 |
|
|
|
|
エコノミストの最新の経済分析によると、1996年以降にインテルが享受した市場独占
による利益は600億ドル以上と判明
− また、マイクロプロセッサ市場が完全な自由競争市場であった場合、
消費者とPCメーカが享受できる利益は800億ドル以上に上ることも判明 −
-- 2007年8月2日 -- このプレスリリースは、米国サニーベール8月2日発英文リリースの要訳です。
ERS GroupのディレクターであるMichael A. Williams博士が本日発表した最新の経済分析結果報告書によると、1996～2006年の期間に行われたマイクロプロセッサの製造販売市場において、インテルが享受した市場独占による利益は600億ドル以上に上ることが判明しました。
また、同報告書によると、マイクロプロセッサの製造販売市場で、完全な自由競争が行われた場合には、消費者今後10年間で享受できる利益は610億ドル以上に、PCメーカが享受できる利益は200億ドルに上り、両者をあわせると800億ドル以上になることが判明しました。
AMDのThomas M. McCoy（トマス・マッコイ、法務担当エグゼクティブ・バイス・プレジデント兼最高総務責任者）は次のように述べています。「市場を独占することによりインテルが享受してきた利益が600億ドルにも上るという分析結果は、インテルのビジネスによって低価格化がもたらされ、消費者の利益が増大したとする同社の主張とまさに矛盾するものです。」
McCoyは次のように続けています。「この800億ドルという数字は、インテルが市場を独占してきた結果、PCを購入する全ての消費者が不当に背負わされることになった負担に他なりません。この驚くべき数字は、日本の公正取引委員会がインテル日本法人に対して行った排除勧告の理由を説明するだけでなく、今回欧州委員会がインテルに対して欧州競争法違反容疑事実を告知した理由をも説明するものです。市場支配力を濫用したインテルの行為は、競争事業者と消費者に大きな損害をもたらすものなのです。」
Michael Williams博士とERS Groupについて：
ERS Groupは、複雑なビジネス訴訟の分析を専門とする経済・金融分野のコンサルティング企業です。Fortune 500企業を含む3,000以上のクライアント、法律事務所、大学、業界団体、政府機関が、多数の業界に関わるさまざまな案件でERS Groupのプロフェッショナルを活用しています。
Michael Williams博士（Ph.D.）は、ERS Groupのディレクターです。独占禁止、業界団体、規制を専門としています。米国司法省（DOJ）反トラスト局のエコノミストとして、あるいはコンサルタントとして、独占、価格操作、拘束的協定など、独占禁止と規制に関わる諸問題について専門家としての調査や証言を行っています。過去には、エクソンとモービル、BP AmocoとArcoの合併案などの案件や、連邦取引委員会（FTC）とランバスの間で、あるいは米国をはじめとする各国とオラクルの間で行われた訴訟案件で、DOJやFTCの顧問を務めた経験を持ちます。経済学のPh.D.は、シカゴ大学で取得したものです。今年は、単一企業の行動を支配する独占禁止規則の今後をテーマとしたDOJとFTCの共同調査の一環で、供述書を提出しました。
AMDについて:
AMD（NYSE:AMD）は、コンピュータ業界、グラフィックス、家電業界向けに革新的なプロセッシング・ソリューションを提供するグローバル・プロバイダです。AMDは、世界中のコンシューマおよびビジネス分野のお客様を支援する、徹底したお客様中心主義の理念に基づくソリューションを提供します。それにより、オープンな技術革新の促進、選択肢の拡大、さらに業界の発展に向けて努力します。日本AMD株式会社は、AMDの日本法人です。詳細については、www.amd.com（英語）または http://www.amd.co.jp（日本語）をご覧ください。
A Quantification of Intel’s Historical Monopoly Profits from the Sale of Microprocessors and a Projection of Future Consumer and Computer Manufacturing Gains in a Fully Competitive Marketplace
A report by Dr. Michael A. Williams, Director, ERS Group
KEY STUDY FINDINGS:
- Intel extracted monopoly profits from the sale of microprocessors of approximately $60 billion in the period 1996 - 2006.
- Pro-competitive explanations for Intel’s $60 billion in monopoly profits are implausible for the following reasons:
- Recent European Commission charges and prior findings from the Japan Fair Trade Commission;
- The rarity of firms that achieved a 16-percent or more economic return;
- An examination of strong companies that have much lower economic returns, including Pfizer, Wyeth, ExxonMobil Corp., and Target;
- Intel’s reported losses on its non-microprocessor businesses, showing that Intel lacks sustained, competitive advantages from brand-name loyalty and other factors;
- Negative average economic returns earned by other semiconductor companies.
- Consumers and computer manufacturers would conservatively gain approximately $81 billion in the next decade from full competition in the microprocessor market.
