The soda industry is trending toward vertical integration, which Coke and Pepsi acquiring their largest bottlers.  From the WSJ:

Coke and PepsiCo sell concentrate to bottlers, which then bottle and distribute the soft drinks in their territories. Many of these smaller bottlers are small businesses that have been run by family members for decades and have perpetual contracts to distribute the sodas.   One concern for some smaller bottlers is that the big cola makers might now push for more price promotions in the regions they control, a move that could also drive down prices and profit margins at smaller bottlers. There are also questions about how both companies will handle distribution of any new drinks they launch.

For Coke and PepsiCo, managing the often delicate relations with their remaining independent bottlers will be key to driving sales and efficiency in their distribution systems.  PepsiCo said it is committed to nurturing “constructive” and “mutually profitable” relationships with its independent bottlers. PepsiCo says it has no plans to acquire the remaining portion of its bottling system, but instead it intends to focus on teaming up with its bottlers.  Coke declined to comment.

Most industry watchers say that independent bottlers will continue to have a strong presence and that both companies will likely strive to keep relations cordial with these distributors. Small bottlers will also benefit as the overall beverage system gets more efficient. Nonetheless, the big bottler deals are set to bring major changes to the industry, which is fighting a slump in sales of traditional sodas….

The recent deals will allow Coke and PepsiCo to cut costs sharply and allow them to be more flexible on pricing and in offering retailers better deals, moves that could indirectly push smaller bottlers to do the same.  “The pressure would be that they might lower prices to major customers on some products, where the independent bottlers may not have thought it necessary in the past,” Mr. Glover said.

This trend back toward vertical integration is pretty interesting.  The article suggests that integration will result in greater pricing flexibility and lower overall prices, suggesting that perhaps integration is solving a double marginalization problem.  But has bottler market power increased in the last decade or so?  Why now?

A second possible explanation is that the costs of ameliorating promotional incentive conflicts by contract has increased over the relevant time frame. Like most vertical contracts, the key here is to understand how the incentives of the prospective transacting parties do not coincide and therefore must be controlled contractually rather than left to unrestrained competition and self-interest.  A common incentive incompatibility, identified by Klein & Murphy (1988) and later analyzed by Klein (1995), occurs when: (1) manufacturers sell a product at a significant markup over marginal cost, (2) the retailer provides some input like marketing activity or promotion that has a significant impact on demand for the product, and (3) consumers have heterogeneous demand for these promotional services, i.e. different value placed on placement of the product on eye-level shelf space, product demonstrations, etc.    The basic economic forces under these conditions suggest that the downstream “promotional service provider” such as a franchisee or retailer does not have adequate incentives to promote the product or supply the efficient level of marketing activity. This is because the franchisee does not take into account the franchisor’s (large) profit margin on additional sales induced by provision of promotional services. This is most likely to be the case when products are differentiated, e.g. soda!

Under these conditions, transacting parties will find contractual solutions to these problems (including vertical integration) to induce the supply of the efficient level of promotional services. My analysis with Ben Klein on slotting contracts and solo authored work on category management contracts are examples of the types of contracts one sees put to use in the retail industry to control the transacting parties incentives in favor of non-performance and faciliate self-enforcement of the contract.  But the real question here is whether the incentive conflict has changed in the soda market in recent years such that vertical integration has become a more efficient solution for assuring supply of the desired distribution services than contracting.   I’m not sure what the change could be.  Contractual relationships with bottlers can be governed by franchise termination laws, which render if incredibly difficult and nearly impossible to terminate a bottler for non-performance.  The article notes that many of the bottler contracts are “perpetual.”

Relatedly, Muris, Scheffman & Spiller (1992) provide a similar analysis of the previous shift to vertical integration in the soft drink distribution market following a dramatic increase in the importance of marketing activity in the industry, e.g. supplying retailers with product display, “pushing” product by encouraging retailers to give premium shelf space with “slotting contracts,” and executing local promotions. It is true that one could call this change in optimal contractual form as a response to increasing transactions costs, but that is probably a bit misleading and certainly too vague to really get at the underlying economics.  Most folks assume that this means a response to an increased incentive to engage in hold up over specialized assets. But this incentive to vertically integrate has nothing to do with specialized assets in the conventional Klein, Crawford, and Alchian (1978) or Williamsonian sense.

A common theme throughout the day has been the declining number of seed companies–increasing concentration–and its effect. Except no one has talked about the effect.  Other than pointing to the structural change itself, no one seems to have any evidence relating to the effect of the change.  One farmer at the open mic session (coincidentally one who had been sued by Monsanto) asserted that the move from 70 seed companies to 4 represented a relevant decline in competition.  But he didn’t talk about any relevant effect; he had nothing to offer on declining return on investment–no evidence that the change actually affected his bottom line.

Unfortunately, Diana Moss is the lone antitrust expert on the seed industry concentration panel (also known as the “is Monsanto an antitrust problem?” panel), and it falls to her to put meat on these bones.  But she fails in the effort, and really just repeats the same mantra as the farmer, with exactly the same amount of evidence (zero, in case I wasn’t clear on this point).  (Moss’s AAI paper on biotech seeds is available here; our ICLE paper partially addressing Moss’s is here).

(more…)

Bill Northey, IA Ag Sec’y, sounds a bit like an economist (ah, turns out he has a degree in ag business and an MBA . . . ).  Yes, price of seeds has gone up, but so has yield, and so has overall value.  The issue, he says, is how to divide the surplus, and he suggests that it’s dividing the pie that drives farmer concerns.  That’s not at all a surprise, but it’s also not much of an antitrust issue.  Unless the pie could be bigger absent, say, Monsanto’s huge investment in seeds and the resulting relatively-concentrated market structure (and basing enforcement on the theoretical possibility of that counter-factual is a perilous enterprise, as Josh and I have suggested many times), this is just a question of pecuniary transfers.  Sure, they matter a lot to the parties involved and there’s always an incentive to deputize the government to put a thumb on the scale of that dispute, but that’s not a matter of allocative efficiency, and not a matter for the antitrust laws.

