The DOI matches its Crossref record; 153 of the 159 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 2 of the 42 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Anticompetitive Effects of Common Ownership
Open accessAbstract
Many natural competitors are jointly held by a small set of large institutional investors. In the U.S. airline industry, taking common ownership into account implies increases in market concentration that are 10 times larger than what is presumed likely to enhance market power by antitrust authorities. Within-route changes in common ownership concentration robustly correlate with route-level changes in ticket prices.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
89 Own result · 61 Own interpretation · 35 No basis given · 17 No full text of the sources · 12 Own method · 11 Sources not found · 2 Not checked yet · 1 Supported · 1 Supported so far
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Fichtner, Heemskerk, and Garcia-Bernardo (2016) calculate that the combined holdings of BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street make them the largest investor of 88% of all firms in the S&P 500.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 1 Introduction
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Fichtner, Heemskerk, and Garcia-Bernardo (2016) source
The Conclusion (p. 25) states that BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street, taken together, constitute the largest shareholder in 88 percent of S&P 500 firms. This directly supports the attributed calculation. (LLM, conf=0.95)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, the average MHHI delta in the airline industry generated by common ownership in 2014Q4 implies increases in concentration that are more than 10 times higher than the threshold that would likely generate antitrust concerns according to the guidelines, if consequentially applied to MHHI.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 4.3 Quantifying Economic Incentives Using the MHHI
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Control is proportional in the fraction of votes held.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Similarly, going from the 25th to the 75th percentile increases prices by 4.3%.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.1.2 Panel Regression Results
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Going from the 10th to the 90th percentile of routes by MHHI delta indicates an 8.2% increase in fares.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.1.2 Panel Regression Results
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The stark increase in MHHI delta in 2009 coincides with BlackRock's acquisition of Barclays Global Investors that we will later use in one of our identification strategies.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 4.3 Quantifying Economic Incentives Using the MHHI
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the same fund family is often the single largest shareholder of several firms in the same industry, with similarly diversified investors following suit.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 1 Introduction
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The correlation between the MHHI and the HHI is 0.87.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 4.3 Quantifying Economic Incentives Using the MHHI
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We also show in several placebo tests that variation in MHHI delta driven by changes in ownership by shareholders with little effective control does not correlate with price changes.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.1.1 Panel Regression Methodology
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If this theory is correct, an instrumented version of the above regression should produce higher estimates of β, which is a hypothesis we later test and find support for.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.1.1 Panel Regression Methodology
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“are more than ten times larger than what the FTC/DOJ 2010 horizontal merger guidelines presume”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 1 Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Control is proportional in the fraction of votes held.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We find a large and significant positive effect of MHHI delta on average fares across all specifications.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.1.2 Panel Regression Results
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Weighting by average passengers in the market over time, the average MHHI delta in 2014 is 2,044.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 4.3 Quantifying Economic Incentives Using the MHHI
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Control is proportional in the fraction of votes held.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The correlation between MHHI delta and HHI is -0.69.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 4.3 Quantifying Economic Incentives Using the MHHI
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Across the entire sample, about 5% of routes have an MHHI delta of close to zero -that is, there is no common ownership.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 4.3 Quantifying Economic Incentives Using the MHHI
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We also find that changes in passenger volume are negatively related to changes in common ownership”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 1 Introduction
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Multiplying these estimates with the average route-level increase in common ownership due to the consolidation event indicates that the acquisition itself increased average ticket prices by about half a percent.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 1 Introduction
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Control is proportional in the fraction of votes held.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In specification (3), we add controls for market characteristics.The coefficients of both the HHI and the MHHI delta remain positive and statistically and economically significant, albeit slightly attenuated relative to the first specification.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.1.2 Panel Regression Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Using fixed-effect panel regressions, we find that ticket prices are approximately 3-7% higher on the average US airline route than would be the case under separate ownership.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 1 Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Control is proportional in the fraction of votes held.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The coefficient of 0.192 in the first specification with only time-and market-carrier fixed effects implies that an increase in the MHHI delta from 0 to 2,000 (approximately the weighted average level of MHHI delta in 2014Q4) is associated with an increase in average fares of 4%.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.1.2 Panel Regression Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A linear fit indicates a positive raw correlation between airfares and MHHI delta across markets.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.1 Panel Regressions of Product Prices on Common Ownership
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The fact that no significant effects obtain when we assume control by shareholders that cannot reasonably expected to have control (such as very small and short-term shareholders)”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 1 Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Control is proportional in the fraction of votes held.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They indicate that product prices may be 10-12% higher due to common ownership.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 1 Introduction
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Control is proportional in the fraction of votes held.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the 2014Q4 distribution, the 10th percentile is at 109 HHI points, the 25th at 1,421, the median at 2,684, the 75th at 3,642, and the 90th percentile is at 4,184 HHI points.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 4.3 Quantifying Economic Incentives Using the MHHI
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The magnitude of common ownership concentration furthermore dwarfs the time-series variation in HHI.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 1 Introduction
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results are similar in magnitude to the baseline, consistent with the idea that the proportional control assumption is not driving the baseline results.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.3.2 Banzhaf Voting Power Indices as Control Shares
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We find that only common ownership by long-horizon shareholders has a significant positive effect on prices, while common ownership by short-horizon shareholders yields coefficients of varying sign and weak (if any) significance.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.3.3 Effect of Common Ownership by Shareholder Horizon
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The mean and median across routes of the implied change is 91 HHI points; the implied change is larger than 100 HHI points in more than 2,000 routes; the largest implied increase is 281 HHI points.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > Difference-in-Differences Design
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Table C.3 shows that if we sample only market-carriers in bankruptcy, there is no effect of MHHI delta (but also no effect of HHI, maybe because of the reduced sample size).”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.1.3 Robustness of the Baseline Analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Dividing the coefficient from the quantity regressions specification (1), -0.665, by the coefficient from the price regressions specification (4), 0.325, implies an elasticity of demand in the average route of -2.05.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.2.3 Effect of Common Ownership Concentration on Passenger Volume
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The mean and median across routes of the implied change is 91 HHI points; the implied change is larger than 100 HHI points in more than 2,000 routes; the largest implied increase is 281 HHI points.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > Difference-in-Differences Design
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The mean and median across routes of the implied change is 91 HHI points; the implied change is larger than 100 HHI points in more than 2,000 routes; the largest implied increase is 281 HHI points.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > Difference-in-Differences Design
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To more directly investigate the impact of bankruptcies on our estimates, in Table 4, specification (1), we exclude quarters in which one of the major airlines was in bankruptcy from the sample, retaining only the periods 2001Q1-2002Q2, 2007Q2-2011Q3, and 2014Q1-2014Q4.The estimates are similar to the main specification.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.1.3 Robustness of the Baseline Analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consistent with the above hypotheses, we find a significant effect for routes within a range of HHI between around 2,500 and 6,500.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.5 What Else Can We Learn About the Mechanism?
