This project is looking at the effects of “infant acquisitions,” or firms acquiring startups, on the incentives for startups to innovate, and the amount of overall innovation in the technology sector. It will empirically study the impact of megafirms’ tech acquisitions on venture investment by calculating the number of ventures funded and total dollars raised, and patent activities. The effect of large incumbents' acquisitions of startups on innovation has been a major concern among policymakers partly because it may have a negative effect on future investment in venture capital and innovation. Restrictions on tech mergers and acquisitions have been proposed in Europe and in the United States, yet there is still no clear evidence on how they affect venture capital investment. The project will combine three data sources: S&P Global Market Intelligence on firm taxonomy; Crunchbase data on investment deals in tech ventures; and PatentViews open-source data on patents. The combined data sources allow the researchers to paint a fuller picture of each firm’s relative position in the business and technology spaces.

This project aims to provide a detailed, comprehensive analysis of the Amazon.com Inc. platform, its evolution, market power, and welfare implications. Gutierrez will utilize a massive dataset that has product information, alongside prices and sales ranks, for products sold on Amazon’s platform to produce three papers. The first will provide an overview of the Amazon platform and study the evolution and heterogeneity of fees in order to empirically test whether Amazon’s fees to sellers reflect market power. The second will consist of a structural analysis of reselling to test whether Amazon competing on its own platform is anticompetitive. And the third paper will analyze the impact of private label products. This research not only examines the Amazon platform but also provides empirical evidence on whether these types of activities can be anticompetitive.

This project seeks to answer two questions: What are the welfare effects of third-degree price discrimination, and what are the effects of third-degree price discrimination on the take-up of newer and better technologies? Goel will address this question in the context of a particular type of implantable medical device: defibrillators. The implantable medical device industry has three features that make it a compelling setting to study. First, manufacturers are able to prevent hospitals from disclosing prices, allowing them to charge different prices for the same device in different hospitals. Second, the industry is very concentrated, with more than 95 percent of the market share captured by just four firms. And third, there is a lot of product variety. On average, a manufacturer offers six brands of this particular device per year from 2014–2019. Goel will utilize a rich dataset with purchase volumes, prices, and characteristics of defibrillators, and will combine this with approval information from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. She will then estimate a model of supply and demand, and conduct a counterfactual analysis in which third-degree price discrimination is banned in order to understand the dynamics of price discrimination.

In virtually all areas of the U.S. healthcare service sector, physicians are barred from referring patients to entities in which they have an ownership stake. But this is not the case for the dialysis industry, which is exempt from such restrictions. Joint ventures between physicians and dialysis facilities exist at nearly 20 percent of facilities. This research will explore how physicians’ ownership ties with dialysis firms affect steering, spending, and outcomes. Using data obtained from a Freedom of Information Act request from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Eliason, McDevitt, and Roberts will construct a first-of-its-kind dataset that tracks the ownership of dialysis facilities, including whether physicians have an ownership stake. They will add in data on dialysis providers and patients, including detailed Medicare claims and rich information on patient characteristics and health outcomes. An event-study analysis will allow the three researchers to test whether there is a clear trend-break in new patient arrivals and referrals when parties enter into a joint venture in order to examine how integration affects competition. The analysis will enable the researchers to study how patient caseloads and referrals at unintegrated facilities change after a nearby rival forms a joint venture, along with the impact of vertical integration on patient outcomes such as hospitalizations and mortality, as well as overall Medicare spending. Prior research has found that Black, Latinx, and low-income patients suffer disproportionately from kidney failure and often receive worse care, potentially making these groups especially vulnerable to providers’ growing market power and physicians’ conflicting interests.

Jorring and Buchak propose to study the impact of local concentration of mortgage lenders on household credit access and homeownership. Homeownership is the primary channel through which most U.S. households build wealth. Existing literature finds little to no relationship between local lender concentration and mortgage interest rates. Therefore, federal regulators regard mortgage markets as national and view their local concentration as irrelevant to financial regulation and monetary policy. The two researchers argue that this view is incomplete, showing that although local concentration has no influence on interest rates, it strongly affects lending standards and upfront fees. In more concentrated areas, preliminary results show that lenders charge higher fees, mortgage application rejection rates are higher, and the pool of originated mortgages is less risky in terms of both credit scores and default. This may be particularly true for low-income, female, and applicants of color, suggesting that local lender concentration is particularly important when it comes to questions of credit access for traditionally underserved borrowers. Jorring and Buchak plan to combine public data from the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, which covers the near universe of U.S. mortgage applications, as well as data from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on single-family loan origination and performance, with private data to explore the effects of local concentration in mortgage lending.

Agricultural supply chains in the United States include hundreds or thousands of farmers and large agribusinesses that process and distribute the produce. Following a series of mergers over the past five decades, the farmers that contribute to the production of meat and grain each have the option of selling to only four predominant buyers, with the buyers varying by product. Given the disparity between the sizes of individual farmers and the agribusinesses, it is natural to wonder whether transaction prices reflect the marginal value of farmers’ product, as they would in a competitive market, or whether agribusinesses are able to exercise oligopsony power to artificially depress prices. These concerns are particularly salient now, given indictments for price-fixing and anticompetitive practices in the meatpacking industry. Yet farm bankruptcies have increased each year for the past decade. This project will study oligopsony power in cattle markets by quantifying the market power of the packers, assessing the causes and consequences of the market power, and examining how it has changed over the past two decades. Outcomes of interest include the degree of local market concentration, plant-specific mark-ups and the mechanisms that support the mark-ups, and evaluation of specific mergers.