WITHER MY CRAFT IPA. Why are antitrust regulators asleep at the wheel?

Good people drink good beer. ~ Hunter S. Thompson

Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. ~ Benjamin Franklin

I’m getting nervous, very nervous. Last week Anheuser-Busch InBev and SABMiller, the 2 largest beer producers in the world, announced their proposed $104.2 billion merger. How long will it be until the behemoth new Bud heavyweight will drown out wonderful craft brewers that offer tasty brews like Hop Head or 400 Pound Monkey IPA’s or Pliny the Elder ales? Why have we heard not a drop of concern from the 2 American regulators of antitrust law about this anti-competitive effort? After all, AB InBev sells over 200 individual brands of beer and is already the world’s largest brewer.

The Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have enforcement responsibilities to insure that businesses operating in the US adhere to the 1890 Sherman and 1914 Clayton Acts. These laws specify anti-competitive actions that are per se illegal, such as price-fixing, price-discrimination and mergers and acquisitions (M&A) that substantially reduce market competition. This last area remains especially relevant today as firms’ M&A activity proceeds apace. According to one source, there was $1.53 trillion in US announced M&A activity in 2014 that strongly contributed to an almost 50% increase in M&A activity worldwide. With proposed megamergers like last week’s AB InBev and SABMiller fusion, M&A activity in 2015 will end up being even larger. As corporate earnings are sliding companies are revving up their M&A activity to increase growth, a strategy that in the past hasn’t always worked.

The DOJ’s and FTC’s passive, unaggressive inaction seems to corroborate their mistaken idea that our economy’s economic structure no longer requires their active and critical review. They falsely liken the economy as a Google over-hyped “self-driving” car, where they placidly “drive” gazing at the scenery without having to view the actual roadway’s twists and turns. Besides tinkering with driverless cars, Google itself has acquired 185 firms during the past 14 years and controls 89% of the worldwide search market. These 2 agencies’ passivity during this age of alarming and expanding market power of an ever-smaller number of ever-larger firms is threatening consumers’ well-being.

Actions by the FTC or DOJ to break-up existing, giant oligopolies – let alone prohibit gargantuan proposed mergers – are now as frequent as sightings of Black Rhinos or Sumatran Tigers. [FYI, these magnificent animals are on the IUCN’s “critically endangered” list, just like US antitrust enforcement.] It wasn’t always like this.

In bygone eras antitrust law was actively enforced. Standard Oil (the trust headed by John D Rockefeller) was deemed an illegal monopoly in 1911 and split into several individual (but very large) companies, including what’s now Exxon/Mobil and Chevron. In 2000, Microsoft was found to violate antitrust law in its efforts to gain market share against Netscape’s Navigator, the first widely-available internet browser. A later court settlement and consent decree spared Microsoft from being dismantled.

Instead of the DOJ or FTC taking action, it’s the European Union’s Commissioner for Competition, Ms Margrethe Vestager. Her office has filed antitrust charges against several American firms including Google. We’ve apparently exported public review and enforcement of anti-competitive threats to the EU.

Many markets in the US beyond beer and online search are facing increased concentration of power exercised by the largest firms. According to the Wall Street Journal, almost two-thirds of all publicly-traded firms operate in more highly-concentrated markets in which the top 3 businesses unambiguously dominate than they did over 15 years ago. Examples include retail food/staples [Safeway, Rite Aid, Walmart], Internet software [Facebook, Twitter, Google], airlines [Southwest, United Continental, American] and media [Live Nation Entertainment, Clear Channel Outdoor, DreamWorks Automation].

Market concentration is commonly measured either by market share (the percent of a market that a firm controls) and/or the Herfindahl-Herschman Index (HHI). The higher this index’s value, the more concentrated is the market power in the industry. In 2010 the DOJ raised the threshold for what it considers a “highly concentrated” industry to 2500 from 1800 (the maximum value is 10000). The table below shows HHI’s for several fairly concentrated industries, whose HHI’s have been growing over the past several decades.

Industry	Herfindahl-Hershman Index
Food/Staples Retail	3047
Internet Software	2440
Airlines	2003
Media	2275

Source:  Wall Street Journal, Oct 18, 2015.

With higher concentration and more market power dominant firms can enjoy greater economies of scale and potentially more profit. The former benefit may help consumers if these scale economies trickle-down into lower product prices. If the larger firms realize these scale economies it may also make the remaining, and usually smaller, firms in the market less able to compete. This is what’s now happening in the retail food industry, where many minor “independent” grocers are struggling to stay open.