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Only common ownership by shareholders ranked first and second has a positive and highly statistically significant effect on ticket prices.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.3.1 Effect of Common Ownership by Shareholder Rank
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We find that only common ownership by long-horizon shareholders has a significant positive effect on prices, while common ownership by short-horizon shareholders yields coefficients of varying sign and weak (if any) significance.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.3.3 Effect of Common Ownership by Shareholder Horizon
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Table 4, specification (7) shows that there is a positive and highly statistically significant effect of multi-market contact on ticket prices, measured as average route contact as in in Evans and Kessides (1994); see Ciliberto and Williams (2014) for a structural version.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.4 Robustness to the Mode of Competition
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Table C.2 shows similar results using the discrete treatment variable as an instrument.The estimated effect using the post-period 2010-2014Q1 is 0.462.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > IV Design
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, city pairs may constitute a better market definition than airport pairs.Table 4, specification (3) shows that the results are similar, and in fact somewhat stronger.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.1.3 Robustness of the Baseline Analysis
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Indeed, the effect of the MHHI delta on prices increases with market size.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.5 What Else Can We Learn About the Mechanism?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Instead, as shown in Table C.6, we find that the MHHI delta calculated in this way has no significant effect on ticket prices.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.3.1 Effect of Common Ownership by Shareholder Rank
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: In the placebo test, only shareholders ranked below the top 10 are assumed to control the firm, with zero control assigned to the top 10 shareholders.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We have documented a statistical link between common ownership and higher prices.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 6 Institutional Background and Potential Mechanisms
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Using specifications (2) and ( 5) from the quantity and price regressions, respectively, the implied elasticity is -1.95.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.2.3 Effect of Common Ownership Concentration on Passenger Volume
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Also, the functional form assumed by equation ( 2) is unlikely to drive the results: controlling for a tenth-order polynomial in HHI does not significantly change the MHHI delta coefficient (spec.(4)).”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.1.3 Robustness of the Baseline Analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consistent with this idea, including all shareholders present in the Thomson database has a minimal effect on the estimated coefficients.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.3.1 Effect of Common Ownership by Shareholder Rank
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Smaller shareholders have no significant say in corporate strategy.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The MHHI delta coefficient is insignificant in 2006 and 2007, possibly because both Delta Air Lines and Northwest were in bankruptcy during this time.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.1.3 Robustness of the Baseline Analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Table 4 specification (6) shows that the effect of the carrier-route-level common ownership measure is positive and statistically significant at the 1% level, but the t-stats are lower than those in the baseline specification for the MHHI delta, as expected.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.4 Robustness to the Mode of Competition
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Common ownership and control by shareholders ranked 3 to 10 has a small and insignificant effect on ticket prices.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.3.1 Effect of Common Ownership by Shareholder Rank
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Specifications (3) and ( 6) imply an elasticity of -1.05.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.2.3 Effect of Common Ownership Concentration on Passenger Volume
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Implied Change in MHHI delta 6.416*** 3.104*** 5.379*** 4.101*** 5.161*** 4.832*** (0.360) (0.450) (0.477) (0.472) (0.667) (0.432)”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > B.2 Variable Definitions
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The pre-period 2009Q1 is before the Barclays BGI acquisition by BlackRock was announced.
- Rests on an assumption: The counterfactual MHHI delta combining the holdings of Barclays and BlackRock represents the change in common ownership caused by the acquisition.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“MHHI delta 0.0383 0.156*** 0.134*** 0.177*** 0.188*** 0.252*** (0.0711) (0.0404) (0.0350) (0.0578) (0.0412) (0.0488)”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > (continued). Effect of Common Ownership on Airline Ticket Prices: IV Regressions Using Discrete Treatment: Second Stage.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“MHHI delta 0.0383 0.156*** 0.134*** 0.177*** 0.188*** 0.252*** (0.0711) (0.0404) (0.0350) (0.0578) (0.0412) (0.0488)”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > (continued). Effect of Common Ownership on Airline Ticket Prices: IV Regressions Using Discrete Treatment: Second Stage.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We find that route-level capacity decisions are a frequent topic of conversation.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 6.3.1 Voice
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Common ownership concentration for the average route is more than ten times larger than what would be presumed”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 7 Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Carrier-Level MHHI delta 0.983*** 0.910*** 0.996*** (0.205) (0.185) (0.184)”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > Dependent Variable: Log(Average Fare)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“MHHI delta 0.140*** 0.172*** 0.0947*** 0.199*** 0.212*** 0.140*** (0.0425) (0.0374) (0.0337) (0.0460) (0.0394) (0.0385)”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > Dependent Variable: Log(Average Fare)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In particular, in the US airline industry, a modified index of market concentration that takes into account to which extent competitors are commonly owned by the same investors indicates levels of market concentration that far exceed those indicated by the conventional measure of market concentration.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 7 Conclusion
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Average Carrier-Level MHHI delta of Competitors 0.0740 0.172 0.0576 (0.153) (0.151) (0.160)”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > Dependent Variable: Log(Average Fare)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“MHHI delta 0.0383 0.156*** 0.134*** 0.177*** 0.188*** 0.252*** (0.0711) (0.0404) (0.0350) (0.0578) (0.0412) (0.0488)”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > (continued). Effect of Common Ownership on Airline Ticket Prices: IV Regressions Using Discrete Treatment: Second Stage.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“MHHI delta -0.665*** -0.607*** -0.213*** (0.0876) (0.0824) (0.0527)”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > Dependent Variable: Log(Market Passengers)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“is inconsistent with the hypothesis that the endogeneity of market shares drives the main results.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 1 Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On average common ownership adds about as much concentration as going from four roughly equal-sized carriers to two equal-sized carriers would add.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 4.3 Quantifying Economic Incentives Using the MHHI
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Since airline stocks constituted only a small fraction of the merging parties' portfolios, it is unlikely that this variation is driven by expected changes in US airline ticket prices.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 1 Introduction
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These findings are consistent with a model of rational attention allocation by investors and airlines to markets where the bottom-line impact of increased prices is greater.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 1 Introduction
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“the omission to explicitly demand or incentivize tougher competition between portfolio firms may allow managers to enjoy a”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 1 Introduction
What the sources say
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Wells Fargo's CEO understands that it is not in his largest shareholders' best interest to compete aggressively for market share against Bank of America, even without explicit communication.
- Rests on an assumption: Top management teams of the largest US airlines learned about major shifts in the ownership structure of the industry even without being personally informed by Warren Buffett.
- Rests on an assumption: Bank of America and JP Morgan are well-informed about these interests.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“common owners of competitors need not explicitly communicate their anticompetitive interests to management for the documented outcomes to materialize.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 1 Introduction
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Wells Fargo's CEO understands that it is not in his largest shareholders' best interest to compete aggressively for market share against Bank of America, even without explicit communication.
- Rests on an assumption: Top management teams of the largest US airlines learned about major shifts in the ownership structure of the industry even without being personally informed by Warren Buffett.