Now we hear Iowa AG Miller pushing for the development of “the non-antitrust laws to deal with concentration.”  By which he means the Packers and Stockyards Act.  Maybe the DOJ has their Section 5 after all!

As if on cue, AG Miller trots out the pendulum story of antitrust enforcement–”how to bring the antitrust law back to the middle.”  This is not really an accurate description, unfortunately.  Even worse, it’s not an economically-sensible concept, and measuring the efficiency of antitrust enforcement by counting enforcement actions (or looking at rhetoric) is usually just flimsy cover for an essentially-political determination.  Combine that with Miller’s suggestion that the P&S Act’s “unfair practices” language should be enlisted in the service of dealing with concentration, and the risk of false positives is much magnified.  Which, of course, is a perfect lead-in for Christine Varney. (more…)

As readers may know, Eric Holder was added to the workshop at the last minute (see the latest agenda here).  So the day starts out with Holder and Vilsack, and they are joined by Varney and Tom Miller (the Iowa AG) and a host of other politicos including Senator Grassley and Congressman Boswell.

Vilsack is introducing the event, and seems to be lamenting the extraordinary increase in productivity in the farm sector–by which I mean, he laments the loss of farm jobs even though output has increased by leaps and bounds.  That’s an unfortunate framing of the issue, but it suggests that economic efficiency won’t be at the core of the discussion.

Some choice quotes from Vilsack:

“Great efficiencies have led to consolidation.  They’ve also led to lower prices for consumers.  . . . Is marketplace providing a fair deal to ranchers and farmers.”

“We know seed companies control the lion’s share of certain commodities–does that help or hurt farmers?”

“The purpose of the workshops is to determine if the system is fair [not efficient, fair --ed.].”

And now Eric Holder:

“erosion of free competition is one of the greatest threats to our economy.”

“We’ve learned the hard way that reckless deregulation can foster conduct that is harmful [this is a paraphrase . . . ]”

“Enforcement of the antitrust laws does not fully address the concerns of farmers and other stakeholders.  [Which explains why this isn't an antitrust event . . . ]“

And now comments from the panel, moderated by Vilsack . . . I’ll focus on the most relevant (if any) . . .

Holder:

“commitment to enforcing the antitrust laws in the ag sector.”

Grassley:

refers to “concentration and lack of competition in agriculture”

“not enough competition and too much concentration [I'll assume that's not an economic conclusion]“

“bigger isn’t per se bad but it can lead to predatory practices and behavior.”

“I don’t want anything to be done that stifles innovation.”

Well, as the political speeches proceed, there’s not much to report.  I’ll post this and await Varney’s comments . . . .

The WSJ implies that the answer is yes in an interesting article describing the Obama administration’s changing views on behavioral economics and regulation.  The theme of the article is that the Obama administration has eschewed the “soft paternalism” based “nudge” approach endorsed by the behavioral economics crowd and that received so much attention in the blogs — especially as it related to Cass Sunstein’s appointment to OIRA, the Consumer Financial Protection Agency and a few other issues — in favor of harder paternalism and “shoves” including recent proposals for “regulating health-insurance rate increases, separating commercial banking from investing on behalf of their own bottom lines, and prohibiting commercial banks from owning or investing in private-equity firms or hedge funds.”  The article also points to a proposal for new regulations (that I had not heard of prior), that “would require retirement counselors to base their advice on computer models that have been certified as independent” as a precondition that must be satisfied before advisers can push funds with which they are affiliated.

A few observations.

First, is anybody really shocked to see behavioral economics-based proposals give way to harder forms of paternalism?  Though I take Rizzo and Whitman to be focusing on a different slope towards old paternalism, the idea that the behavioral economics nudge approaches reveal policy preferences consistent with hard paternalism is one that has been discussed frequently in this context.  Perhaps the surprising thing is how quickly the shift has occurred?

Second, given the buzz around behavioral economics in antitrust, and especially the misguided notion that the financial crisis has taught us that the baseline assumption for antitrust analysis should that firms are irrational, I was pleased to see Peter Orszag recognizing that “Institutional decision-making is much closer to a rational economics than individual decision-making, no question.”

Third, and cutting to the chase a little bit, its unclear to me that the Administration was ever really interested in behavioral economics as an intellectual guiding force as a “new” approach to regulation.  For example, little attention has been paid to areas where behavioral economics implies less regulation.  Regulators of all sorts want intellectual support for what they are doing.  That is not a criticism.  But was there really ever anything there?  Has anybody seen anything that has come out of OIRA with the signature of behavioral economics?  On this score, TOTM readers may recall that, since early on, I have expressed skepticism about claims that the Obama administration had made any real commitments to behavioral economics:

The second issue is that I’m not convinced that Obama’s policies have much to do with a behavioral economics-based platform. Leonhardt raises Obama’s savings plan (opt-out 401(k)’s), broad based tax cuts for the middle class, and opposition to a health care “mandate” as examples of policies informed by behavioral economics. I understand the the connection between the 401k default policy and behavioral economics. But the second two examples don’t strike me as have much do with with the insights of behavioral economics per se. The link between tax cuts and the lessons of behavioral economics, in this context, is tenuous at best. And as Ezra Klein notes while taking the position that he doesn’t see much behavioral economics in Obama’s positions either, one might suspect that a health care mandate would be more in line with the teachings of behavioral economics rather than Obama’s plan.

