The Investor's Shelf — one book
The Great Merger Movement in American Busine

The Great Merger Movement in American Business, 1895-1904

Naomi R. Lamoreaux
1985
T3 216 pages · about 3h 36m to read OL3941972Wgoodreads

Why the first merger wave happened and why most of it disappointed.

Summary

Naomi Lamoreaux examines the wave of consolidations that transformed American industry in the decade around 1900, when more than eighteen hundred firms disappeared into roughly a hundred and fifty combinations.

Her explanation runs against the standard account, which attributes the wave to the pursuit of monopoly power or to a permissive legal environment. Lamoreaux argues that the combinations were a response to a specific competitive problem in newly capital-intensive industries. Firms that had invested heavily in fixed plant faced high fixed and low marginal costs, which meant that during downturns each firm had an incentive to cut prices to cover variable costs, producing price wars that destroyed everyone's returns. Cartels and pools were tried and failed because each member had an incentive to defect and courts would not enforce the agreements. Merger was the remaining option.

She supports this with evidence on which industries consolidated: the wave concentrated in industries that were young, capital-intensive and had recently expanded capacity, exactly the profile her explanation predicts. She also shows that the combinations largely failed to sustain monopoly profits, because entry occurred and because the merged firms did not achieve the operating efficiencies their promoters claimed. The book is quantitative economic history and remains the standard treatment of the episode. Her argument that intense competition rather than its absence caused consolidation is directly applicable to any capital-intensive industry.

Key takeaways 7

  1. Industries with high fixed and low marginal costs produce price wars in downturns, because each firm rationally cuts price to cover variable cost.
  2. Cartels and pools failed because members had incentives to defect and courts would not enforce the agreements.
  3. Merger was the remaining response to destructive price competition, not primarily a pursuit of monopoly rents.
  4. The consolidation wave concentrated in young capital-intensive industries that had recently expanded capacity, which fits the competitive explanation.
  5. Most of the combinations failed to sustain monopoly profits because entry occurred and promised efficiencies did not materialise.
  6. Lamoreaux argues that intense competition rather than its absence caused the greatest consolidation in American industrial history.
  7. Promoters of the combinations captured value through securities issuance regardless of whether the merged firms performed.

Who should read it

Investors and executives in capital-intensive industries who want the economic explanation for why intense price competition drives consolidation.

Where it sits in the reference 2

Business themes
Philosophy

Similar books 6

Chosen by shared topics, the entries that hold them, and the people who recommended both.

The House of Morgan: An American Banking Dyn
The House of Morgan: An American Banking Dynasty and the Rise of Modern FinanceRon Chernow
The Tycoons
The TycoonsCharles R. Morris
Business Adventures
Business AdventuresJohn Brooks
The Patriarch
The PatriarchDavid Nasaw
The Robber Barons
The Robber BaronsMatthew Josephson
1929
1929Andrew Ross Sorkin