- Rests on an assumption: Bank of America and JP Morgan are well-informed about these interests.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This finding is consistent with the hypothesis that the endogeneity of market shares does not drive our results.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.1.1 Panel Regression Methodology
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our results suggest that common ownership links can have the effect of blurring formal firm boundaries.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 2 Related Literature
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In sum, the incentives for anti-competitive behavior implied by current levels of common ownership, as measured by the MHHI delta, are an order of magnitude larger than the implications for market power recognized by conventional measures that are measured on the same scale.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 4.3 Quantifying Economic Incentives Using the MHHI
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“indicating that the price effects are not driven by increased demand that institutional shareholders correctly foresee (a reverse-causality argument): if increases in common ownership were caused by increased demand, changes in common ownership should be correlated with higher, not lower quantity.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 1 Introduction
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To our knowledge our paper is the first to empirically identify an effect of common ownership on product prices”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 2 Related Literature
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This identification strategy uses only variation in common ownership across routes that is implied by the hypothetical combination of the two parties' portfolios as of the quarter before the announcement of the acquisition.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 1 Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While estimated using much less variation than the panel regressions, the estimates from this strategy are arguably less affected by endogeneity of ownership and market shares.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 1 Introduction
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“That means an investor holding equal-sized stakes in both A and B enjoys greater total (i.e.portfolio) profits when the firms set prices or quantities as if they were two divisions of a monopoly, instead of acting like two independent firms.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 3 Hypothesis Development
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fixed effects difference out many (but of course not all) alternative interpretations at the firm-, route-, firm-route, or firm-time level, such as confounding effects of fuel or oil price changes.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 1 Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When interpreting the MHHI delta coefficient (β), one should keep mind that market shares (which enter both MHHI delta and HHI calculations) are potentially endogenous in ways that are likely to negatively bias the MHHI delta coefficient.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.1.1 Panel Regression Methodology
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Using the weighted average MHHI delta across markets of 2,044 in 2014Q4 to gauge economic signficance, the coefficient of around -.2 from the most saturated specification indicates that there are about 4% less market passengers in the average route than there would be under separate ownership.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.2.3 Effect of Common Ownership Concentration on Passenger Volume
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The history of Barclays' attempt to sell iShares to investors other than BlackRock suggests the divestment decision was not primarily driven by considerations regarding how the iShares portfolio would combine with BlackRock's in terms of potential product market effects.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.2.2 Using Variation from the BlackRock-BGI Acquisition Background on BlackRock's Acquisition of Barclays Global Investors
hedgedSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
In the paper
“Freeman (2016) finds an effect of common ownership on the longevity of customer-supplier relationships, which corroborates the assumption of the various theoretical models motivating our empirical analysis that firms internalize externalities imposed on commonly owned firms.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.6 External Validity
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Freeman (2016) source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Rather, only economically meaningful ways of calculating common ownership concentration are linked to significant product market outcomes.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.3.3 Effect of Common Ownership by Shareholder Horizon
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, the sign of the effect, based on variation in common ownership generated by the BGI acquisition is consistent with our previous results from the panel regressions.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > Difference-in-Differences Design
plaincorrelationalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These results are consistent with standard notions of corporate governance, but inconsistent with the hypothesis that various forms of misspecification mechanically drive a spurious correlation between MHHI delta and ticket prices.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.3.1 Effect of Common Ownership by Shareholder Rank
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Instead, the results are consistent with the predictions of increased market power.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.2.3 Effect of Common Ownership Concentration on Passenger Volume
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If a match between lazy principals and lazy agents becomes pervasive in an industry, industry output declines and margins increase in a Cournot model.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 6.1 The Indirect Channel: Doing Nothing
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The variation across portfolio firms in the degree to which the BlackRock-BGI changed their ownership structure translates into variation across airline routes, because different combinations of airlines compete in different routes.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.2.2 Using Variation from the BlackRock-BGI Acquisition Background on BlackRock's Acquisition of Barclays Global Investors
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The loss of power is also consistent with the data favoring a Cournot model over Bertrand as the relevant model of competition in airlines, as previously argued by Brander and Zhang (1990) and the literature that followed.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.4 Robustness to the Mode of Competition
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Brander and Zhang (1990) source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results are similar in magnitude to the baseline, consistent with the idea that the proportional control assumption is not driving the baseline results.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.3.2 Banzhaf Voting Power Indices as Control Shares
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Shareholder control is proportional to the number of shares they own.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When various industry competitors are owned by concentrated activists that push their targets to compete aggressively, a competitive outcome obtains.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 6.1 The Indirect Channel: Doing Nothing
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This feature does not imply that our empirical tests rely on the assumption that airlines necessarily compete à la Cournot, as we now show.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.4 Robustness to the Mode of Competition
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“By contrast, it is well documented that campaigns by activist investors, which typically concentrate their capital in one target firm per industry, lead to increases in market share of the target at the expense of its rivals (e.g.Aslan and Kumar, 2016).”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 6.1 The Indirect Channel: Doing Nothing
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Aslan and Kumar, 2016 source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Multiplying the estimates with the average MHHI delta across routes would imply that ticket prices are about 10%-12% higher because of common ownership alone, compared to a counterfactual world in which firms are separately owned, or in which firms ignore the anti-competitive incentives of their shareholders.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > IV Design
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“That paper also shows that omitting common ownership from regressions of price on industry concentration (HHI) leads to a negative omitted variable bias on the HHI coefficient.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.6 External Validity
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Azar, Raina, and Schmalz (2016) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Gutiérrez and Philippon (2017) find that in a broad cross-section of US firms, common ownership is negatively related to firms' propensity to invest amid high profitability and Q.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.6 External Validity
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Gutiérrez and Philippon (2017)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These findings serve as yet another placebo test: MHHI delta does not appear to have a mechanical relationship to prices.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.3.3 Effect of Common Ownership by Shareholder Horizon
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This range of estimates is similar to that reported in the existing literature (-1.37 to -2.01 (Berry and Jia, 2010); -1.4 (IATA, 2008)).”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.2.3 Effect of Common Ownership Concentration on Passenger Volume
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Berry and Jia, 2010 source
- Not matchedcites IATA, 2008
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This finding not only corroborates the basic narrative above, but also ensures that the main results are not driven by a small markets.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.5 What Else Can We Learn About the Mechanism?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The majority of the effect of common ownership on competitive strategy may be implemented at the firm-pair level, or even at the firm level.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.5 What Else Can We Learn About the Mechanism?
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One should of course not expect that large diversified mutual fund families actively push for more aggressive product market behavior between portfolio firms, given that doing so would not only be costly, but also go against the incentive to maximize the value of the family's total portfolio.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 6.1 The Indirect Channel: Doing Nothing
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The powerful diversified shareholders continue to have little incentive to intervene in that case.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 6.1 The Indirect Channel: Doing Nothing
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In particular, Azar, Raina, and Schmalz (2016) show that the combination of common ownership and cross-ownership of US banks cause higher prices of retail deposit products, using within-bank variation across branches over time and variation in county-level common ownership that results from index fund growth as an instrument.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.6 External Validity
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Azar, Raina, and Schmalz (2016) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“For example, because we employ carrier-routefixed effects, market power on specific routes exerted through frequent-flyer programs (Lederman, 2007) is differenced out in our regressions.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.1.4 Limitations of the Baseline Analysis
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Lederman, 2007 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This paper presents evidence of large anti-competitive incentives due to common ownership links at the market level”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 7 Conclusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“regulators should keep in mind that consolidation in the asset management industry can adversely affect competition in the product markets of their portfolio companies.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 7 Conclusion
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This insight is important, as it suggests that the common ownership problem is unlikely to be solved by shutting down a particular channel.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 6.4 Summary
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Yet, they have the power to shape managerial incentives.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 6.3.2 Incentives
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We conclude that anecdotal evidence exists that investors and portfolio firms discuss product market strategy, sometimes even at the market level.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 6.3.1 Voice
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We then exploit variation in common ownership concentration generated by the merger of two large asset managers that arguably occurred for reasons unrelated to expected route-level differences in US airline ticket prices, and find that product prices are 10-12% higher due to common ownership.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 7 Conclusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The merger of two large asset managers occurred for reasons unrelated to expected route-level differences in US airline ticket prices.
- Rests on an assumption: The control variables included in the regressions are sufficient to address confounding from the listed events and other factors.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One should thus expect a lessening of competition, even when the diversified owners do nothing at all to actively reduce the competitiveness of their portfolio firms' product markets.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 6.1 The Indirect Channel: Doing Nothing
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The past three decades have witnessed a shift from the low-common-ownership to the high-common-ownership equilibrium, because diversified institutions have increasingly crowded out concentrated owners as the most powerful shareholders of firms.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A lack of relative performance incentives gives managers reduced incentives to compete.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 6.3.2 Incentives
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Antón, Ederer, Giné, and Schmalz (2016) show that common owners have incentives to reduce relative performance incentives, either actively or by omitting to support other shareholders' initiatives to implement relative performance incentives.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 6.3.2 Incentives
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Antón, Ederer, Giné, and Schmalz (2016) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In sum, the omission on behalf of large diversified mutual fund families to push portfolio firms to compete aggressively against each other can implement the outcomes we empirically document.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 6.1 The Indirect Channel: Doing Nothing
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We conclude that compensation contracts can be used to align managers' strategic incentives with those of shareholders.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 6.3.2 Incentives
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the strategic, longer-term pricing patterns we study are implied by capacity pre-commitments”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > Dependent Variable: Log(Average Fare)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Capacity pre-commitments typically happen about one year before the flight.
