Corporate Takeovers and National Champions | EPICENTER NANNY STATE INDEX Home About Publications Briefings Events Media Blog Contact Corporate Takeovers and National Champions 24 May 2019 // Ben Hutcherson In April, the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) blocked the proposed £7Bn merger of supermarket chains ASDA and Sainsbury’s. This decision came shortly after the European Commission blocked the €15Bn merger of railway companies Siemens and Alstom in February. A recent British Government proposal further reflects the anti-takeover sentiment that is becoming prevalent in Europe. The proposal would increase the state’s power to intervene in takeovers of British companies, where it expects to increase the number of blocked takeovers from just a handful to around 50 per year. On a similar note, the German government recently proposed creating a fund to counter foreign takeovers, whilst simultaneously fighting to create German “National Champions” themselves. These protectionist proposals not only represent a step towards a centrally planned economy, but also present the opportunity for future governments to block takeovers for political reasons. A perfect example of this was the UK Labour Party vehemently opposing Melrose’s hostile takeover of the under-performing 260-year old UK engineering firm GKN. Melrose, the so called “asset stripper”, came with a proposal of selling non-core and underperforming assets to improve operational efficiency, which could benefit the company itself and the wider economy. Contrary to popular belief, capital doesn’t simply disappear into the pockets of greedy investors when investment is reduced, or assets are sold. Capital is only withdrawn from a business if investors believe it can be better utilised elsewhere, and as a result, opposing this market-based allocation of capital can only lead to sub-optimal outcomes. A growing form of nationalistic government intervention in Europe is the idea of creating “National Champions”. The first issue with creating national champions is who actually picks the future national champions? It is doubtful that policy makers are better at allocating capital than the collective wisdom of markets, and as a result this form of market intervention will likely lead to an inefficient use of a nation’s capital. Furthermore, if a good can be produced at a lower cost by a foreign entity, there is no reason to try and create a national champion to compete with them when it is viable to purchase directly from the foreign company. Lastly, perhaps the greatest cost of government backed national champions is the stifling of competition and reduction in innovation. When firms are in direct competition, they are continually striving to innovate to gain an advantage over their competitors. When a government-backed national champion monopolises a sector, this innovation is lost as the national champion becomes complacent and lacks the incentive to innovate. Whilst the idea of government backed “National Champions” has the tendency to create monopolies, somewhat ironically, the goal of protecting competition is far too regularly used to block private sector mergers. When the CMA and the EU Commission blocked the mergers of ASDA and Sainsbury’s and Siemens and Alstom, they both argued that the mergers would harm competition. Whilst in the short-run it may be possible for these firms to raise prices and earn economic-profits, these abnormal profits will generally be eliminated in the long-run. Without government protection, it is difficult for a company to establish a long-run monopoly. If they raise prices too far above marginal costs, new entrants or existing competitors will undercut their prices and win business, no matter how large the aspiring monopolist may be. It is therefore not ordinarily necessary for the government to intervene to protect competition. Lastly, blocking such mergers as previously discussed causes companies, and by extension society, to lose out on the economies of scale other benefits that these mergers would create. However, there can be legitimate reasons for blocking mergers or takeovers; in the interest of national security. This being said, there should be strict criteria to be met in order to classify a takeover as a national security threat. In the absence of such criteria, national security could become a veil for disguising politically motivated intervention. Protecting highly sensitive assets from foreign ownership is sometimes necessary, but the proposals need to be examined in great detail to ensure they are not a mechanism for state overreach. The UK government’s plans to examine 200 takeovers a year and block up to 50 is clear cause for concern. The EU and member state governments should neither attempt to create “National Champions” nor unnecessarily intervene to block takeovers in the interest of competition. In the absence of national security risks market forces remain the most efficient means of allocating capital and fostering competition. It is the EU’s duty to maintain and promote globally the free movement of capital as this is beneficial for all member states and union citizens. EPICENTER publications and contributions from our member think tanks are designed to promote the discussion of economic issues and the role of markets in solving economic and social problems. As with all EPICENTER publications, the views expressed here are those of the author and not EPICENTER or its member think tanks (which have no corporate view). SEARCH search Year 2009 (2) 2010 (2) 2011 (2) 2012 (7) 2013 (13) 2014 (32) 2015 (57) 2016 (102) 2017 (158) 2018 (70) 2019 (73) 2020 (101) 2021 (61) 2022 (31) Topic Agriculture (18) Energy (17) Finance (11) Fiscal & Taxation (220) Foreign Policy (72) Health & Lifestyle (41) Tech & Digitisation (91) Trade (11) Think Tanks Think Tanks CEPOS, Denmark (8) Civil Development Forum, Poland (14) Civismo, Spain (30) EPICENTER (453) Institut Economique Molinari, France (32) Institute of Economic Affairs, UK (95) Instituto Bruni Leoni, Italy (1) Instituto Bruno Leoni, Italy (43) KEFIM, Greece (2) Lithuanian Free Market Insitute (1) Lithuanian Free Market Institute (46) Timbro, Sweden (27) Type Blog (459) Briefings (124) Events (0) Index (4) Media (56) Publications (168) Research (23) Research Fellow (0) Selected Past Event (3) Staff (0) Reset BROWSE OUR BLOG ARCHIVES Select Month September 2022 (3) August 2022 (2) July 2022 (5) June 2022 (2) May 2022 (3) April 2022 (1) March 2022 (2) February 2022 (3) January 2022 (4) December 2021 (2) November 2021 (4) October 2021 (1) September 2021 (6) August 2021 (2) July 2021 (3) June 2021 (6) May 2021 (5) April 2021 (7) March 2021 (4) February 2021 (4) January 2021 (2) December 2020 (4) November 2020 (6) October 2020 (5) September 2020 (8) August 2020 (3) July 2020 (8) June 2020 (8) May 2020 (4) April 2020 (8) March 2020 (8) February 2020 (7) January 2020 (6) December 2019 (4) November 2019 (5) October 2019 (3) September 2019 (1) August 2019 (4) July 2019 (7) June 2019 (4) May 2019 (5) April 2019 (2) March 2019 (8) February 2019 (4) January 2019 (5) December 2018 (4) November 2018 (2) October 2018 (5) September 2018 (4) August 2018 (7) July 2018 (8) June 2018 (3) May 2018 (5) April 2018 (4) March 2018 (3) February 2018 (8) January 2018 (2) December 2017 (1) November 2017 (2) October 2017 (3) September 2017 (9) August 2017 (13) July 2017 (11) June 2017 (11) May 2017 (8) April 2017 (12) March 2017 (14) February 2017 (10) January 2017 (12) December 2016 (7) November 2016 (9) October 2016 (5) September 2016 (6) August 2016 (4) July 2016 (5) June 2016 (8) May 2016 (9) April 2016 (3) March 2016 (5) February 2016 (7) January 2016 (5) December 2015 (8) November 2015 (14) October 2015 (7) View All Content POPULAR PUBLICATIONS Out of Pocket 147 views Taxation and its negative impact on business investment activities 46 views Contact TEL: +44 207 799 8922 EMAIL: info@epicenternetwork.eu ADDRESS: The Library Ambiorix Square Ambiorix 10 1000 Brussels Connect on Social Media Join our mailing list /* Add your own Mailchimp form style overrides in your site stylesheet or in this style block. We recommend moving this block and the preceding CSS link to the HEAD of your HTML file. */ Home About Publications Briefings Events Media Blog Contact Subscribe to a freer Europe by signing up to our mailing list /* Add your own Mailchimp form style overrides in your site stylesheet or in this style block. We recommend moving this block and the preceding CSS link to the HEAD of your HTML file. */