- Consumers, including both home and business users, would save at least $61 billion.
- Computer manufacturers are projected to save at least another $20 billion over the next 10 years.
- That represents a consumer savings of approximately 1.5% off the retail price of a $1,000 high-performance desktop computer in a fully competitive market.
- Computer manufacturer savings would result in: (1) increased research and development, (2) greater product variability, and (3) further innovation, providing additional benefits to computer buyers.
Monopoly Profits
- Intel’s economic return on its microprocessor business was calculated using publicly available information and standard economic methodology. The method begins with standard financial statements and derives from them the information necessary to calculate a firm’s economic profits. It is based on Nobel Prize-winning research conducted by Merton Miller and Franco Modigliani and used by more than half the Fortune 1,000 firms to analyze their economic performance; Wall Street investment banks to assess potential investments; and leading management consulting firms, such as McKinsey & Co. and Stern Stewart & Co.
|
Intel’s Total Profits (total return 25.95%) | $141.8 billion |
| Competitive Profits (cost of capital 9.94%) | - 54.2 billion |
| Result: Economic Profits (economic return 16.01%) | $87.7 billion |
| Portion of Economic Profits Attributed to Assumed Advantages (5.0%) | - $27.3 billion |
| Result: Monopoly Profits (11.01%) | = $60.4 billion |
|
- Intel’s economic profit ($88 billion) was calculated by first determining total profits ($142 billion) and subtracting from that value its cost of capital ($54 billion—which includes a normal profit), resulting in economic profits of $88 billion.
- Intel’s economic profit margin of 16-percent (the $88 billion) stands in stark contrast to the economic returns of 498 other public companies examined. Like Intel, they had capital of $1 billion or more in 1996. Of these companies, the average economic return was less than one percent. Intel earned an economic return higher than 99-percent of these large companies, including companies with strong brands, research and development, or intellectual property rights, such as Pfizer, Wyeth, ExxonMobil Corp., and Target.
- Only four companies earned economic returns of 16 percent or more – Microsoft (38.25%), UST Inc. (28.54%), Coca-Cola Co. (16.58%), and Intel (16.01%) – and each of these companies has been associated with antitrust determinations. Of course, high economic returns by themselves do not demonstrate anticompetitive conduct.
- To be conservative, the study next provided Intel with a generous assumption that 5 percentage points ($28 billion) of its economic return were attributable to legitimate advantages. That left the $60 billion monopoly profit figure.
Consumer and Computer Manufacturer Savings
- The calculation of future consumer and computer manufacturer gains employed four conservative assumptions:
- Intel’s price premiums would fall by 50% over five years; price premiums were calculated by comparing Intel products with their AMD counterparts.
- AMD’s market share of units sold would rise from 27% to 35% over five years.
- Total industry sales would grow at only half the historical growth rates.
- OEMs would pass-through 75% of cost savings to computer buyers.
- Data from 2Q2006 through 1Q2007 were used as the basis for projecting consumer benefits from increased competition over 10 years.
- Consumer benefits for 2012-2016 set equal to benefits in 2011.
- As an example of consumer savings on a specific computer purchase, the study notes that consumers would save more than 1.5 percent off the cost of a $1,000 performance desktop computer.
| Intel microprocessor ASP – 2006 | $121.12 |
| Intel microprocessor ASP – 2011 (projected) |
- $101.30 |
| Total price reduction for computer manufacturer: | $19.82 (16 percent less) |
| Savings passed on to consumer: |
75% |
| Total consumer savings per computer: |
$14.87, or 1.5% of a $1000
performance desktop computer |
|
About Dr. Michael A. Williams and ERS Group
- ERS Group is an economic and financial consulting firm that specializes in analyses for complex business litigation. Over 3,000 clients, including Fortune 500 companies, law firms, universities, industry trade associations and government agencies, have retained ERS Group professionals in a wide variety of cases involving numerous industries.
- The ERS Group, an economic and financial consulting firm retained by AMD's outside counsel, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, specializes in analyses for complex business litigation.
- Michael Williams, Ph.D. is a Director of ERS Group. He specializes in antitrust, industrial organization, and regulation. As an economist in the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice and as a consultant, he has examined and provided expert testimony on a variety of antitrust and regulatory issues, including monopolization, price fixing, and tying arrangements.
- Williams has served as a consultant to the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission in such matters as the proposed mergers of Exxon and Mobil, BP Amoco and ARCO, and in litigated matters such as FTC v. Rambus and U.S. et al. v. Oracle. His Ph.D. in economics is from the University of Chicago. He presented testimony this year as part of the joint DOJ-FTC hearings on the future of the antitrust principles governing single-firm conduct.
|
|
|
|
|
