2019-04-23 19:45:00 Tue ET
technology antitrust competition bilateral trade free trade fair trade trade agreement trade surplus trade deficit multilateralism neoliberalism world trade organization regulation public utility current account compliance
Income and wealth concentration follows the ebbs and flows of the business cycle in America. Economic inequality not only grows among people, but it also grows among companies. A recent McKinsey study shows that only 10% of 5,750 public and private companies (each with over $1 billion in total revenue) account for 80% of their net profits. These top 10% superstar companies can create almost as much firm value as the bottom 10% companies destroy on an annual basis. The top 10% superstar wealth creation has grown 1.6 times in the past 20 years, whereas, the bottom 10% value erosion has risen only 1.5% in the same time frame. One major root cause of this wealth divergence is the corporate focus on key intangible assets and intellectual properties such as patents, trademarks, databases, robots, cloud services, and software solutions. These intangible assets thus serve as affordable competitive moats for the top 10% superstar companies. These top 10% superstar firms spend about 2 to 3 times more on R&D than their peers and hence account for 70% of all R&D expenditures in Corporate America as of early-2019.
However, the top 10% superstar companies are less likely to maintain their product market dominance because half of the superstar companies lose their competitive advantages over the course of one single real business cycle (or about 7-9 years). For this reason, tougher antitrust scrutiny may not be the panacea for addressing the economic implications of anti-competitive clout in tech titans (Apple, Amazon, Alibaba, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Nvidia, and Twitter), big biotech bellwethers (Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, Merck, Abbot, Amgen, and Bristol-Myers Squibb etc), and telecoms (Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile etc). Weaker product market competition may help explain why U.S. productivity growth, capital investment, and wage growth continue to stagnate in recent years.
This dilemma often manifests in the 7%-8% increase in average markups over the marginal costs for more than 900,000 firms from 2000 to early-2019 in accordance with a recent IMF staff report. The higher markups significantly correlate with lower capital investment, subpar wage growth, and less disposable income for the typical U.S. household. In other words, these markups represent the inadvertent social price of market power. Overall, it is important for regulators to help promote greater market competition in several industries such as technology, energy, medicine, air transport, and telecommunication etc.
If any of our AYA Analytica financial health memos (FHM), blog posts, ebooks, newsletters, and notifications etc, or any other form of online content curation, involves potential copyright concerns, please feel free to contact us at service@ayafintech.network so that we can remove relevant content in response to any such request within a reasonable time frame.
2018-05-08 13:39:00 Tuesday ET

The Trump administration weighs the pros and cons of a potential mega merger between AT&T and Time Warner. Recent stock prices show favorable trends for
2022-03-05 09:27:00 Saturday ET

Addendum on empirical tests of multi-factor models for asset return prediction Fama and French (2015) propose an empirical five-factor asset pricing mode
2018-07-01 08:34:00 Sunday ET

Are China and Russia etc gonna dethrone the petrodollar? Over the years, China, Russia, France, Germany, and Japan have made numerous attempts to use their
2017-11-24 08:41:00 Friday ET

Is Bitcoin a legitimate (crypto)currency or a new bubble waiting to implode? As its prices skyrocket, bankers, pundits, and investors increasingly take side
2019-03-31 11:40:00 Sunday ET

AYA Analytica free finbuzz podcast channel on YouTube March 2019 In this podcast, we discuss several topical issues as of March 2019: (1) Sargent-Wallac
2023-12-08 08:28:00 Friday ET

Tax policy pluralism for addressing special interests Economists often praise as pluralism the interplay of special interest groups in public policy. In