So I was waiting for @nberpubs to tweet this out last week (which happened Friday pm). Anyway, here is my paper with @msinkinson and Matt Backus, where we test the common ownership hypothesis in RTE Cereal. Methodology Thread for #econtwitter: 1/ chrisconlon.github.io/site/bcs_cerea…
Classic IO question (back to Bresnahan's "rotations of demand") is to look at data on prices and quantitiy and figure out if firms are setting prices consistent w/ Cournot, Bertrand, Perfect Competition, Monopoly, Common Owners. This is harder than it looks to get right 2/
Recent work by @steventberry and @philhaile shows that we can nonparametrically identify conduct using exclusion restrictions (essentially variables that should NOT be correlated with costs - ie: ones that move marginal revenue instead). 3/ onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.398…
In practice we compare two different models of competition implying different markups and look at violations of moment conditions. We show the key input is the markup difference between two models (monopoly and Bertrand, etc.) 4/
We develop a simple (semi-parametric test). First predict mc=price-markup using determinants of costs for each product, and get the residual. This can be done flexibly h(*) and we use random forests. This avoids "is this log? linear? or exponential?"" 5/
Second we predict the markup difference between any pair of models using all features of all products in the market. (Why? Markups depend on supply and demand shocks for everyone's products). Here, nonparametrics/random forests matter a lot. 6/
Then we can just test to see if our predicted markup difference is correlated with our cost residual. When it is, it means we probably have the wrong model of price setting (bc your cost is correlated with things it shouldn't be!) 7/
We then try this for different sets of instruments: commodity price of corn for Rice Krispies, and rice for Corn Flakes, consumer demographics (which affect demand but not cost), "BLP instruments", and the Chamberlain 98 demand optimal IV and different markups. 8/
The punchline is that the usual linear specification of MC is sensitive to the choice of IV restrictions while the semiparametric (random forest) version is not. The demand optimal IV also perform well with or without the semiparametrics which is neat. 9/
The reason we chose cereal (besides the obvious: that's what IO economists do) is that there is a lot of variation in the degree of common ownership across firms and over time. 2/11
For example Kellogg's is 20% owned by a family foundation and is basically indifferent to competitor's profits (weight < 0.2), and should be a strong competitor (turns out it is a high price, high margin firm). Common ownership can be highly asymmetric. (GIS weights KEL ~0.5) 3/
A quick thread about current issues around markups. Many people have seen this figure, but there is still a lot of discussion around what it "means". Estimated markups appear to be rising but we aren't really sure why. 1/
More innocuous explanations include accounting and measurement issues: transforming variable costs into fixed costs (either for tax or technology purposes), selection effects (low margin manufacturers move overseas leaving higher margin firms in US), etc 2/
Also striking is that while markups appear to have risen, in most manufactured goods (particularly "high technology" goods) prices have declined in quality adjusted terms. This story implies that costs are falling more rapidly than prices, again but why? 3/
So @nirupama_rao and I are finally in print. We look at why alcohol taxes are often "overshifted" so that $1 of tax leads to >$1 of price increase. Originally we thought PTR > 1 was an artifact of limited data from some weird tax increases in the 90's (Alaska?) ... 1/9
But when we ran the usual 2WFE regression we got PT >1 and for some products closer to 3 [oops!].The typical explanation for overshifting in the literature is "something something market power", but it turns out you need some very strange demand curves to get PTR=3 2/9
If cost shocks are smoothly transmitted into prices then PTR should be constant across products, but it is much higher for products whose prices change. In fact when you plot those PTR against tax changes they seem to suggest price changes are almost exactly $1 or $2 3/9