Search

The literature on competitive effects of common ownership has grown at a fast rate in the past two years. Anticompetitive effects have been confirmed with alternative reduced-form and structural estimation methods, in different industries, geographies, and jurisdictions. Multiple independent studies have disproven early critiques of the literature. Other papers document the heterogeneity of common ownership effects on competition across markets and industries. Important advances were made on the study of the economic mechanisms and governance channels that implement anti-competitive incentives. New theory refines the interpretation of existing empirical work. Access to high-quality ownership and product-market data remains a bottleneck for meaningful research in the area.

This article argues that the evidence presented in several critiques of Azar, Schmalz, and Tecu’s (AST) “airlines” paper does often not back the conclusion these studies draw. Specifically, widely circulated studies claiming that there are no anticompetitive effects of common ownership or that there is no evidence of it either do not attempt to refute AST’s findings of anticompetitive effects in the U.S. airlines industry or in fact confirm the evidence by AST and even dispel valid concerns about AST’s methodology. Focusing on Kennedy, O’Brien, Song, and Waehrer (KOSW), we note that their panel regressions using market-share-free indices of common ownership concentration confirm the positive correlation between common ownership concentration and price, which AST showed with a measure containing potentially endogenous market shares. We then examine the alternative empirical methods KOSW propose: (i) Their conclusion that estimates from a structural model show no evidence of anticompetitive effects is based on an estimation that discards 90% of the available data and therefore, at best, is only valid for that subsample; (ii) their structural model makes no economic sense because it produces a negative effect of route distance on marginal cost; and (iii) they construct an alternative version of the widely used BlackRock- Barclays Global Investors instrument that is arguably invalid. Even absent these methodological concerns, KOSW’s structural estimates are so noisy that they do not in fact reject the hypothesis that common ownership concentration has a positive effect on prices. A more recent structural paper by Park and Seo has shown these concerns to be well-founded: using a different and larger subsample of AST’s data and more standard estimation methods compared to KOSW, they estimate a positive effect of common ownership on prices, as well as a positive effect of route distance on cost. A lesson for future research—and readers of the literature—is to critically evaluate the conclusions drawn by studies in this field, including those that advertise themselves as providing evidence against the existence of anticompetitive effects of common ownership.

We investigate patterns in common ownership networks between firms that are active in the U.S. pharmaceutical industry for the period 2004–2014. Our main findings are that “brand firms”—that is, firms that have research and development capabilities and launch new drugs—exhibit relatively dense common ownership networks with each other that further increase significantly in density over time, whereas the network of “generic firms”—that is, firms that primarily specialize in developing and launching generic drugs—is much sparser and stays that way over the span of our sample. Finally, when considering the common ownership links between brands firms, on the one hand, and generic firms, on the other, we find that brand firms have become more connected to generic firms over time. We discuss the potential antitrust implications of these findings.

The Federal Trade Commission frequently files complaints against “pay-for-delay” settlements between brand-name pharmaceutical companies and generic-drug manufacturers, the latter of which challenge the monopoly status of patent-protected drugs. I document than when the top 20 generic shareholders have more substantial financial interests in the brand, then the likelihood that the brand enters into a settlement agreement with the first generic to challenge the brand goes up. The result of such a settlement is a payment from brand to generic, in exchange for the generic’s delayed entry. Only after the first generic’s entry, a 180-day period of marketing exclusivity for that particular generic starts. Other generics can only market their drugs after that period expires. As such, the settlement between brand and the first generic extends the brand’s monopoly position. I conclude that horizontal shareholdings facilitate coordination between brand-name patent holders and generic challengers in response to the threat of entry.

This article combines two relatively new subjects of antitrust scholarly interest: labor market power and corporate governance. In so doing, it speaks to a number of recent debates that have grown up both inside the scholarly antitrust literature and adjacent to it. First, this article interprets the shift in the balance of power within corporations favoring shareholders at the expense of workers, both in economic-theoretical and historical terms. Second, it lays out the role of shareholders and the common ownership channel as a vector for anticompetitive conduct arising between firms, not just within firms, thanks to profit maximization at the portfolio level rather than the firm level. Third, it evaluates the claim that employer market power has increased, relative to other current explanations for labor market trends. Fourth, it ties rising employer power in labor markets to the increasing significance of common ownership. And finally, it contends that antitrust is a suitable policy remedy to the dual problems of anticompetitive common ownership and increased employer power, provided it abandons the consumer welfare standard and instead elevates worker welfare to an equivalent juridical status.

Empirical findings that common ownership is associated with anticompetitive outcomes including higher prices raise questions about possible policy responses. This comment evaluates the major proposals, including antitrust enforcement against common owners, regulation of corporate governance, regulation of compensation of management of portfolio firms, regulation of capital market structure, and greater antitrust enforcement against portfolio firms.