall, we believe it should have been given a more thorough review Corpus Christi divestiture (not enough) too high of costs, bought by private investment firm Worsley interest divestiture (good choice) Low cost with ability to expand But it was sold to another large firm Could still promote collusion Didn’t evaluate vertical repercussions at all Overall, we believe it should have been given a more thorough review

Conclusion It set a dangerous precedent; Alcoa merged again, more aluminum mergers allowed Prices increased (but this correlates with a high demand for aluminum) It set a dangerous precedent; Alcoa merged again, more aluminum mergers allowed Prices increased (but this correlates with a high demand for aluminum) Average aluminum distribution prices ( )

Sources AAI Attacks Proposed Acquisition of Reynolds. (2000). Retrieved April 15, 2011, from American Antitrust Institute Web site: Aluminum Industry. (n.d.). Retrieved April 15, 2011, from Aluminum Leader: Aluminum Prices. (2011). Retrieved April 16, 2011, from Mongabay Web site: Communities, C. o. (May 3, 2000). Case No COMP/M Alcoa/Reynolds. Official Journal of the European Communities, Article 8 (2). Curran, W. J. (2004). Coordinated Effects. The Antitrust Bulletin, Justice, D. o. (2002). Coordinated Effects in Merger Review. Antitrust Division Reports, United States v. Alcoa and Reynolds Metals. (2000). Retrieved March 28, 2011, from Department of Justice: Antitrust Case Filings: (1) Yeardley, James L. "The Alcoa Proposition." InterestPeople 4th ser (2000): Chinook. Web. 20 Apr (2) Horacio, M. Glimpchin, T. “Merger Busts?” The Transit 2 nd ser. 3.6 (2003): Chinook. Web. 20 Apr (3) Wayne, Leslie. "Alcoa and Reynolds Reach Merger Agreement - New York Times." Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. New York Times, 20 Aug Web. 22 Apr (4) Alcoa Logo retrieved from: :// (5) Reynolds Metals Company logo retrieved from: mpany.svg/500px- Reynolds_Metals_Company.svg.png&imgrefurl= usg=__M-tPz7sDLm3Duk2lq mpany.svg/500px- Reynolds_Metals_Company.svg.png&imgrefurl= usg=__M-tPz7sDLm3Duk2lq AAI Attacks Proposed Acquisition of Reynolds. (2000). Retrieved April 15, 2011, from American Antitrust Institute Web site: Aluminum Industry. (n.d.). Retrieved April 15, 2011, from Aluminum Leader: Aluminum Prices. (2011). Retrieved April 16, 2011, from Mongabay Web site: Communities, C. o. (May 3, 2000). Case No COMP/M Alcoa/Reynolds. Official Journal of the European Communities, Article 8 (2). Curran, W. J. (2004). Coordinated Effects. The Antitrust Bulletin, Justice, D. o. (2002). Coordinated Effects in Merger Review. Antitrust Division Reports, United States v. Alcoa and Reynolds Metals. (2000). Retrieved March 28, 2011, from Department of Justice: Antitrust Case Filings: (1) Yeardley, James L. "The Alcoa Proposition." InterestPeople 4th ser (2000): Chinook. Web. 20 Apr (2) Horacio, M. Glimpchin, T. “Merger Busts?” The Transit 2 nd ser. 3.6 (2003): Chinook. Web. 20 Apr (3) Wayne, Leslie. "Alcoa and Reynolds Reach Merger Agreement - New York Times." Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. New York Times, 20 Aug Web. 22 Apr (4) Alcoa Logo retrieved from: :// (5) Reynolds Metals Company logo retrieved from: mpany.svg/500px- Reynolds_Metals_Company.svg.png&imgrefurl= usg=__M-tPz7sDLm3Duk2lq mpany.svg/500px- Reynolds_Metals_Company.svg.png&imgrefurl= usg=__M-tPz7sDLm3Duk2lq