In the paper
“Our results can be viewed as challenging this assumption, and thus make an empirical case for taking seriously the theoretical insight (perhaps most clearly stated in Hart, 1979) that shareholders do not agree on profit maximization as an objective when firms are not price takers.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 7 Conclusion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Hart, 1979 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“For example, Berkshire Hathaway's Co-CIO would reduce the Berkshire portfolio value if he used his role as a JP Morgan board member to propose a particularly aggressive competitive strategy against American Express, Bank of America, or Wells Fargo, in all of which Berkshire Hathaway is a major or the largest investor (Buhayar, 2016).”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 6.3.3 Vote
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Buhayar, 2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“It is well known that financial choices can influence firms' product market strategy (Brander and Lewis, 1986;Chevalier, 1995;Kovenock and Phillips, 1995;Phillips, 1995;Dasgupta and Titman, 1998).”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 6.2 Effects of Influence on Corporate Financial Decisions
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Brander and Lewis, 1986
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Chevalier, 1995
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kovenock and Phillips, 1995
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When firms implement shareholders' incentives, and all shareholders (including those with significant control) are fully diversified, product market competition will tend towards monopolistic outcomes, with an associated deadweight loss for the economy.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 7 Conclusion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, managers are unlikely to be isolated from common owners' anti-competitive incentives when regulators prohibit communication about subjects of competition, while conversations about pay structure or voting on board members continue to be permitted.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 6.4 Summary
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The three goals of (i) perfect shareholder diversification, (ii) firms' maximization of shareholder interests (”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 7 Conclusion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Azar, 2012 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Actively managed funds can threaten management with selling the stock in case management does not adhere to their desired product market strategy, which may explicitly feature not entering competitors' markets (Reuters, 2008).”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 6.3.2 Incentives
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Reuters, 2008
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Fos and Tsoutsoura (2014); Aggarwal, Dahiya, and Prabhala (2015) show commonly owned, and show that wealth-performance-sensitivities decline with common ownership.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 6.3.3 Vote
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Liang (2016) independently corroborates that pay-performance-sensitivities decline with common ownership, using firm-level variation, alternative functional forms, and a different identification strategy.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 6.3.3 Vote
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Liang (2016)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“This feature, as well as the previous literature(Brander and Zhang, 1990), suggest a Cournot model.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > Dependent Variable: Log(Average Fare)
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Brander and Zhang, 1990 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Capacity pre-commitments typically happen about one year before the flight.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Specifically, using fourteen years of market-firm-level quarterly panel data, we find that airline ticket prices are 3-7% higher because of common ownership, compared to a counterfactual world in which firms are separately owned, or in which firms entirely ignore their owners' anti-competitive incentives caused by common ownership.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 7 Conclusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The counterfactual world in which firms are separately owned, or in which firms entirely ignore their owners' anti-competitive incentives caused by common ownership, is a valid comparison for estimating the effect of common ownership on airline ticket prices.
- Rests on an assumption: The control variables included in the regressions are sufficient to address confounding from the listed events and other factors.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because there are many plausible channels through which shareholder incentives can translate into firm behavior, we find it unlikely that one single mechanism is solely responsible.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 6.4 Summary
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The case thus illustrates the silent shift of power from concentrated to diversified investors.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 6.4 Summary
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“None empirically addresses the question whether competition is affected.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > Dependent Variable: Log(Average Fare)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Engagement in corporate governance merely exacerbates the problem.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 6.1 The Indirect Channel: Doing Nothing
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hence, any influence of ownership by large passive institutional investors on portfolio firm's capital structure or payout decisions can affect the product market equilibrium.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 6.2 Effects of Influence on Corporate Financial Decisions
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 42
- It may state two separate claims as one. 71
- The quote only partly states this claim. 6
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“A long theoretical literature in industrial organization predicts that partial common ownership of natural competitors by the same investors can reduce firms' incentives to compete”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 1 Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Rotemberg, 1984
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Farrell, 1985 source
- Supportedcites Gordon, 1990 source
The Conclusions (page unavailable) explain that shareholders invested across firms want each firm to account for effects on other firms’ value. The paper identifies competitive actions that reduce industry profits and says accounting for those effects could make collusion easier, supporting the claim that common ownership can reduce incentives to compete. (LLM, conf=0.91)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This effect of common ownership alone is similar in magnitude and comes on top of the effect of the traditional HHI measure of market concentration as well as other commonly used controls.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 1 Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and find that the effects are stronger for larger markets and for more concentrated markets.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 1 Introduction
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Control is proportional in the fraction of votes held.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we find that the results are driven by the top-ranked shareholders at each firm, and by long-term shareholders.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 1 Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Control is proportional in the fraction of votes held.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The average MHHI delta was around 1,400 at the beginning of the period, declined to around 1,000 in 2006-2007 when concentrated owners acquired relatively large stakes in the industry amid its low profitability, and then increased to about 2,500 in 2014.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 4.3 Quantifying Economic Incentives Using the MHHI
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Control is proportional in the fraction of votes held.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We also document significant effects from both firm-level and market-level variation in common ownership over time”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 1 Introduction
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Control is proportional in the fraction of votes held.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Note that American Airlines' top-seven shareholders (who jointly control 49.55% of the stock) are also among the top-10 investors of Southwest Airlines and various other competitors.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 4.2 Data on Airline Ownership
plaincorrelationaln = 7- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In turn, each of Southwest's largest six shareholders is also among the top-10 shareholders of American and Delta, and five of them are among the top-10 holders of United as well.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 4.2 Data on Airline Ownership
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The coefficients on the control variables have the expected signs: a larger number of nonstop competitors, Southwest's and other LCC's nonstop presence are all associated with lower fares.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.1.2 Panel Regression Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Untabulated, the average fraction of institutional ownership is 72%; the median is 81%.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 4.1 Data on Ticket Prices and Market Shares
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The effect for the average or the four periods is positive and highly statistically significant, with a coefficient of 0.542, which is markedly higher than the effects estimated in panel regressions.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > IV Design
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Similarly, the coefficient on the carrier-level MHHI delta is statistically significant and large; it ranges from 0.91 to 1.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.5 What Else Can We Learn About the Mechanism?
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Generally speaking, disregarding control rights by shareholders below the top five only slightly attenuates the point estimate, and does not affect statistical significance: the”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.3.1 Effect of Common Ownership by Shareholder Rank
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: In specifications estimating effects by shareholder rank, control is assumed to be exercised only by the largest 10, largest 5, largest 3, or single largest shareholder, with zero control assigned to all shareholders outside the top N ranks.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The coefficient on the average carrier-level MHHI delta of other carriers is positive but not statistically significant.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.5 What Else Can We Learn About the Mechanism?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We find that the estimated coefficient of MHHI delta is lower than in the baseline but still highly statistically significant, suggesting that some, but not all, of the baseline effects derive from route-level variation.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.5 What Else Can We Learn About the Mechanism?
