News at Smith

Fearless Idea 7: Embrace Competition

Mar 07, 2017
World Class Faculty & Research

Comments

SMITH BRAIN TRUST — People who study financial economics regularly assume that the markets in which firms sell their products are perfectly competitive, or alternatively that firms operate in isolation. This all-or-nothing thinking is unrealistic.

Nobody has a corner on the pharmaceuticals, petroleum or search engine markets, for example. But companies like Johnson & Johnson, ExxonMobil and Google have few serious rivals. “The most prominent public firms in the United States usually operate in industries that are oligopolies,” says M. Cecilia Bustamante, a finance professor at the University of Maryland’s Robert H. Smith School of Business.

In a forthcoming paper with Andres Donangelo, a finance professor at the University of Texas at Austin, she explores whether the degree of competition in which firms operate has any impact on their asset prices. “In finance when we refer to asset prices, we actually refer to two related concepts,” Bustamante says. “First is valuation, the market value of the assets of a firm, and second is expected returns.”

The expected return of a firm is computed as the percentage change in asset value from one period to the next, and more intuitively considers the reward captured by a firm's investors for their exposure to systematic risk while holding stock of such firm.

Two questions emerge: To what extent does the degree of competition in a firms' product market affect its value? And how does competition affect a firm's exposure to systematic risk? “Our paper answers these questions both theoretically, using a mathematical model, and empirically based on U.S. data,” Bustamante says. 

The answer on firm value is fairly simple: “Competition destroys firm value since higher competition reduces firms’ operating margins and their future growth prospects,” Bustamante says.

The findings on how competition interacts with firms’ expected returns or exposure to systematic risk are less obvious and hence the key contribution of the paper.

“Many people would argue that firms in more competitive industries are riskier,” Bustamante says. “Naturally, competition reduces a firms’ operating profits, making the firm is less capable of buffering adverse shocks and hence riskier.” This is one prediction in the proposed model and observable in the data.

“However, our paper shows that there exists two other effects that go in the opposite direction, which in the end are stronger in our empirical analysis,” Bustamante says. “On one hand, firms in less competitive industries are riskier because they are exposed to larger fluctuations in their expected profits. Intuitively, when demand is high, firms with large market power generate large profits, and yet when demand falls these firms also bear the costs of excess capacity on their own.”

On the other hand, the analysis proves that more risky cash flows act as a barrier to entry. “Investors demand higher compensation for risk in riskier industries, and this by itself results in less entry of new firms and hence lower competition,” Bustamante says. “We conclude that although competition is bad because it destroys value, it is also safer.”

Read more: “Product Market Competition and Industry Returns” is forthcoming at the Review of Financial Studies and available on Bustamante’s website.

M. Cecilia Bustamante is an assistant professor of finance at the University of Maryland’s Robert H. Smith School of Business.

Research interests: Executive compensation; dynamic corporate finance; industrial organization; asset pricing implications of corporate decisions.

Selected accomplishments: Chosen as one of six finance scholars who presented papers on March 4, 2017, at the inaugural Showcasing Women in Finance series, organized by the Academic Female Finance Committee (AFFECT) of the American Finance Association; papers published in the Journal of Finance, Review of Financial Studies and Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, among others.

About this series: The Smith School faculty is celebrating Women’s History Month 2017 in partnership with ADVANCE, an initiative to transform the University of Maryland by investing in a culture of inclusive excellence. Daily faculty spotlights support activities from the school’s Office of Diversity Initiatives, culminating with the sixth annual Women Leading Women forum on March 30, 2017.

Other fearless ideas from: Rajshree Agarwal  |  Ritu Agarwal  |  Leigh Anenson  |  Kathryn M. Bartol  |  Christine Beckman  |  Margrét Bjarnadóttir  |  M. Cecilia Bustamante  |  Rellie Derfler-Rozin  |  Waverly Ding  |  Wedad J. Elmaghraby  |  Rosellina Ferraro  |  Rebecca Hann  |  Amna Kirmani  |  Hanna Lee  |  Hui Liao  |  Wendy W. Moe  |  Courtney Paulson  |  Louiqa Raschid  |  Rebecca Ratner  |  Rachelle Sampson  |  Debra L. Shapiro  |  Cynthia Kay Stevens  |  M. Susan Taylor  |  Vijaya Venkataramani  |  Janet Wagner  |  Yajin Wang  |  Yajun Wang  |  Liu Yang  |  Jie Zhang  |  Lingling Zhang  |  PhD Candidates

GET SMITH BRAIN TRUST DELIVERED
TO YOUR INBOX EVERY WEEK

SUBSCRIBE NOW

About the University of Maryland's Robert H. Smith School of Business 

The Robert H. Smith School of Business is an internationally recognized leader in management education and research. One of 12 colleges and schools at the University of Maryland, College Park, the Smith School offers undergraduate, full-time and part-time MBA, executive MBA, online MBA, specialty masters, PhD and executive education programs, as well as outreach services to the corporate community. The school offers its degree, custom and certification programs in learning locations in North America and Asia.