Fourth, and finally, I can’t help but note that some agreement on what counts as a behavioral economics-informed policy choice might be helpful in order to make progress.  I’ve been fairly critical of those, especially in the law review literature, who invoke the terms like irrationality and endowment effect willy-nilly, wave their hands around quickly while saying something about market failure (usually this section of the paper also has the term “orthodox neoclassical theory” in it somewhere), and move on to discuss regulatory proposals on the assumption that they will be costless.   But if we are going to be keeping a scorecard here, we should at least agree on what counts as a nudge.  The WSJ shares an example that it says is consistent with what is left of the Administration’s commitment to behavioral economics:

Landlords, for instance, have no incentive to replace a 40-year-old refrigerator if the tenants are paying the utility bills. So the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Small Business Administration and the Energy Department are looking for ways to give property owners more incentives to save energy, possibly through loan discounts or guarantees offered through mortgage brokers. In October, Mr. Biden unveiled a pilot Property Assessed Clean Energy financing program to try it out.

Wait.  So, the landlord has less than optimal incentives to make investments in refrigerators when the tenant plays the bills because he doesn’t internalize the benefits of the investments.  I hate to be a stickler, but I’m pretty sure standard economics can do this one.   Transacting parties reach agreements to economize on agency costs and incentive conflicts.   The fact that the landlord’s private decision process is different when he owns the refrigerator than when he doesn’t imply irrationality!  Nor is any regulatory shove to get individuals to act closer to the what the regulators think is “optimal” decision-making based on behavioral economics simply by invoking the term.

But if the WSJ is right, maybe this debate about behavioral economics is old news anyway.  Shove is the new nudge and all that.

I’ve previously posted on the moral bankruptcy of the campaign against Wal-Mart in Chicago. Those fighting to prevent the company from opening outlets in Chicago’s inner-city neighborhood — including Alderman Ed Burke, the busybody who once tried to ban trans fats in the City of Broad Shoulders — continue to flex their illiberal muscles to deny inner-city residents access to the “everday low prices” wealthier suburbanites regularly enjoy. They’re also depriving inner-city residents of job opportunities that plenty of folks find desirable. Indeed, the Wal-Mart that opened a few years back in Evergreen Park, Illinois (just over the Chicago border on the southwest side), received a whopping 25,000 applications for 325 positions — and that was before the economy headed south!

Fortunately, a group of black ministers from churches on Chicago’s southside have decided to speak truth to power and demand that their elected representatives stop denying their congregants access to lower prices and jobs. Godspeed, friends!

(Be sure to watch the video.)

Usha Rodrigues and Mike Stegemoller have penned an interesting article, “Placebo Ethics,” assessing the effect of one of SOX’s disclosure provisions: The required immediate disclosure of waivers from a company’s code of ethics, found in Section 406 of the law.  The article is concrete, informative, empirical and well-written.

The article’s abstract summarizes the heart of the paper:

Out of 200 randomly selected firms, we found only one waiver over 4 years disclosed pursuant to Section 406. However, by exploiting an overlap in disclosure regulations [between SOX 406 and Item 404 of Regulation S-K requiring disclosure of related-party transactions in year-end proxy statements], we were able to cross check our sample companies’ waiver disclosure. We find 30 instances where companies appear to be violating the law, and another 74 where companies evade illegality by watering down their codes to an arguably impermissible degree – their codes of ethics do not forbid the same Enron-style conflicts of interest that led to the adoption of Section 406 in the first place. Finally we study all waivers filed by all public companies with the SEC in the four years following SOX’s passage – and find only 36 total. Event studies reveal that the market generally does not react to these transactions, suggesting that companies only use waivers to disclose innocuous, immaterial information.

There’s a lot of interesting stuff here, including the conclusions that 15% of the sample firms are apparently violating the law and that the waivers that are disclosed are viewed by the market as irrelevant.  It is also interesting that 37% of the sample “evade illegality by watering down their codes to an arguably impermissible degree.”  It is this latter claim on which I want to focus.

I talked a bit about this issue in my Hydraulic Theory of Disclosure article.  In the article I said this about the waiver disclosure requirement:

The implicit assumption is that disclosure to shareholders will deter inappropriate waivers, inducing better compliance with the underlying code of ethics.  But that assumption must be animated by a further assumption that some conduct will be relatively static—that codes of ethics will not themselves be re-written and relaxed in response to the rule. In fact, however, the more likely outcome is that codes of ethics will be (and have been) re-written in order to minimize the need for waivers, in the event actually stemming rather than improving the flow of information . . . .  In other words, disclosed waivers are (privately) costly, and it may be less (privately) costly to amend codes of ethics than to seek and publicize waivers. Underlying behavior of the sort requiring waivers may not change, or it may even deteriorate. And either way less of it will be disclosed.

Rodrigues’ and Stegemoller’s (R&S’s) concluision seems to be 1) that immediate disclosure of related-party transactions would be a good thing, 2) that SOX 406 intended this but was poorly-executed to achieve the result, and 3) that companies’ failure to disclose waivers of their codes of ethics for related-party transactions is a violation of SOX 406, even where the code does not explicitly prohibit such transactions.

While the abstract quoted above is somewhat circumspect about the illegality of these “in spirit” violations of SOX 406, the article itself is a bit more hard-nosed:

It may be that, by omitting related-party transactions from their codes of ethics, companies are in violation of Section 406(c)(1), because prohibiting related-party transactions is “reasonably necessary” to promote “ethical handling of actual or apparent conflicts of interest between personal and professional relationships.” At the very least, these codes violate the intention, or “spirit” of Section 406’s disclosure requirements. As discussed in Part III, Section 406’s waiver provision was specifically enacted to address Enron’s related-party transactions with its CFO, Andy Fastow. Yet the majority of our sample companies do not forbid related-party transactions in their codes.

Instead, companies tend to have generic “conflicts of interest” provisions. And even when the provisions address related-party transactions, they use “weasel wording” that makes it hard to find an actual violation.

As R&S note, most ethics codes do not prohibit related-party transactions outright, so neither waivers of these codes, nor, therefore, disclosure of waivers, is required.  While seemingly proving my prediction that the effect of SOX 406 would be watered-down codes of ethics and, thus, less disclosure of information (assuming the watering down came in response to SOX 406), R&S focus instead on the illegality point, with which I have some trouble.