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Table 1 makes clear that much common ownership is driven by large institutional investors, and specifically by large mutual fund families.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 6.1 The Indirect Channel: Doing Nothing
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The effect of MHHI delta on fares is positive and statistically significant in most years and similar in magnitude in almost all years, but the effect of MHHI delta is slightly more volatile.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.1.3 Robustness of the Baseline Analysis
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The coefficient on the HHI ranges from -0.496 to -0.583, whereas the coefficient on MHHI delta ranges from -0.665 to -0.213 in the most saturated specification.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.2.3 Effect of Common Ownership Concentration on Passenger Volume
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The same is true for the Ranked-1-or-2 specifications.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.3.3 Effect of Common Ownership by Shareholder Horizon
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the effect of the MHHI delta remains significant and the estimated coefficients are almost unchanged.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.4 Robustness to the Mode of Competition
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Table C.7 shows that the coefficient on the route-level MHHI delta is highly statistically significant but the point estimate is lower than in the baseline estimates.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.5 What Else Can We Learn About the Mechanism?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By contrast, BGI also held a large stake in American Airlines before the merger, but BlackRock did not.As a result, merging BlackRock and BGIs equity portfolios had no effect on American's ownership structure.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.2.2 Using Variation from the BlackRock-BGI Acquisition Background on BlackRock's Acquisition of Barclays Global Investors
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The effect of MHHI delta is statistically significant for all market size percentiles, except the very smallest and the very largest markets, for which the error bands become very wide.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.5 What Else Can We Learn About the Mechanism?
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Specifications (4) to ( 6) are analogous to specifications (1) to ( 3), but aggregated at the market level instead of at the market-carrier level.We find qualitatively similar results, but the coefficients of both the MHHI delta and the HHI are higher.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.1.2 Panel Regression Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In all specifications, both the HHI and the MHHI delta have a negative and significant effect on market passengers, although the mag-nitude of the coefficients is less stable across specifications than in the price regressions.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.2.3 Effect of Common Ownership Concentration on Passenger Volume
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The trend changes after the announcement of the acquisition, and the coefficients are significantly positive for most periods after the completion of the acquisition.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > Difference-in-Differences Design
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Whereas the difference between treatment and control fluctuates around zero to some extent during the pre-period, the overall trend before the announcement is flat.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > Difference-in-Differences Design
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We find a positive and economically sizable but not statistically significant effect of the change in MHHI delta on the change in log average airfares in 2010Q1, 2011Q1 and 2013Q1, and positive and statistically significant coefficients for 2012Q1, and 2014Q1.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > IV Design
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Untabulated regressions with three leads and lags of the MHHI deltas and the HHI indicate that the leads of both MHHI delta and HHI are jointly insignificant, whereas the lags are jointly highly statistically significant.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.2.1 Panel Regressions with Leads and Lags of MHHI delta and HHI
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We find that the coefficient on the route-level continues to be statistically significant, but again lower than in the baseline.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.5 What Else Can We Learn About the Mechanism?
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“MHHI delta, either in discrete or continuous version, is a strong instrument for the actual change in the MHHI delta.Specifically, the F-stats from weak identification tests range from 59 to 290.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > IV Design
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, Barclays was the fifth-largest and BlackRock was the 17th-largest shareholder of Airtran Airways in 2009Q1, but a hypothetically combined BlackRock-BGI entity would have been the second-largest shareholder of the firm in 2009Q1, and correspondingly much more powerful.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.2.2 Using Variation from the BlackRock-BGI Acquisition Background on BlackRock's Acquisition of Barclays Global Investors
hedgedSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Table 5 shows that the coefficients of lags of MHHI delta are correlated with prices, whereas the coefficients on leads of MHHI delta are not significantly different from zero.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.2.1 Panel Regressions with Leads and Lags of MHHI delta and HHI
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Table 4 specification (6) shows that the effect of the carrier-route-level common ownership measure is positive and statistically significant at the 1% level, but the t-stats are lower than those in the baseline specification for the MHHI delta, as expected.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.4 Robustness to the Mode of Competition
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“MHHI delta (Top 1 Shareholder) 0.0717*** 0.0889*** (0.0220) (0.0198)”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > Dependent Variable: Log(Market Passengers)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“MHHI delta (Shareholders Ranked Below Top 10) -0.0436 -0.0312 (0.0314) (0.0275)”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > Dependent Variable: Log(Average Fare) Market-carrier level
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“MHHI delta 0.0383 0.156*** 0.134*** 0.177*** 0.188*** 0.252*** (0.0711) (0.0404) (0.0350) (0.0578) (0.0412) (0.0488)”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > (continued). Effect of Common Ownership on Airline Ticket Prices: IV Regressions Using Discrete Treatment: Second Stage.
plain- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Share AA × Share US in 2009Q1 | 0.437** | 0.338 | 0.821*** | 0.831*** | 1.304*** | 0.705*** |”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > Dependent Variable: Log(Average Fare)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“MHHI delta (Top 10 Shareholders) 0.149*** 0.198*** (0.0373) (0.0352)”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > Dependent Variable: Log(Market Passengers)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Correlation Between HHI and MHHI delta: -0.69”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > Dependent Variable: Log(Average Fare)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| MHHI delta | 0.110 | 0.104 | 0.0452 | 0.181* | 0.159** | 0.0802 |”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > Dependent Variable: Log(Average Fare)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Change in MHHI delta 2009Q1-Post | 0.193 | 0.256 | 0.816*** | 0.413 | 0.963*** | 0.542*** |”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > Dependent Variable: Log(Average Fare)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| MHHI delta -Lag | 0.159** | 0.170*** | 0.161*** | 0.178** 0.177*** | 0.162*** |”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > Dependent Variable: Log(Average Fare)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Change in MHHI delta 2009Q1-Post 0.142 0.199 0.765*** 0.357 0.824*** 0.462** (0.151) (0.275) (0.196) (0.279) (0.234) (0.186)”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > (continued). Effect of Common Ownership on Airline Ticket Prices: IV Regressions Using Discrete Treatment: Second Stage.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
- Rests on an assumption: The pre-period 2009Q1 is before the Barclays BGI acquisition by BlackRock was announced.
- Rests on an assumption: The counterfactual MHHI delta combining the holdings of Barclays and BlackRock represents the change in common ownership caused by the acquisition.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| HHI -Lag | 0.218*** 0.220*** | 0.182*** | 0.274*** 0.256*** | 0.214*** |”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > Dependent Variable: Log(Average Fare)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“MHHI delta (Top 3 Shareholders) 0.114*** 0.145*** (0.0333) (0.0310)”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > Dependent Variable: Log(Market Passengers)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Treatment (Discrete) 0.0871*** 0.0492*** 0.0716*** 0.0534*** 0.0681*** 0.0659*** (0.00511) (0.00642) (0.00661) (0.00639) (0.00904) (0.00599)”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > B.2 Variable Definitions
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: The pre-period 2009Q1 is before the Barclays BGI acquisition by BlackRock was announced.
- Rests on an assumption: The counterfactual MHHI delta combining the holdings of Barclays and BlackRock represents the change in common ownership caused by the acquisition.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Share UA × Share CO in 2009Q1 | 0.120 | 1.033*** | 1.166*** | 1.642*** | 1.718*** | 1.092*** |”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > Dependent Variable: Log(Average Fare)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Share FL × Share WN in 2009Q1 | -0.0478 | 0.222 | 1.293*** | 0.823*** | 1.236*** | 0.647*** |”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > Dependent Variable: Log(Average Fare)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We find that when firms have reduced incentives to compete due to common ownership, prices are higher and output is lower.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 7 Conclusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“MHHI delta (Top 5 Shareholders) 0.136*** 0.173*** (0.0368) (0.0340)”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > Dependent Variable: Log(Market Passengers)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Change in MHHI delta 2009Q1-Post 0.142 0.199 0.765*** 0.357 0.824*** 0.462** (0.151) (0.275) (0.196) (0.279) (0.234) (0.186)”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > (continued). Effect of Common Ownership on Airline Ticket Prices: IV Regressions Using Discrete Treatment: Second Stage.
plain- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The pre-period 2009Q1 is before the Barclays BGI acquisition by BlackRock was announced.