But greater market control often can create more pricing power, leading to higher consumer prices and obstructed competitors. This is the source of fear by distributors, pubs and consumers alike in the US beer market if AB InBev and SABMiller are allowed to merge. The merged behemoth can make imbibing beer even more costly, reduce the selection of beers in pubs and bars and create barriers to smaller breweries’ growth.

It has been suggested that as part of their merger AB InBev and SABMiller could sell off SABMiller’s 58% stake in MillerCoors to assuage the possible concerns of the DOJ and FTC. But MillerCoors accounts for just 26% of beer sold in the US, about equal to SABMiller’s 23% share and half of AB InBev’s 50% share. Furthermore, AB InBev’s and SABMiller’s beverage distributors already exercise strong control in many local markets throughout the US. This vertical control of distributors often creates significant problems for smaller brewers – including virtually all craft brewers – in their market expansion efforts.

The US craft beer “movement” has no definitive birthdate, but Fritz Maytag’s purchase and revival of Anchor Brewing Co. in San Francisco in 1965 together with President Carter’s deregulation of the beer market in 1979 serve as decisive early events. Craft breweries now account for 19% of all beer sold and 99% of all breweries in the US.[1] That’s right, 99% because they’re truly microbreweries, compared to the likes of Budweiser, Miller and Coors. Reflecting changed tastes of consumers in the US and elsewhere, Craft beer consumption grew 17.6% in 2014, compared with only 0.5% for overall beer sales growth. This hasn’t been good news for Bud, Miller and Coors.
 Allowing AB InBev and SABMiller to merge will create a monstrous giant that controls almost 75% of US beer sales (even if the new company spins off MillerCoors) and 36% of the global beer market. This colossal degree of market control should be enough to arouse the DOJ and FTC antitrust enforcers, or have they already been drinking the Kool-Aid let alone Bud? If so, where’s my next Pliny the Elder or Hop Head coming from?

May 2016 ADDENDUM:  Is This America for You?   

Displaying chauvinism and perhaps crypto-desperation, the venerable beer behemoth Budweiser (which is a big cog in the Belgian-Brazilian beverage colossus AB InBev) has decided to rebrand its Budweiser beer to “America.” From now through Nov 8th (election day) you’ll no longer be able to buy a Bud, only an “America” beer. 
Because this Bud's for you is no longer, is this America for you? AB InBev hopes so. Nevertheless, not all people are happy with Bud’s new name. Bill Maher for one mentioned that this confirms in one more unneeded fashion that “America has no taste.”

Adding more incredulity to this effort, Donald Trump has taken credit for AB InBev making America beer and temporarily burying Bud. Is he hoping to brew a heretofore unexplored connection between leadership and lager?

It will be a very cold day when America shows up inside my refrigerator. AB InBev will have to wait much lager for many of us to believe its swill (or Donald’s) is great. I’ll continue to enjoy the craft beers mentioned in this blog.  

---

[1] I know, when you add up each of the market shares I’ve shown in this and the preceding paragraph you get a total of more than 100%, which doesn’t make any sense [19% (craft) + 50% (InBev) + 23% (SABMiller) + 26% (MillerCoors) = 118%]. My suspicion is each percentage market share is based on different total market values. BTW, after coiffing a few, it makes a bit more sense. 

THE MOOD OF THE TIMES

I can’t get no satisfaction… The Rolling Stones   

How satisfied are we with the way things are generally going? Our answer to this question underlies a broad spectrum of our behavior and action. Our public mood can vary a lot over time, depending on many personal, familial, local and broader events. I vividly remember my parents quickly creating an ad hoc air-raid shelter in the basement of our home in the fall of 1962, as the Cuban Missile Crisis became all too scary for me and my family. We were most definitely “not satisfied” at that point.

Is crime now on a giant bender with robberies and physical mayhem everyone’s every-day occurrence that’s freaking us out? You’d think so if you only received your news from local TV stations, given their news programming. This sense of predisposition isn’t new. The favoritism that lies behind media channels has been long recognized and discussed. It’s the principal reason I don’t watch local TV news, and only sparingly gaze at national news.

Fortunately, there are more expansive views of our general mood. Several polls attempt to measure the general pulse of the national public’s mood. The Gallup Organization has conducted a national monthly poll for over 35 years to assess the general satisfaction of Americans. The figure below illustrates this poll’s varying results from February 1979 to early September 2015, when just 29% of respondents said they were satisfied.

   Gallup National Satisfaction Survey, 1979 – 2015

Our current public mood is very different than it was in February 1999, when Gallup found that 71% of Americans were satisfied. 1999 contained many “good ol’ days.” In 1999, our real GDP grew at 4.7%, the unemployment rate was 4.2% (at that point the lowest in decades), the Consumer Price Index rose by a slight 2.7% and Bill Clinton was acquitted in the Republicans’ misguided impeachment efforts. Praise be.  

Low points in the Gallup satisfaction poll include a gloomy 14% in Jun 1992 and a dismal 7% in Oct 2008.

In 1992, the US economy was in fine shape: GDP grew 3.6%, inflation was 3%. However, foreign events in 1992 included several that were clearly dark. The civil war in Afghanistan unofficially began (was it really that long ago?). On May 5 Russian leaders in Crimea declared their separation from Ukraine as a new republic, proving that lightning can eventually strike in the same place twice. However, unlike 2014, the Russians withdrew the secession 5 days later. Finally, the Bosnian war began in 1992 and took until 1995 to end it in Dayton, Ohio of all places. Closer to home 2 unsettling, fairly large earthquakes (7.3 and 6.3) rocked Southern California in June.

In 2008, the US was in the very unsatisfying Great Recession; GDP declined by 0.3% and inflation was 3.8%. By October 2008, the “global financial crisis” – that germinated in the US via toxic sub-prime mortgage lending – was in full swing. Lehman Brothers collapsed in mid-September. As the survey was fielded, the International Monetary Fund warned of a global meltdown and offered to lend to countries if needed. We endured these unsettling times for quite a while. Only somnambulant cave-dwellers had any reason to be “satisfied.”

Rather than capturing our present mood of the times from a national poll, I explored an alternative and used the august New York Times as my source. For the past 5 weeks I’ve characterized each of the 86 articles published in the Times’ Sunday Review section[1]. In broad terms, this section provides the Times’ analytical and opinion overview of the previous week. I used these stories to depict what the “mood” of the Times has been on a weekly basis. The ultimate selection of articles in this section probably has to do with decisions of editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal. Nevertheless, I was particularly interested in whether my subjective categorization (just as subjective as any survey measurement of “satisfaction”) has any relation to what’s going on (or not) in the larger scheme of things.

I divided the stories into three segments: (1) stories that presented events or opinion that I characterized as “downbeat, or alarming.” I labelled them with an  L   unsmiling face. (2) Stories that focused on a topic that was fairly “neutral or indeterminate”) I labelled with a  K  straight face. And (3) stories that examined and discussed a topic that was “positive or uplifting” I labelled with a  J   smiling face, as shown in the table below.  

   Mood of the Times

An example of a positive article is this one, “The (fake) meat revolution;” here’s a neutral one, “Can a novelist be too productive?”; and a clearly downbeat one, “The next genocide.” As you can see, the first 2 issues (30-Aug and 6-Sep) contained predominantly downbeat articles. The percentage of positive articles rose – and the downbeat ones declined – after the initial issues during the 30-day period I examined and reached a high point in the 20-Sep Sunday Review when they accounted for 56% of the section’s articles. Except for the first Sunday, the “indeterminate” articles accounted for the smallest portion of the Sunday Review.

I also attempted to categorize news analysis and opinion articles from the Times during Jun 1995 and Oct 2008 (when the Gallup poll shows nadir-like dissatisfaction, as well as during Feb 1999, when 71% of the public said they were satisfied with the way things were going, an all-time high since 1979. Unfortunately, the nytimes.com search function doesn’t allow historical searches for articles found in The Week in Review section (the previous section title for commentary and opinion articles and editorials) of the Sunday Times.

Although it’s a bit fanciful, my weekly Mood of the Times “index” shows that over this 5-week period of Aug and Sep 40% of the articles were either positive or uplifting – registering a decent degree of smiley article “satisfaction;” and a much stronger level of satisfaction than presented in the Gallup national poll.

What does this comparison mean? I’m not suggesting that the Gallup Organization revise their methodology or that the Times alter its article selection. But characterizing the pulse of correspondents and commentators of the New York Times offers a complementary portrayal of the nation’s mood. Perhaps more folks should be reading the Sunday Times if they want a more positive and balanced characterization of our times. Who’d of guessed?

---

[1] I did not include editorials, only the news analysis and opinion articles. Unsurprisingly, the editorials are invariably and predominantly downbeat. I didn’t find any positive or uplifting editorials during the 5-week period. My examination of the Sunday Review section did include the often-insightful cartoon, “The Strip.”