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.
2019-04-09 11:29:00 Tuesday ET
The U.S. Treasury yield curve inverts for the first time since the Global Financial Crisis. The key term spread between the 10-year and 3-month U.S. Treasur
2017-03-09 05:32:00 Thursday ET
From 1927 to 2017, the U.S. stock market has delivered a hefty average return of about 11% per annum. The U.S. average stock market return is high in stark
2023-08-21 12:25:00 Monday ET
Steven Shavell presents his economic analysis of law in terms of the economic outcomes of both legal doctrines and institutions. Steven Shavell (2004)
2018-12-29 09:32:00 Saturday ET
Andy Yeh Alpha (AYA) AYA Analytica financial health memo (FHM) podcast channel on YouTube December 2018 AYA Analytica is our online regular podcast and news
2019-08-08 09:35:00 Thursday ET
Kobe Bryant and several other star athletes have been smart savvy investors. In collaboration with former Web.com CEO Jeff Stibel, the NBA champion invests
2019-10-03 17:39:00 Thursday ET
President Trump indicates that he would consider an interim Sino-American trade deal in lieu of a full trade agreement. The Trump administration defers high