- Rests on an assumption: The counterfactual MHHI delta combining the holdings of Barclays and BlackRock represents the change in common ownership caused by the acquisition.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Correlation Between HHI and MHHI: 0.87”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > Dependent Variable: Log(Average Fare)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No study prior to the present one has examined effects of common ownership on product prices.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 2 Related Literature
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Theory thus predicts that common ownership implies reduced incentives to compete, pushes product markets toward monopolistic outcomes, and implies a deadweight loss for the economy and particularly adverse consequences for consumers.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 1 Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A literature in finance and industrial organization, reviewed above, predicts that shareholder diversification can lead to lessened competition in portfolio firms' product markets.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 3 Hypothesis Development
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“highly diversified mutual fund families and other institutional investors now hold a high (70%-80%, ICI, 2015) and increasing share of US publicly traded firms.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 1 Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites ICI, 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Theory thus predicts that common ownership implies reduced incentives to compete, pushes product markets toward monopolistic outcomes, and implies a deadweight loss for the economy and particularly adverse consequences for consumers.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 1 Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One should thus expect less competition, compared to the standard model, to the extent shareholders are diversified across natural competitors, and to the extent portfolio firms act in their diversified shareholders' interest.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 3 Hypothesis Development
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We then provide a large number of placebo and robustness tests to examine the empirical validity of a large number of concerns regarding functional form, market definition, confounding mergers and bankruptcies, reverse causality, the assumption that control is proportional in the fraction of votes held, and the model of competition.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 1 Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Control is proportional in the fraction of votes held.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In our baseline result we address various of such omitted variable concerns with explicit controls and a large number of fixed effects.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.1 Panel Regressions of Product Prices on Common Ownership
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These are non-trivial changes in market concentration, for which we can reasonably expect to find increases in market prices.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > Difference-in-Differences Design
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, US airline stocks of course comprised only a small share of BGI's portfolio.This fact makes it unlikely that airlines were pivotal in BlackRock's decision to acquire BGI, much less route-level variation in expected ticket price changes, thus alleviating reverse causality concerns.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.2.2 Using Variation from the BlackRock-BGI Acquisition Background on BlackRock's Acquisition of Barclays Global Investors
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Indeed, any such notion is neither implied by our empirical results thus far, nor do the results depend on it, nor does the underlying theory suggest collusive behavior.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 6.1 The Indirect Channel: Doing Nothing
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Indeed, any such notion is neither implied by our empirical results thus far, nor do the results depend on it, nor does the underlying theory suggest collusive behavior.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 6.1 The Indirect Channel: Doing Nothing
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the claim that common ownership causes higher prices is very different from the claim that any shareholder actively and consciously pursues an anticompetitive agenda, communicates with managers of portfolio firms to compete less aggressively against each other, or even incites collusion.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 6.1 The Indirect Channel: Doing Nothing
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, the findings illustrate why the anti-competitive effects of common ownership have welfare implications: the deadweight loss to the economy comes from reduced output that accompanies higher consumer prices.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.2.3 Effect of Common Ownership Concentration on Passenger Volume
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We find that the estimated coefficient of MHHI delta is lower than in the baseline but still highly statistically significant, suggesting that some, but not all, of the baseline effects derive from route-level variation.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.5 What Else Can We Learn About the Mechanism?
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These results indicate that increasing demand and reverse causality are unlikely to be the driver of the price effects.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.2.3 Effect of Common Ownership Concentration on Passenger Volume
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nevertheless, several other significant limitations remain at this stage, driven by the potential endogeneity of both market shares and ownership, as well as various forms of model misspecification.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.1.4 Limitations of the Baseline Analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We conclude that the baseline results are not driven by an unusual sub-period within the sample in general or by bankruptcies in particular.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.1.3 Robustness of the Baseline Analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Lundin (2016) shows that joint profit maximization of commonly owned Swedish power plants best matches the data on maintenance decisions, and hence output, compared to unilateral profit maximization.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.6 External Validity
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Lundin (2016) source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“However, since making our study available online, similar results have been found in other industries and with other econometric methods, which may enhance confidence in the external validity of our results.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.6 External Validity
What the sources say
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We offer three sets of tests to examine and reject the hypothesis that the baseline results are due to chances in ticket pricing causing changes in ownership, rather than the other way around.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.2 Responses to Reverse Causality Concerns
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The bottom line is that the effect is generally weaker in markets and at times affected by bankruptcies, consistent with shareholders not being in control during such times.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5.1.3 Robustness of the Baseline Analysis
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The DOJ/FTC Horizontal Merger Guidelines state that”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > Difference-in-Differences Design
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites DOJ/FTC Horizontal Merger Guidelines
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Indeed, any such notion is neither implied by our empirical results thus far, nor do the results depend on it, nor does the underlying theory suggest collusive behavior.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 6.1 The Indirect Channel: Doing Nothing
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As an alternative gauge of economic significance, note that the average implied MHHI deltais about 91 HHI points; our estimates thus indicate that ticket prices on the average U.S. airline route increased by about 0.5% as a direct result of the BlackRock-BGI acquisition.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > IV Design
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus-caused declines in stock prices would have obvious direct consequences for managerial incentives.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 6.3.2 Incentives
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These results suggest both a large deadweight loss (i.e.decreased efficiency of the economy) and a large transfer from consumers to producers due to common ownership.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 7 Conclusion
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Institutional Shareholder Services recommends to support the activist's campaign, but BlackRock, Vanguard, and StateStreet cast decisive votes against.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 6.4 Summary
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Schmalz (2015)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, increased payouts imply reduced investment (at least in the long-run), but reduced investment in production capacity can imply less competitive product markets.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 6.2 Effects of Influence on Corporate Financial Decisions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“F-stat (Weak Identification Test) 316.9 47.58 127.4 75.54 59.82 125”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > B.2 Variable Definitions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The quote only partly states this claim.
- Rests on an assumption: The pre-period 2009Q1 is before the Barclays BGI acquisition by BlackRock was announced.
- Rests on an assumption: The counterfactual MHHI delta combining the holdings of Barclays and BlackRock represents the change in common ownership caused by the acquisition.