Basically, R&S argue that ethics codes that do not prohibit related party transactions are, in fact, impermissible under SOX, but I find their reasoning to be a stretch, and certainly there is no case law or SEC ruling (that I know of or that they cite) supporting the claim.  The R&S argument goes, in essence: a) a firm has an ethics code, waivers of which must be disclosed immediately; b) the code “should” prohibit related-party transactions but it does not on its face; c) there is a related-party transaction; d) there is no disclosure of a waiver; e) 406 is violated because the code of ethics “should” have prohibited this transaction, thus it “should” have required a waiver, and thus the absence of disclosure of a waiver is a violation of 406.  This seems like a pretty big stretch to me.  It might be that firms are interpreting 406 liberally, but it’s a long way from that to saying they are breaking the law.  Rather, I would say that failure to disclose waivers in this case is not an example of a firm flouting its obligation under SOX, it is instead an example of the predictable (and predicted) hydraulic effect of imperfect regulation.

This would still count as a failure of SOX 406, in my book (whether that’s a bad thing or not is another matter), but not because of non-enforcement, as R&S suggest, but rather because of the perverse incentive created by SOX 406 that induces firms to enact less-restrictive ethics codes.

In the end, I see the article as a vindication of my prediction.  My point was to suggest that SOX 406 would have the opposite effect of the one it intended–less internal prohibition (or policing) by firms of “unethical” conduct and less disclosure of such conduct.  I hasten to note that this study doesn’t say anything about whether SOX had anything to do with the watered-down ethics codes; for all I know they were already watered down (and thus the accuracy of my prediction is unconfirmed by the article).  But that would have been the thing to look at, it seems to me:  The role of SOX in inducing firms to engage in disfavored conduct to avoid new disclosure obligations that they would not otherwise have engaged in.

Despite this critique, I think the article is the best sort of empirical legal scholarship.  My conclusion might diverge from R&S’s (I would not suggest, as they do, a rule simply requiring disclosure of all related-party transactions over a certain size), but the evidence they uncover is important and their presentation of it is straightforward, well-written and informative.

Antitrust & Competition Policy Blog is hosting a symposium on Competition in Agriculture.  Mike’s post from yesterday is available here.   So far in the symposium there are also posts by Ron Cass (BU Law), Jeff Harrison (Florida Law), Peter Carstensen (Wisconsin Law), and Kyle Stiegert (Wisconsin Applied Econ).  Additional posts should be forthcoming from Christina Bohannan (Iowa Law), Andrew Novakovic (Cornell Applied Economics), and the great George Priest (Yale Law), who I hope gets the blogging bug.

Josh, Scott Kieff and I have posted a short comment based on our submission to the DOJ/USDA Workshops on Agricultural Competition, co-authored by us and Mike. The comment should be available for download from the DOJ webpage when the public comments are posted (someday . . . ).  A copy is also available here (www.laweconcenter.org), and comments are most welcome at gmanne@laweconcenter.org Please leave comments on this post over at the A&CP Blog.

Regarding firm size and integration, it must be kept in mind that the agriculture industry in the U.S. has, for good reasons, moved beyond the historic, pastoral image of small family farms operating in quiet isolation, devoid of big business and modern technologies. The genetic traits that give modern seeds their value—traits that confer resistance to herbicide and high yields, for example—are often developed through processes that are technologically-advanced, time- and money-intensive, risky investments, and subject to various layers of regulation. It doesn’t take expertise in industrial organization to imagine why at least for some participants in this market these processes are likely to be more efficiently and effectively conducted within large agribusiness companies having enormous research and development budgets and significant expertise in managing complex business and legal operations, than they are by the somber couple depicted in the famous 1930 Grant Wood painting, “American Gothic.” Nor is such expertise required to imagine why complex contracting across firms, of any size, is likely to be of significant help in supporting the specialization and division of labor that is useful in allowing some businesses (even a small family farm is a business) to be good at planting and harvesting while others are good at inventing, investing, managing, developing, testing, manufacturing, marketing, and distributing the next wave of innovative crop technologies. This requires on the one hand that the government give reliable enforcement to contracts and property rights whether tangible or intangible (extremely important in this industry are patents, trade secrets, and even trademarks), while on the other hand it allows firms wide flexibility to decide for themselves which of these contracts and property rights they would like to enter into or obtain pursuant to the applicable bodies of contract and property law.

When courts and regulatory agencies like the DOJ Antitrust Division adopt special approaches to the body of antitrust law to address concerns that may arise from these property rights and contracts, they run the risk of crafting doctrines that inappropriately override well-established bodies of law that are informed by longstanding judicial and scholarly thought and consideration of each area, and creating the potential to reduce innovation and economic growth. A central countervailing concern is that the putative antitrust injuries that might arise are rooted in stylized economic models that are heavily dependent on a narrow set of assumptions, leaving significant room for erroneous antitrust enforcement. A modest but fundamental safeguard to protect against this concern of “false positives,” is an approach to antitrust that requires a strong demonstration of actual anticompetitive effect as a precondition for a monopolization violation.

Not only are patents not presumptive proof of market power in any static sense, but patents can also meaningfully improve both competition and access to patented technologies over time, in the dynamic sense. From the public record it appears that the driver of much of today’s antitrust enforcement in the agricultural industry boils down to intervention into business disputes between large and sophisticated parties. The inherent uncertainty regarding the economic consequences of specific conduct, coupled with competitors’ poor incentives and the huge costs of error, counsel strongly against antitrust intervention without strong empirical evidence that the conduct has reduced competition and harmed consumers in the form of higher prices, lower quality, or reduced innovation.

The Amazon vs. Macmillan controversy has been beaten to a pulp in the blogosphere.  See Megan McArdle, John Scalzi, Joshua Gans, Virginia Postrel, Lynne Kiesling, Lynne Kielsing and Lynne Kiesling, among others.  Pulp or no (get it? It’s a book/e-book pun), I haven’t seen anyone hit squarely on what I think is the crux of the issue: control rights.

