Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

There's No Justice in Antitrust Decisions

By Rich Duprey - Apr 20, 2013 at 9:45AM

You’re reading a free article with opinions that may differ from The Motley Fool’s Premium Investing Services. Become a Motley Fool member today to get instant access to our top analyst recommendations, in-depth research, investing resources, and more. Learn More

Competition is being determined by people with little real-world experience in running a business.

The news that Anheuser-Busch InBev (BUD 0.30%) finally settled its differences with the Justice Department is welcome, as it allows the acquisition of Mexico's Grupo Modelo to be finally completed.

Bud didn't get everything it wanted and has to sell the entire U.S. Modelo business to Constellation Brands rather than just its U.S. production. Justice didn't stop the deal cold, and both sides gave up a little. Everyone wins, right?

Wrong! There's a supposition here the Justice Department actually knows what it's doing, that it knows best how to promote competition. Did anyone ever consider what makes them think they know what's right for the market? Who are these guys, anyway? Have they even ever run a business?

The view from the ivory tower
The answer is largely "no." These are government lawyers and economists making decisions from afar who have no real-world experience in owning and operating a business, and their decisions have littered the marketplace with failures.

The Justice Departmnt blocked Staples' acquisition of Office Depot (ODP -0.64%) several years ago for fear the office-supply market would become too concentrated, while also blocking 3M from buying Avery Dennison. Who knew paper clips, pencils, and sticky notes were such a key industry?

Yet the interference ensured that the industry suffered from too many suppliers, damaging all three players. Now the impaired Office Depot has to merge with the also-impaired OfficeMax in hopes of saving both of them. As we should have learned from Sears Holdings' purchase of Kmart (which Justice didn't oppose), merging two ailing companies doesn't necessarily make a healthy one.

Hanging up on competition
AT&T
(T -0.14%) was also successfully prevented from buying Deutsche Telekom's diminished T-Mobile subsidiary, and while many hailed the decision as preventing the creation of a duopoly between Ma Bell and Verizon, the impetus behind the merger was that consumers really didn't want DT's service to begin with. It wanted to get out of the U.S. market, and AT&T wanted T-Mobile's spectrum to improve its woefully underperforming network.

Had the deal gone through, rather than stifle competition AT&T and Verizon would have remained blood enemies with even greater intensity. If they attempted to raise prices as was feared, Sprint Nextel, MetroPCS (TMUS 1.03%), and a host of smaller services would thrive as a low-cost alternative. Instead, Deutsche Telekom has to go through the rigmarole of acquiring MetroPCS and then selling the shares of the newly public company later on to get out of the U.S. market. Is a T-Mobile/MetroPCS network really going to be a more effective service?

A taxing decision
It's interesting that Justice's deputy assistant AG for economic analysis at the antitrust division lists the AT&T/T-Mobile case as one of her most satisfying accomplishments. The other was preventing H&R Block (HRB 3.05%) from acquiring tax return software rival TaxACT. Yet by doing so, the Justice Department severely crimped Block's ability to compete effectively against Intuit's market-dominating TurboTax software. When there are so many options open to taxpayers in how they file their taxes -- software, pencil-and-paper, a local accountant -- does anyone really think Justice actually helped anyone by stepping in?

A merger of unequals
There are plenty of examples of mergers that did happen but shouldn't have, but that doesn't mean Justice should involve itself. Time Warner's acquisition of AOL is a particularly infamous example, as was Sears, yet the market dealt appropriately with them both.

When it comes down to it, a reasonable argument can be made that the Justice Department's real goal is to have only damaged companies join forces, but pairing two sick companies doesn't mean you'll get healthy competition.

Because poorly operated businesses ultimately waste resources, Justice should really advocate for pairing an impaired company with a successful one. But when you're sitting in your law office or ivory tower, it's hard to really know what it takes to run a business or make a profit, especially if you can't see over your law books and calculators.

Invest Smarter with The Motley Fool

Join Over 1 Million Premium Members Receiving…

  • New Stock Picks Each Month
  • Detailed Analysis of Companies
  • Model Portfolios
  • Live Streaming During Market Hours
  • And Much More
Get Started Now

Stocks Mentioned

AT&T Inc. Stock Quote
AT&T Inc.
T
$21.29 (-0.14%) $0.03
T-Mobile US, Inc. Stock Quote
T-Mobile US, Inc.
TMUS
$134.11 (1.03%) $1.37
The ODP Corporation Stock Quote
The ODP Corporation
ODP
$38.81 (-0.64%) $0.25
Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV Stock Quote
Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV
BUD
$56.65 (0.30%) $0.17
H&R Block, Inc. Stock Quote
H&R Block, Inc.
HRB
$35.51 (3.05%) $1.05

*Average returns of all recommendations since inception. Cost basis and return based on previous market day close.

Related Articles

Motley Fool Returns

Motley Fool Stock Advisor

Market-beating stocks from our award-winning service.

Stock Advisor Returns
356%
 
S&P 500 Returns
124%

Calculated by average return of all stock recommendations since inception of the Stock Advisor service in February of 2002. Returns as of 05/29/2022.

Discounted offers are only available to new members. Stock Advisor list price is $199 per year.

Premium Investing Services

Invest better with The Motley Fool. Get stock recommendations, portfolio guidance, and more from The Motley Fool's premium services.