In the paper
“Kwon (2016) challenges existing theory and empirical findings using alternative samples, industry definitions, and empirical specifications, claiming qualitatively opposite results on pay-performance sensitivities, and documents a link between common ownership and the explicit use of relative performance in compensation contracts.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 6.3.3 Vote
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Kwon (2016)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Director candidates may be able to credibly signal for which type of competitive strategy they stand.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 6.3.3 Vote
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Schmalz (2015) provides a case study that illustrates all four elements.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 6.4 Summary
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Schmalz (2015)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Antón, Ederer, Giné, and Schmalz (2016) provide panel and IV evidence that management pay becomes less sensitive to performance relative to industry rivals when the industry becomes more”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > Dependent Variable: Log(Average Fare)
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Antón, Ederer, Giné, and Schmalz (2016) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A caveat is that explicit incentives are only in place as long as the manager is not fired.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 6.3.2 Incentives
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The first two goals benefit shareholders.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 7 Conclusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Whereas this paper emphasizes anti-competitive effects of common ownership, in theory, common ownership can also have efficiency-enhancing effects.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 7 Conclusion
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We find that voice, incentives, and vote -as well as the simple omission to push for more aggressive competition -can plausibly implement the anticompetitive incentives of investors that hold large stakes in natural competitors.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 6.4 Summary
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In theory, the additional concentration that results from cumulating many small common ownership interests should get reflected in higher prices.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 7 Conclusion
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Our results can be viewed as challenging this assumption, and thus make an empirical case for taking seriously the theoretical insight (perhaps most clearly stated in Hart, 1979) that shareholders do not agree on profit maximization as an objective when firms are not price takers.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 7 Conclusion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Hart, 1979 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, CEO turnover also does not feature strong elements of relative performance evaluation, and is therefore sensitive to industry performance (Jenter and Kanaan, forthcoming).”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 6.3.2 Incentives
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Jenter and Kanaan, forthcoming
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“An activist investor with concentrated holdings in a target voices a demand for greater efforts at increasing market share vis-à-vis the target's competitors, as well as a greater use of relative performance evaluation to give management appropriate incentives to maximize the target's value, among other things.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 6.4 Summary
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Schmalz (2015)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We also control for potential confounding events using the implied HHI delta in the route from the DL-NW, UA-CO, AA-US, and FL-WN mergers, the share in the route of AA in 2009Q1, and the change in log per capita income in the route from the start of the Great Recession until 2009Q1, each interacted with year-quarter fixed effects.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 5: Effect of Common Ownership on Airline Ticket Prices: Distributed-Lags Regressions.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By contrast, the decline in product market competition implied by an improved implementation of the first two goals is a social cost that has thus far been largely ignored.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 7 Conclusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“F-stat (Weak Identification Test) 290.4 58.88 117.3 69.79 56.78 121”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > B.2 Variable Definitions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Rests on an assumption: The pre-period 2009Q1 is before the Barclays BGI acquisition by BlackRock was announced.
- Rests on an assumption: The counterfactual MHHI delta combining the holdings of Barclays and BlackRock represents the change in common ownership caused by the acquisition.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The effects of shareholder engagement on product market outcomes can therefore be very subtle.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 6.2 Effects of Influence on Corporate Financial Decisions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“empirical results indicative (but of course not conclusive) of a causal link between common ownership and higher product prices.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 7 Conclusion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The authors focused on partial ownership acquisitions in competitors (cross-ownership), but their model can be applied to a situation in which the same investors hold shares in natural competitors (common ownership).”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > Dependent Variable: Log(Average Fare)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The authors state this as an assumption.
Institutions with less than 0.5% of shares have no weight in the objective function of the firm.
“Doing so amounts to assuming that institutions with less than 0.5% have no weight in the objective function of the firm; weconsider variations later.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Wells Fargo's CEO understands that it is not in his largest shareholders' best interest to compete aggressively for market share against Bank of America, even without explicit communication.
“it seems reasonable to assume that Wells Fargo's CEO understands that it is not in his largest shareholders' best interest to compete aggressively for market share against Bank of America, even without explicit communication with either shareholders or competitors' managers.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Top management teams of the largest US airlines learned about major shifts in the ownership structure of the industry even without being personally informed by Warren Buffett.
“We find it equally likely that the top management teams of the United States' largest airlines also learned about major shifts in the ownership structure of the industry even without being personally informed by Warren Buffett.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Bank of America and JP Morgan are well-informed about these interests.
“We feel equally assured that not only Bank of America, but also JP Morgan is well-informed about these interests”
The paper relies on this without support.
The fund families' incentives are primarily determined by the value of their total assets under management.
“the fund families' incentives, which -consistent with the incentives of their investors -are primarily determined by the value of their total assets under management.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Each route can be considered as a separate market.
“each route can be considered as a separate market.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Control is proportional in the fraction of votes held.
“the assumption that control is proportional in the fraction of votes held”
The paper relies on this without support.
MHHI delta is a reduced-form measure of reduced incentives to compete due to common ownership.
“we do not estimate the model, but use MHHI delta as a reduced-form measure of reduced incentives to compete due to common ownership.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Smaller shareholders have no significant say in corporate strategy.
“In the baseline specifications reported previously, we calculated the MHHI delta using all shareholders larger than 0.5%, assuming that smaller shareholders have no significant say in corporate strategy.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The cross-sectional distribution across US airline routes in the implied increase in common ownership from a hypothetical pre-merger combination of BlackRock and BGI's equity portfolios is uncorrelated with errors of the ticket price regression, conditional on controls.
“More formally, the exclusion restriction is that the cross-sectional distribution across US airlines routes in the implied increase in common ownership from a hypothetical, pre-merger combination of BLK and BGI's equity portfolios is uncorrelated with errors of the ticket price regression, conditional on controls.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
In specifications estimating effects by shareholder rank, control is assumed to be exercised only by the largest 10, largest 5, largest 3, or single largest shareholder, with zero control assigned to all shareholders outside the top N ranks.
“To further explore this idea, we now estimate specifications that assume control, for a given carrier and quarter, only by the largest 10, largest 5, largest 3, and only the single largest shareholder in the calculation of the MHHI delta.These specifications assign zero control to all shareholders outside the top N ranks, but keeps ownership rights for all shareholders.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
In the placebo test, only shareholders ranked below the top 10 are assumed to control the firm, with zero control assigned to the top 10 shareholders.
“As a complement to the top-shareholder analysis, we now run a placebo test which does the opposite: we calculate the MHHI delta as if only shareholders ranked below top 10 controlled the firm.That is, for each carrier at each period in time, we assign zero control to the top 10 shareholders, and then re-calculate the MHHI deltas accordingly.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Shareholder control is proportional to the number of shares they own.
“In our calculation of the MHHI deltas, we have assumed thus far that shareholder control is proportional to the number of shares they own.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Increasing market share may require costly managerial effort.
“To see why doing nothing can be a sufficient mechanism by which common ownership can cause higher prices, assume that increasing market share may require costly managerial effort.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Firms internalize externalities imposed on commonly owned firms.
“Freeman (2016) finds an effect of common ownership on the longevity of customer-supplier relationships, which corroborates the assumption of the various theoretical models motivating our empirical analysis that firms internalize externalities imposed on commonly owned firms.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The past three decades have witnessed a shift from the low-common-ownership to the high-common-ownership equilibrium, because diversified institutions have increasingly crowded out concentrated owners as the most powerful shareholders of firms.
“The past three decades have witnessed a shift from the low-common-ownership to the high-common-ownership equilibrium, because diversified institutions have increasingly crowded out concentrated owners as the most powerful shareholders of firms.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The merger of two large asset managers occurred for reasons unrelated to expected route-level differences in US airline ticket prices.
“We then exploit variation in common ownership concentration generated by the merger of two large asset managers that arguably occurred for reasons unrelated to expected route-level differences in US airline ticket prices”
The paper relies on this without support.
The counterfactual world in which firms are separately owned, or in which firms entirely ignore their owners' anti-competitive incentives caused by common ownership, is a valid comparison for estimating the effect of common ownership on airline ticket prices.
“compared to a counterfactual world in which firms are separately owned, or in which firms entirely ignore their owners' anti-competitive incentives caused by common ownership.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The control variables included in the regressions are sufficient to address confounding from the listed events and other factors.
“We also control for potential confounding events using the implied HHI delta in the route from the DL-NW, UA-CO, AA-US, and FL-WN mergers, the share in the route of AA in 2009Q1, and the change in log per capita income in the route from the start of the Great Recession until 2009Q1, each interacted with year-quarter fixed effects.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The pre-period 2009Q1 is before the Barclays BGI acquisition by BlackRock was announced.