Amazon is an interesting hybrid, sometimes acting as a platform, sometimes acting as a direct merchant.  In its capacity as a platform, Amazon facilitates sales of goods from other merchants to Amazon’s customers through its website.  Amazon itself doesn’t actually sell these goods (because it never actually owns them), although it operates the system that enables these sales and takes a cut.  In its capacity as a merchant, Amazon purchases goods from suppliers and sells them directly to its customers.

The Kindle makes the merchant/platform distinction even more muddled for Amazon, and the distinction is at the core of the issue.

Basically, the difference between a merchant and a platform, as suggested above, is in the degree of control an intermediary exerts over pricing and other terms of sale, and the extent to which it bears risk.  The more control, the more merchant-like; the less control, the more platform-like (Thus the Gap is a merchant; eBay is a platform).  Background economic conditions determine which model (or where on the continuum between them) is more efficient for a given intermediary or market.  As these conditions change, the optimal degree of control may change, as well.  At the same time, suppliers or intermediaries may choose to assert or deny control in response to changing economic conditions–and this choice may not be optimal.  To my thinking, this is what is going on in the book/e-book market.

Steven Pearlstein in the WaPo hints at the issue:

While markets have their flaws, over the long run they are good at executing these technological transformations. My guess is that in the not-so-distant future, best-selling authors such as John Grisham and Malcolm Gladwell — along with unknown authors peddling their first books — will publish their own works, contracting with independent editors and marketers and selling directly to consumers as much as possible. Other authors will turn to smaller, more specialized publishing houses that will offer smaller advances but bigger royalties and will be built, as they once were, around great editors. Publishers will sell their books through competing online distributors and traditional hard-copy bookstores, the latter of which will continue to exist not only as places to browse and socialize, but also as places to have printed on demand. Backlists will be infinite, pricing will be dynamic, and more copies of more books will be read and sold.

From Amazon’s point of view, this possible future is probably a quite likely one (in part because it can help to hasten its arrival), and one which does not necessarily bode well for its merchant-like business model (on which see, e.g., Charlie Martin).  But this future is a goldmine for its platform model, particularly to the extent that Amazon’s Kindle offers a widespread and attractive platform to readers and authors alike.

When it comes to selling physical books directly, Amazon has, and is used to, full control over the terms of sale.  When it comes to selling e-books, however, Amazon is not really a merchant–but it’s not (yet) exactly a platform, either.  Most obviously, there is no physical inventory for Amazon to purchase with e-books, and whether it actually purchases e-books at the time of sale to resell in each transaction (even at a predetermined price) or simply facilitates a transaction between publisher and purchaser at the time of sale, Amazon bears the same extent of inventory risk: zero. Very platform-like.  But the terms of contracts with publishers complicate matters.  Under the Amazon-negotiated pricing scheme, Amazon does, indeed, buy the e-book and re-sell it.  Although this entails no inventory risk, it does mean that Amazon bears “pricing risk” (if that’s a term) just as a merchant does, and it is stuck with the price it negotiated with publishers, no matter the price at which it actually sells its e-books.

There are other nuances.  Important among these, use of e-books purchased through Amazon requires that buyers own a Kindle (just as use of Xbox video games generally requires owners to have purchased an Xbox).  If not enough buyers own Kindles, there is little value (and some cost) to publishers in participating in the e-book market through Amazon; likewise, if not enough publishers sell e-books through Amazon, there is little value to consumers in buying a Kindle.  Again, very platform-like.  But books will be written, published and marketed regardless (or maybe almost regardless) of the number of Kindle owners, and book buyers will buy the same books (or maybe almost the same books) whether they own Kindles or not–and some Kindle owners will buy physical books even though they own Kindles.  The point is that the indirect network effects (or economies of scale–a debate for another day) that one expects in platform markets and that one sees in, say, the video game market (the more Xbox owners, the more Xbox game developers there will be and thus the more Xbox owners there will be) are severely attenuated in the e-book market currently because of the overwhelming demand for physical versions of the same books.

Now, both of these points are discussed in different ways by many of the commentators I pointed to on this issue.  Obviously the nature of the contracts between Amazon and publishers is central to the story (in fact, it is the story), and everyone has discussed the issue.  Several folks have also pointed out that e-books compete with physical books, usually to mention that publishers are interested in price discrimination (on which Kiesling and Postrel are particularly good).

But I think viewed in the light of the choice of business model it is clear that the issue is control.  The question is the extent to which Amazon should act more like a platform or more like a merchant, and this distinction is determined by the amount of control it has.  As a merchant, Amazon expects–and everyone benefits from it having–a lot of control, with both its attendant costs and benefits, over the terms of sale of its products.  As a platform, Amazon is willing to cede control over the terms of sale and just manage the platform.

When publishers assert that they want more control over e-book prices they are pushing Amazon toward a platform model for e-books.  The problem is that because book publishers do not internalize the benefits conferred on other publishers from a wider use of Amazon’s platform, their pricing incentives may be inefficient.  As others have noted, publishers probably want to engage in pricing and price discrimination that will maximize their revenue.  But this control may not be optimal for the platform at this nascent stage.

And that’s really the twist.  Amazon is not ready to be a platform in this business.  The economic conditions are not yet right and it is clearly making a lot of money selling physical books directly to its users.  The Kindle is not ubiquitous and demand for electronic versions of books is not very significant–and thus Amazon does not want to take on the full platform development and distribution risk.  Where seller control over price usually entails a distribution of inventory risk away from suppliers and toward sellers, supplier control over price correspondingly distributes platform development risk toward sellers.  Under the old system Amazon was able to encourage the distribution of the platform (the Kindle) through loss-leader pricing on e-books, ensuring that publishers shared somewhat in the costs of platform distribution (from selling correspondingly fewer physical books) and allowing Amazon to subsidize Kindle sales in a way that helped to encourage consumer familiarity with e-books.  Under the new system it does not have that ability and can only subsidize Kindle use by reducing the price of Kindles–which impedes Amazon from engaging in effective price discrimination for the Kindle, does not tie the subsidy to increased use, and will make widespread distribution of the device more expensive and more risky for Amazon.

