Abstract:We study endogenous merger decisions among three competing firms with asymmetric capacity: one large firm has ample capacity, and two small firms have limited capacity. Each firm can either operate independently or merge with another firm. Because of antitrust laws, all three firms merging is not permitted. When two firms merge, the merged entity and the remaining independent firm use the resulting capacity to capture their own “loyal buyers” and compete in price for price-sensitive “disloyal switchers.” We first consider a base model in which the size of loyal buyers for different firms is symmetric. We find that, in equilibrium, either there is no merger or the large firm will merge with a small firm as a “mixed merger.” We explain how this equilibrium structure is driven by the mergers’ impacts on market competition and firms’ pricing aggressiveness. Specifically, the mixed merger that can most effectively reduce price competition is the equilibrium under relatively competitive market conditions (i.e., the size of loyal buyers is small and capacity is large but limited). We also extend to the case with asymmetric size of loyal segments and show that two small firms merging (“small merger” structure) can be the equilibrium structure when the large firm has a much larger loyal segment than the small firms and the small firms’ capacity is sufficiently large. The impacts of mergers on social welfare and consumer surplus provide practical implications from the antitrust perspective. The antitrust agencies can approve a mixed merger to improve social welfare under certain conditions, but if the agencies pay more attention to consumer surplus, then mixed mergers should not be permitted. Small mergers, though sometimes not the equilibrium structures, can improve social welfare and consumer surplus. In such cases, the government can appropriately promote mergers that are beneficial for society and/or consumers by adopting some restrictive measures or offering incentives. This paper was accepted by Jeannette Song, operations management. Funding: The work of D. Wang was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [Grant 72401275]; the work of X. Wu was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [Grants 72025102, 72293560/72293565]. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2022.01943 .

Strategic Merger Approvals Under Incomplete Information

Sequential mergers under incomplete information

Value of Information in Games with Multiple Strategic Information Providers

Should We Expect Merger Synergies to be Passed Through to Consumers?

Forthcoming in the Economic Journal the Role of Information Revelation in Elimination Contests

Strategically revealing capabilities in General Lotto games

Avoiding Unintended Consequences: How Incentives Aid Information Provisioning in Bayesian Congestion Games

Information Elicitation in Agency Games

Endogenous Merger Decisions among Competitors: Impact of Limited Capacity and Loyal Segments

Signalling Competition and Social Welfare (Working Paper)

Signaling with Private Monitoring

Merger incentive and strategic corporate social responsibility by a multiproduct corporation

Holdups, Renegotiation, and Deal Protection in Mergers

Commitment with Signaling under Double-sided Information Asymmetry

Alliance Formation among Competitors: Impact of Limited Capacity and Loyal Segments

Incentives For Strategic Behavior In Fisher Market Games

On the Hardness of Signaling

Privacy-Preserving Public Information for Sequential Games

Government Industry Restructuring,Signaling Games and Horizontal Mergers

Pivot Versus Signaling in Collective Bargaining

Promoting Fair Proposers, Fair Responders or Both? Cost-Efficient Interference in the Spatial Ultimatum Game