“The pre-period is 2009Q1 (the quarter before the Barclays BGI acquisition by BlackRock was announced).”
The paper relies on this without support.
The counterfactual MHHI delta combining the holdings of Barclays and BlackRock represents the change in common ownership caused by the acquisition.
“we calculate a counterfactual MHHI delta in 2009Q1 combining the holdings of Barclays and BlackRock”
The paper relies on this without support.
The Thomson-Reuters dataset is incomplete and features various other inaccuracies.
“The Thomson-Reuters dataset is well-known to be incomplete and feature various other inaccuracies.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Capacity pre-commitments typically happen about one year before the flight.
“which typically happen about one year before the flight”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The paper abstracts away from frictions associated with imperfect vertical integration.
“We thus abstract away from frictions associated with imperfect vertical integration(Forbes and Lederman, 2009, 2010).”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > IV Design
“The effect for the average or the four periods is positive and highly statistically significant, with a coefficient of 0.542”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > IV Design
“We use 2010Q1, 2011Q1, 2012Q1, 2013Q1, and 2014Q1 as the post-periods (we follow the literature by using the same quarter as the pre-period to rule out effects of seasonality), and then an average for the five quarters 2010Q1-2014Q1.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > 4.2 Data on Airline Ownership
“To illustrate the extent of common ownership in the present-day US airline industry, we provide the top-10 shareholders and their ownership percentage as of the fourth quarter of 2016 for a sample of airlines in Table 1.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > Table 1: Illustrative Cases of Within-industry Common Ownership Links.
“This table shows the largest (institutional and non-institutional) beneficial owners and corresponding stakes for an illustrative sample of US publicly traded natural competitors as of 2016Q2.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > IV Design
“Specifically, the F-stats from weak identification tests range from 59 to 290.”
§ ANTI-COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP > B.2 Variable Definitions
“F-stat (Weak Identification Test) 316.9 47.58 127.4 75.54 59.82 125”
Citations
Cites
A Survey of Corporate Governance
Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1997) · The Journal of Finance · doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.1997.tb04820.x · Cited by 16,243 · cited 2×
“We also thank several mutual fund managers, a corporate gover-”
The Theory of Industrial Organization
Jean Tirole, Z. (1988) · MIT Press Books · Cited by 8,651
The Structure of Corporate Ownership: Causes and Consequences
Demsetz, H., & Lehn, K. (1985) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/261354 · Cited by 6,736 · cited 2×
“2Possibly because institutional ownership in 1976 was relatively low and rarely created meaningful common ownership links (Demsetz and Lehn, 1985; Demsetz, 1986), the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 allows institutional investors to hold and exercise up to 15% of voting…”
The ultimate ownership of Western European corporations
Faccio, M., & Lang, L. H. P. (2002) · Journal of Financial Economics · doi:10.1016/s0304-405x(02)00146-0 · Cited by 3,797 · cited 1×
“…contrast, it is an open empirical question with important policy implications whether common ownership that is attained by partial acquisitions of firms by large asset management companies that require no regulatory approval also decreases competitiveness of the product market in significant ways.”
BackgroundEnjoying the Quiet Life? Corporate Governance and Managerial Preferences
Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2003) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/376950 · Cited by 3,777
Institutional Investors and Executive Compensation
Hartzell, J. C., & Starks, L. T. (2003) · The Journal of Finance · doi:10.1046/j.1540-6261.2003.00608.x · Cited by 2,014 · cited 2×
“Following Hartzell and Starks (2003), we include the share of institutional ownership, institutional ownership concentration (measured as the HHI of the institutional ownership shares), and the fraction of total institutional ownership that is owned by the top five institutional owners in the firm.”
BackgroundMonitoring: Which institutions matter?
Chen, X., Harford, J., & Li, K. (2007) · Journal of Financial Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jfineco.2006.09.005 · Cited by 1,843
Internal Capital Markets and the Competition for Corporate Resources
Stein, J. C. (1997) · The Journal of Finance · doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.1997.tb03810.x · Cited by 1,780 · cited 1×
“Therefore, an improvement in firm-level monitoring due to common ownership by diversified institutional investors (Edmans, Levit, and Reilly, 2014) or internal capital markets (Stein, 1997) cannot explain the results.”
Are CEOs Rewarded for Luck? The Ones Without Principals Are
Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2001) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/00335530152466269 · Cited by 1,740 · cited 4×
“fired (Taylor, 2010), CEO pay (Bertrand and Mullainathan, 2001) and turnover (Eisfeldt and Kuhnen, 2013; Jenter and Kanaan, forthcoming) in industrial firms is known to depend not only on individual firm performance but also on industry performance. Such schemes are consistent with the incentives of shareholders that…”
InfluentialQuantity precommitment and Bertrand competition yield Cournot outcomes
Kreps, D. M., & Scheinkman, J. A. (1989) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511528231.014 · Cited by 1,651
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- BlackRock 2011 Corporate governance and responsible investment at BlackRock Annual Review. Available athttps://www.blackrock.com/corporate/literature/fact‐sheet/blk‐responsible‐investment‐report‐2011.pdf.
- Bolle Friedel, 1992, Competition among mutually dependent sellers, Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE)/Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft, 148, 209
- International Air Transport Association (IATA) 2015 Airline profitability strengthens further IATA Press Release p. 1. Available athttp://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/Pages/2015-06-08-03.aspx.
- Margotta Donald, 2010, Adolf Berle and revolution in the modern corporation, Business Review, 15, 62
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The effects of financial reporting and disclosure on corporate investment: A review
Roychowdhury, S., Shroff, N., & Verdi, R. S. (2019) · Journal of Accounting and Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jacceco.2019.101246 · Cited by 749
“55 In fact, a rapidly growing body of research finds that when a firm’s investors simultaneously own significant stakes in its competitors, managers are incentivized to reduce investment, increase disclosure and become less competitive (e.g., He and Huang, 2017; Azar et al., 2018; Park et al., 2019).”
BackgroundSocially responsible corporate customers
Dai, R., Liang, H., & Ng, L. (2020) · Journal of Financial Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jfineco.2020.01.003 · Cited by 690
The Big Three and corporate carbon emissions around the world
Azar, J., Duro, M., Kadach, I., & Ormazábal, G. (2021) · Journal of Financial Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jfineco.2021.05.007 · Cited by 667
Self-citationInternalizing governance externalities: The role of institutional cross-ownership
He, J., Huang, J.-K., & Zhao, S. (2019) · Journal of Financial Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jfineco.2018.07.019 · Cited by 360
Are institutional investors with multiple blockholdings effective monitors?
Kang, J., Luo, J., & Na, H. S. (2018) · Journal of Financial Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jfineco.2018.03.005 · Cited by 412
Metadata
- Authors
- AZAR, J., SCHMALZ, M. C., & TECU, I.
- Affiliations
- University of Michigan (US)
- American Bar Association (US)
- Venue
- The Journal of Finance
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2018-08
- Volume
- 73
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1513-1565
- ISSN
- 0022-1082 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-6261
- OpenAlex
- W2887416572
- Cited by
- 980
- References
- 159
- Citations by year
- 2026: 124 · 2025: 183 · 2024: 145 · 2023: 109 · 2022: 90 · 2021: 98 · 2020: 91 · 2019: 72 · 2018: 43
- FWCI
- 222.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.iese.edu
- Licence
- Locations
- The Journal of Finance (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion, public-domain)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Finance › Corporate Finance and Governance
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Merger and Competition Analysis
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Finance › Financial Markets and Investment Strategies
- Keywords
- collective ownership, institutional investors, competition law, market concentration, airline industry, ticket prices, asset managers, diversification, corporate governance, product market competition
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