Many of the commentators (see especially Scalzi and Kiesling) are angered by Amazon’s conduct in the affair, and see in it reason to shift their loyalty from Amazon to its competitors (or at least they did before Amazon capitulated).  I see it quite differently.  To me the affair was a dispute over control rights allocated by contract.  Amazon is willing to pay more for control–to act, in other words, like a merchant re-selling publishers’ books.  It wants this control because it wants to sell e-books at a lower price than publishers want in an effort to sell more Kindles and encourage e-book use (and, incidentally, sell fewer physical books).  At this stage in this market what is needed is not more incentive for publishers to develop more inventory, but more incentive for Amazon to develop its platform.  To the extent that Amazon must now bear more of the risk and cost associated with the transition to e-books, the transition will likely occur more slowly.  Amazon’s effort to maintain pricing control by playing hardball with Macmillan in the physical book market was appropriate and gutsy.  And we would have been better off if it had succeeded.

I don’t think there’s anything to be “done” about the state of affairs other than for Amazon and publishers including Macmillan to continue negotiating.  But I will note one thing (seconding Joshua Gans):  It is almost certainly the case that Amazon capitulated in its dispute with Macmillan because of fear of drawing antitrust litigation.  If so, I think this would be most unfortunate, and it would represent antitrust enforcement placing an inefficient thumb on the bargaining power scale.  Perhaps we shouldn’t be so quick to reject the idea of false positives . . . .

Important Hat Tip.  When I started writing this post I hadn’t yet seen this article by Andrei Hagiu (Hagiu, Andrei (2007) “Merchant or Two-Sided Platform?,” Review of Network Economics: Vol. 6: Iss. 2, Article 3) (embarrassingly enough, as it was published in 2007).  But my thinking here maps significantly onto Andrei’s and I re-wrote some of the post, particularly reflecting some of his terminology, once I did read it in the middle of drafting the post.  It strikes me as an extremely important article in the two-sided markets literature, and I highly recommend it to everyone interested in the topic.  To the extent that I say what he says, he says it better; and to the extent that we diverge, he is probably correct and I am probably wrong.

I’m sure it’s an honor just to be nominated.

A recent opinion from Judge Posner cites our very own Josh Wright (Joshua D. Wright & Todd J. Zywicki, “Three Problematic Truths About the Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act of 2009,” Lombard Street, Sept. 14, 2009, available here) (by the way, the essay has drawn a few comments, my favorite of which is definitely the one titled, “are you stupid or scumbags[?]“).

The opinion is vaguely interesting touching as it does on the propriety of short-term, high-interest loans, but the holding rests on an analysis of the commerce clause so is pretty well beyond my ken.

At issue is an Indiana statute that purports to apply Indiana’s restrictive usury laws to consumer contracts executed outside the state, but with creditors that have advertised or solicited sales within Indiana.  The Indiana usury statute at issue constrains consumer loan interest to terms under which “the ceiling is the lower of 21 percent of the entire unpaid balance, or 36 percent on the first $300 of unpaid principal, 21 percent on the next $700, and 15 percent on the remainder,” with an exception for payday loans.  Such terms would preclude payday loans if they weren’t excepted under the statute and does preclude car title loans of the sort at issue in the case.  The court rules that the restriction on out-of-state transactions is impermissible under the constitution and strikes down the Indiana law.

The interesting part (to me) of the case, and the part where Josh (and Todd) are cited, is where Posner discusses the law and economics and related scholarship of car title and payday loans.  He doesn’t really come down on one side or another in this debate except to aver that Indiana has a colorable interest in protecting its citizens from “predatory lending,” if it so chooses.  It seems to me that he gives too much credit to the behavioral-economics-based arguments on the “predatory lending is, well, predatory” side of the debate, but he really doesn’t wade into the debate.  Nevertheless, Josh and Todd get their mention (Todd actually gets a couple of mentions) in this section, and kudos to them (and to FinReg21, where their essay appears) for drawing Posner’s attention.

Repeating claims he made in his statement in Intel, Chairman Leibowitz in a recent interview in the Wall Street Journal has this to say about stepped-up Section 5 enforcement at the FTC:

The courts have pared back plaintiffs’ rights in antitrust cases. They’re concerned about what they believe to be the toxic combination of class actions, treble damages and a very aggressive plaintiffs’ bar. The problem for us as an agency is we come under those restrictions, [too]. So how do we do what we’re supposed to do, which is stopping anticompetitive behavior? One tool in our arsenal is using what’s known as our Section 5 authority to stop unfair methods of competition.

Leibowitz further justifies his approach to Section 5 with an appeal to what he claims to be an important intrinsic limit of Section 5:

The other advantage of this authority is, because it’s not an antitrust statute, it’s going to limit follow-on, private treble-damages law suits. I think in the end, if we use this statute effectively to stop anticompetitive behavior, the business community is going to end up supporting it very, very strongly. Because what they’re most concerned about is follow-on, private, treble-damages litigation. They’re not so much concerned about cease-and-desist [orders], which is the kind of thing we’re often looking at when we use our Section 5 authority. I don’t think big business should be worried. I think they should embrace this trend.

Yes, I’m sure business will eagerly embrace the FTC’s use of this statute, particularly as the agency defends it precisely on the ground that its use is relatively unconstrained by courts and their pesky rule of law.

Leibowitz has been making these claims for some time (see, e.g., these remarks from October 2008 and the N-Data Statement).

But admittedly, if it were true that the FTC’s use of Section 5 did not lead inexorably to costly follow-on litigation, and if it were not the case that the statute were a recipe for unprincipled, uneconomic antitrust enforcement, no doubt there would be some support for it.  But unfortunately for Leibowitz, the claim is NOT true–it is not the case that Section 5 removes the specter of costly private litigation from the equation.

