Most histories of M&A begin in the late 19th U.S. However, mergers
coincide historically with the existence of companies. In 1708, for example,
the East India Company merged with an erstwhile competitor to restore its
monopoly over Indian trade. In 1784, the Italian Monte dei Paschi and Monte Pio
banks were united as the Monti Reuniti. In 1821, the Hudson's Bay Company
merged with the rival North West Company.
* The Great Merger Movement: 1895-1905
The Great
Merger Movement was a predominantly U.S. business phenomenon that happened from
1895 to 1905. During this time, small firms with little market share
consolidated with similar firms to form large, powerful institutions that
dominated their markets. It is estimated that more than 1,800 of these firms
disappeared into consolidations, many of which acquired substantial shares of
the markets in which they operated. The vehicles used were so-called trusts. In
1900 the value of firms acquired in mergers was 20% of GDP. In 1990 the value
was only 3% and from 1998–2000 it was around 10–11% of GDP. Companies such as
DuPont, US Steel, and General Electric that merged during the Great Merger
Movement were able to keep their dominance in their respective sectors through
1929, and in some cases today, due to growing technological advances of their
products, patents, and brand recognition by their customers.
There were also other companies that held the greatest market share in
1905 but at the same time did not have the competitive advantages of the
companies like DuPont and General Electric. These companies such as
International Paper and American Chicle saw their market share decrease
significantly by 1929 as smaller competitors joined forces with each other and
provided much more competition. The companies that merged were mass producers
of homogeneous goods that could exploit the efficiencies of large volume
production. In addition, many of these mergers were capital-intensive. Due to
high fixed costs, when demand fell, these newly-merged companies had an
incentive to maintain output and reduce prices. However more often than not
mergers were "quick mergers".
These "quick mergers" involved mergers of companies with
unrelated technology and different management. As a result, the efficiency
gains associated with mergers were not present. The new and bigger company
would actually face higher costs than competitors because of these
technological and managerial differences. Thus, the mergers were not done to
see large efficiency gains, they were in fact done because that was the trend
at the time. Companies which had specific fine products, like fine writing
paper, earned their profits on high margin rather than volume and took no part
in Great Merger Movement
* Short Run Factors :-
One of the major short run factors
that sparked The Great Merger Movement was the desire to keep prices high.
However, high prices attracted the entry of new firms into the industry who
sought to take a piece of the total product. With many firms in a market,
supply of the product remains high.
A major catalyst behind the
Great Merger Movement was the Panic of 1893, which led to a major decline in
demand for many homogeneous goods. For producers of homogeneous goods, when
demand falls, these producers have more of an incentive to maintain output and
cut prices, in order to spread out the high fixed costs these producers faced
(i.e. lowering cost per unit) and the desire to exploit efficiencies of maximum
volume production. However, during the Panic of 1893, the fall in demand led to
a steep fall in prices.
Another economic model proposed by Naomi R. Lamoreaux for explaining the
steep price falls is to view the involved firms acting as monopolies in their
respective markets. As quasi-monopolists, firms set quantity where marginal
cost equals marginal revenue and price where this quantity intersects demand.
When the Panic of 1893 hit, demand fell and along with demand, the firm’s
marginal revenue fell as well. Given high fixed costs, the new price was below
average total cost, resulting in a loss. However, also being in a high fixed
costs industry, these costs can be spread out through greater production (i.e. higher
quantity produced). To return to the quasi-monopoly model, in order for a firm
to earn profit, firms would steal part of another firm’s market share by
dropping their price slightly and producing to the point where higher quantity
and lower price exceeded their average total cost. As other firms joined this
practice, prices began falling everywhere and a price war ensued.
One strategy to keep prices high and to maintain profitability was for
producers of the same good to collude with each other and form associations,
also known as cartels. These cartels were thus able to raise prices right away,
sometimes more than doubling prices. However, these prices set by cartels only
provided a short-term solution because cartel members would cheat on each other
by setting a lower price than the price set by the cartel. Also, the high price
set by the cartel would encourage new firms to enter the industry and offer
competitive pricing, causing prices to fall once again. As a result, these
cartels did not succeed in maintaining high prices for a period of no more than
a few years. The most viable solution to this problem was for firms to merge,
through horizontal integration, with other top firms in the market in order to
control a large market share and thus successfully set a higher price.
* Long Run Factors :-
In the long
run, due to desire to keep costs low, it was advantageous for firms to merge
and reduce their transportation costs thus producing and transporting from one
location rather than various sites of different companies as in the past. Low
transport costs, coupled with economies of scale also increased firm size by
two- to fourfold during the second half of the nineteenth century. In addition,
technological changes prior to the merger movement within companies increased
the efficient size of plants with capital intensive assembly lines allowing for
economies of scale. Thus improved technology and transportation were
forerunners to the Great Merger Movement. In part due to competitors as
mentioned above, and in part due to the government, however, many of these
initially successful mergers were eventually dismantled.
The U.S. government passed the
Sherman Act in 1890, setting rules against price fixing and monopolies.
Starting in the 1890s with such cases as Addison Pipe and Steel Company v.
United States, the courts attacked large companies for strategizing with others
or within their own companies to maximize profits. Price fixing with
competitors created a greater incentive for companies to unite and merge less
than one name so that they were not competitors anymore and technically not
price fixing.
No comments:
Post a Comment