Master Agent Featured Articles

The last several months have made one fact clear: there have been a lot of pushes toward mergers and acquisitions of late as companies try to act in a rapidly-changing environment to produce the best results. Some of these changes are quite beneficial, but others do more harm than good. The recent move toward mergers in the telecom sector, meanwhile, has some wondering if the changes mean higher bills on the way. Benzinga, meanwhile, seems to be among those wondering.

These concerns appear to be global; the United States has been addressing several major merger proposals of late from T-Mobile (News - Alert) and a host of suitors ranging from Sprint to AT&T to even Dish Network. Meanwhile, a move in Great Britain between Hutchison Whampoa Ltd and Telefonica (News - Alert)'s O2 UK would turn Hutchison Whampoa into the largest such operator around. Even Amazon is coming under fire for an assortment of rule violations in the ebook space, with EU regulators suggesting Amazon is using its market power to keep competitors out of the field. Should EU regulators find Amazon guilty of rule violations, fines could reach up to 10 percent of the company's global turnover. Meanwhile, Amazon is also under fire for deals struck with Luxembourg to provide tax breaks and, by extension, a possible unfair market advantage.

Some might wonder here what any of this has to do with the price of tea in China, or rather, the price of ebooks, mobile service, or anything else that might be covered by these mergers. The answer is an old one: an issue of sufficient competition. A market requires competition to produce the best results for the consumer; when there is sufficient competition, consumers get better prices and better products as companies struggle for market share, and offer inducements to get the consumer in the door. While there can only be so much competition in the market as some businesses inevitably fail, mergers drop the total number and make some firms much stronger.

That's not always a bad thing—too much competition inevitably fizzles out and reduces to a level the market can bear—but it can lead to a bad thing: a market with insufficient competition. Think about the Internet service provider (ISP) market; entire regions might be served by one company, and thus consumers have no choice in who to go with. That makes for a profitable situation for the lone company, but that company has no incentive to lower prices or improve service; there's just nowhere else to go. Thus, when merger news emerges, it becomes a cause for concern. Is this the point where competition collapses? Rather than risk such a thing, regulators will often just forbid such moves outright. Some say this interference is uncalled for and forbids natural market moves, while others note it helps ensure a properly competitive environment.

It's always difficult to straddle that line between too much and not enough competition, but it must be done to ensure the best market for consumers. Thus merger news is often particularly big, and often carefully watched, to help make sure the loss of one firm and the establishment of a new, much stronger firm doesn't result in a tipping of that delicate balance.