The reality is that many states have “Baby FTC Acts,” modeled on the federal FTC Act and taking enforcement cues–by law–from FTC interpretation of the Act.  And these statutes do provide for private rights of action and treble damages.  So although it is technically true that there is no private right of action under the federal FTC Act, this hardly shields antitrust defendants from follow-on liability.  And even if such actions have been rare up until now (as Leibowitz claims in the remarks linked above), that may well change as the FTC’s precedent-setting enforcement decisions shift toward using the statute as an antitrust enforcement tool and as the Act is used more and more for otherwise-unwinnable Sherman Act cases.

This point isn’t new, and Commissioner Kovacic made this same point in his dissent from the N-Data settlement:

The Commission overlooks how the proposed settlement could affect the application of state statutes that are modeled on the FTC Act and prohibit unfair methods of competition (“UMC”) or unfair acts or practices (“UAP”). The federal and state UMC and UAP systems do not operate in watertight compartments. As commentators have documented, the federal and state regimes are interdependent. [Citations omitted].  By statute or judicial decision, courts in many states interpret the state UMC and UDP laws in light of FTC decisions, including orders. As a consequence, such states might incorporate the theories of liability in the settlement and order proposed here into their own UMC or UAP jurisprudence. A number of states that employ this incorporation principle have authorized private parties to enforce their UMC and UAP statutes in suits that permit the court to impose treble damages for infringements.

If the Commission desires to deny the reasoning of its approach to private treble damage litigants, the proposed settlement does not necessarily do so. If the Commission’s assumption of no spillover effects is important to its decision, a rethink of the proposed settlement and order seems unavoidable.

As far as I can tell, however, Leibowitz and other defenders of this rationale for expanded Section 5 enforcement have not addressed this point, and they continue to rely, disingenuously, in my opinion, on claims that Section 5 enforcement will not lead to follow-on, private actions.

At the same time, as I pointed out here, Leibowitz’ continued claim that courts have reined in Sherman Act jurisprudence only out of concern with the incentives and procedures of private enforcement, and not out of a concern with a more substantive balancing of error costs–errors from which the FTC is not, unfortunately immune–seems ridiculous to me.  To be sure (as I said before), the procedural background matters as do the incentives to bring cases that may prove to be inefficient.

But take, for example, Twombly, mentioned by Leibowitz as one of the cases that has recently reined in Sherman Act enforcement in order to constrain over-zealous private enforcement (and thus not in a way that should apply to government enforcement).  Yes, of course, Twombly was concerned with the private incentives for bringing antitrust strike suits and the costs of such suits.  (And I note in passing that, while the specific monetary incentive at issue in the case might not apply to the government, the government, too, certainly has incentives to bring cases that may be weak–I hardly think the analysis is completely inapposite.  Meanwhile the costs of protracted litigation are just as high if the plaintiff is the government as if it is a private party.)

But the over-zealousness of private plaintiffs is not all it was about, as the Court made clear:

The inadequacy of showing parallel conduct or interdependence, without more, mirrors the ambiguity of the behavior: consistent with conspiracy, but just as much in line with a wide swath of rational and competitive business strategy unilaterally prompted by common perceptions of the market.  Accordingly, we have previously hedged against false inferences from identical behavior at a number of points in the trial sequence.

* * *

Hence, when allegations of parallel conduct are set out in order to make a §1 claim, they must be placed in a context that raises a suggestion of a preceding agreement, not merely parallel conduct that could just as well be independent action. [Citations omitted].

The Court was appropriately concerned with the ability of decision-makers to separate pro-competitive from anticompetitive conduct.  Even when the FTC brings cases, it and the court deciding the case must make these determinations.  And, while the FTC may bring fewer strike suits, it isn’t limited to challenging conduct that is simple to identify as anticompetitive.  Quite the opposite, in fact–the government has incentives to develop and bring suits proposing novel theories of anticompeitive conduct and of enforcement (as it is doing in the Intel case, for example).

I recognize that Leibowitz may believe that he is not susceptible to mistakes of this sort, or that (as Dan Crane might say), the FTC has a comparative institutional advantage over courts in making these sorts of determinations.  I disagree, but if that is the claim then Leibowitz should make it explicitly rather than suggesting that current Sherman Act jurisprudence is all about treble damages and strike suits.  I’m quite certain, however, that an explicit claim by the FTC that it never gets it wrong and thus shouldn’t be constrained by meddling courts wouldn’t be viewed very favorably by the business community.

Today the SEC voted 3-2 to approve an interpretive release offering guidance to companies on disclosure obligations as they relate to climate change.  Commissioners Casey and Paredes voted to reject the proposed guidance.

Everyone can agree that companies may have an obligation under Regulation S-K to disclose risks arising from, among other many things, climate change laws and regulations.  But this guidance goes further, urging companies to disclose risks arising from “physical effects of climate change.”  This is nonsense on stilts.  Leave aside the underlying inanity of the larger enterprise built on the premise that rationally-ignorant and rationally-passive individual investors should read, assess and make active investment decisions on the basis of massive amounts of regularly-disclosed information.  Here corporations are asked to disclose “information” about risks to the company posed by future, possible environmental conditions about which the firms know nothing, the science is utterly un-settled and speculative, and the actual physical and economic consequences of which are even less certain.  (I put the word information in scare quotes because nothing so speculative and uncertain can reasonably be called information).  What possible value could there be to investors (assuming there is any value to investors from disclosure of this type of information anyway) from the sorts of disclosures that would reasonably follow?:  “There is somewhere between a 0% and 90% chance that the temperature during either the summer or the winter or maybe-but-not-definitely both will be either warmer or colder by somewhere between 0.01 and 5 degrees sometime within the next 300 years.  This may or may not be bad for our business depending on whether it makes our customers richer or poorer, improves or harms our productivity and helps or harms our competitors by more or less than it helps or harms us.”

At least Troy Paredes isn’t buying it and once again stands nearly alone (Commissioner Casey also voted to reject) for common sense in Washington.  An extended quote from his statement at today’s hearing:

Second, the release states that companies “whose businesses may be vulnerable to severe weather or climate related events should consider disclosing material risks of, or consequences from,” the “physical effects of climate change, such as effects on the severity of weather (for example, floods or hurricanes), sea levels, the arability of farmland, and water availability and quality.”

The prospect that this guidance will in fact foster confusion and uncertainty about a company’s required disclosures troubles me. What triggers a “reputational damage” or “physical effects” disclosure is far from certain, as is the scope of any such disclosure if and when required. More to the point, reputational damage and the impact on a company of the physical effects of climate change can be quite speculative. There is a notable risk that the interpretive release will encourage disclosures that are unlikely to improve investor decision making and may actually distract investors from focusing on more important information. Here, it is worth recalling that, in rejecting the view that a fact is “material” if an investor “might” find it important, Justice Marshall, writing for the Supreme Court in TSC Industries, warned that “management’s fear of exposing itself to substantial liability may cause it simply to bury the shareholders in an avalanche of trivial information — a result that is hardly conducive to informed decisionmaking.

Also problematic are the interpretive release’s introductory and background discussions on climate change and its regulation. To me, the effect of the discussions is to find the Commission joining the ongoing debate over climate change by lending support to a particular view of climate change. Although the release does not expressly take sides, the release emphasizes the “concerns” and potential harms of climate change and discusses a range of regulatory and legislative developments, along with international efforts, aimed at regulating and otherwise remedying causes of climate change. In particular, the release highlights new EPA regulations, proposed “cap-and-trade” legislation, the Kyoto Protocol (which the U.S. has not ratified), the European Union Emissions Trading System, and recent discussions at the United Nations Climate Conference in Copenhagen. While the release stresses the risks of climate change and ongoing efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. and abroad, the release fails to recognize that the climate change debate remains unsettled and that many have questioned the appropriateness of the regulatory, legislative, and other initiatives aimed at reducing emissions that the release features. In short, I am troubled that the release does not strike a more neutral and balanced tone when it comes to climate change — an area far outside this agency’s expertise.

Finally, given that there are more pressing priorities before the Commission, now is not the time for this agency to consider climate change disclosure.

For these reasons, I am not able to support the release before us. Nonetheless, I would like to thank the staff for their efforts and professionalism.

On the bright side, maybe this means the SEC is qualified to investigate the fraudulent disclosures in the UN IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report.  On the other hand, the existence of such . . . misstatements in the authoritative global survey of climate change science suggests that, as Troy suggests, this whole endeavor will have few of the intended–and plenty of unintended–consequences.

Oregonians, my fellow residents of the Beaver State (and, by the way, the only state in the Union with a different image on each side of its flag), voted yesterday to increase top marginal income tax rates and corporate tax rates, including minimum corporate tax rates and the addition of a tax on gross receipts.  I’m still waiting for Paul Krugman to decry the anti-stimulus measure, but I doubt it will happen (he’s a partisan hack, you know).  But there is a “bright” side: Capital (human and otherwise) flight from Oregon to its neighbors (including income-tax-free Washington to the North and foundering behemoth California to the South) will help those states with their economic troubles!  <sarcasm>And fewer people and less economic activity in Oregon will be good for spotted owl habitat, after all</sarcasm>.  I just hope the local beer industry survives.  I don’t know what I’d do without the ability to drown my sorrows in a few bottles of Terminal Gravity IPA.

Simon Johnson is at it again, advocating the use of antitrust to break up the banks because they are, you know, big, and antitrust is about busting up big companies, right?

As Josh suggested back in July, the idea is gaining momentum, it seems.  The Financial Times is also pushing the idea.  What’s remarkable about both the FT’s and Simon Johnson’s “analysis” is that it is actually largely devoid of modern antitrust analysis.  It reflects the outdated, non-economic (dare I say anti-economic?) logic of the structure-conduct-performance paradigm of the 1960s.  Here, for example, is the FT:

The issue is not just market share in deposits, which attracts public attention. Many corners of the financial services market with a lower profile are highly concentrated and highly profitable.

Concentrated markets can still be competitive and high profits are not in themselves proof of anti-competitive behaviour. Market concentration is high in many industries – including new areas of the economy such as web search.

Anti-trust investigation would focus only on areas where critics allege anti-competitive behaviour, for example, the puzzle of why investment banks charge standard rates to raise equity capital for businesses. But even where there is no suspicion of collusion, regulators could examine market structures and practices that create barriers to entry.

Or, the administration could simply float the idea of a wide-ranging push on competition in banking and use it to gain leverage over big banks on issues such as regulatory reform and whether or not they pass on the cost of the financial levy to their customers.

So, yes, there is a nod (”concentrated markets can still be competitive . . .”) toward recognition that Demsetz does, indeed, exist and he did write Industry Structure, Market Rivalry, and Public Policy in 1973.  But the thrust is pure SCP.

Here’s Johnson:

There are definite elements of oligopoly in wholesale markets, underwriting new issues, and mergers and acquisitions both in the United States and around the world. This is part of the explanation for very high profits in banks — particularly big banks — over the past decade.

The question becomes: Is there evidence that our leading banks have used their pricing power or other aspects of their market muscle to keep out competition or otherwise distort behavior in very profitable arenas, like over-the-counter derivatives?

I don’t even know what that means:  “pricing power or other aspects of their market muscle to keep out competition?” Huh? It’s just hand waving.  And my favorite part:

We may also need new theories of antitrust.

Sure. Why not? Here “new” seems to mean “old,” but by all means we should launch antitrust investigations with the intention of developing new theories of antitrust that can justify the a priori policy conclusion that banks are violating the antitrust laws.  That’s some sound policy advice from the IMF’s former chief economist.

His “analysis” has not changed, as far as I can tell, since the last time he advocated bank busting, so I can hardly do better than repeat what Josh said back in July: