|
Dresden (pressrelations) - Neue Studie besagt: Intel hat seit 1996 Monopolgewinne von rund 60 Mrd. US-$ erzielt
- Weitere Ergebnisse belegen, daß Endverbraucher und Computerhersteller bei einem für Wettbewerb offenen Prozessormarkt über 80 Mrd. US-$ gewinnen könnten -
Sunnyvale, Ca. -- 2. August 2007 --Eine betriebswirtschaftliche Studie, die heute von Dr. Michael A. Williams, Director der ERS Group, herausgegeben wurde, besagt, Intel habe im Zeitraum 1996 bis 2006 mit Mikroprozessorumsätzen Monopolgewinne von über 60 Mrd. US-$ erzielt. Die Analyse von Dr. Williams erklärt, warum wettbewerbsfreundliche Begründungen für Intels Monopolgewinne unglaubwürdig sind.
Williams stellt in seiner Studie außerdem fest, dass Endverbraucher und Computerhersteller im Verlauf des nächsten Jahrzehnts über 80 Mrd. US-$ gewinnen könnten, falls sich der Mikroprozessormarkt dem Wettbewerb öffnet. Die Analyse erwähnt ferner, dass Endverbraucher in diesem Zeitraum mindestens 61 Mrd. US-$ und Computerhersteller weitere 20 Mrd. US-$ sparen würden. Somit könnten Computerunternehmen ihre Investitionen in Forschung und Entwicklung aufstocken, verbesserte Produkte entwickeln, Endverbrauchern eine größere Produktvielfalt anbieten und Computerkäufern in der ganzen Welt zusätzliche Innovationsvorteile verschaffen.
Die ERS Group ist eine Wirtschafts- und Finanzberatungsfirma, die mit AMDs externem Beratungsbüro O'Melveny Myers LLP zusammenarbeitet.
Dr. Williams sagte: “Intel hat im vergangenen Jahrzehnt Monopolgewinne in Höhe von 60 Mrd. US-$ erzielt. In der nächsten Dekade könnten Endverbraucher und Computerhersteller bei einem für Wettbewerb völlig offenen Markt über 80 Mrd. US-$ sparen.“
Williams weiter: “Angesichts der vor kurzem von der Europäischen Kommission getroffenen Entscheidung und früheren Maßnahmen der japanischen Wettbewerbskommission befasst sich die Analyse nicht damit, ob Intel wettbewerbsfeindlich gehandelt hat, sondern konzentriert sich darauf, wieviel Intel durch seine angebliche Handlungsweise gewonnen hat.“
Thomas M. McCoy, AMDs Executive Vice President, Legal Affairs und Chief Administrative Officer, stellte fest: “Intels Monopolgewinne von 60 Mrd. US-$ widersprechen Intels Aussage, seine Geschäftspraktiken hätten zu niedrigeren Preisen geführt. Vielmehr zeigt diese Studie, dass Milliarden von Dollars aus den Taschen der Verbraucher in Intels Monopolkasse gewandert seien.“
McCoy weiter: “Diese 80 Milliarden US-$ entsprechen einer Intel Monopolsteuer, die alle Endverbraucher beim Kauf eines Computers bezahlen müssen. Dies ist eine atemberaubend hohe Summe, die hilft zu erklären, warum die Europäische Kommission kartellrechtliche Klagen gegen Intel erhoben hat und sich damit dem echten Schaden widmet, der dem Wettbewerb und den Endverbrauchern durch Missbrauch einer Monopolmacht entsteht.
Anbei eine Zusammenfassung der Studie in englischer Sprache:
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.
Über AMD
Advanced Micro Devices (NYSE:AMD) ist ein führender, global tätiger Hersteller von innovativen Prozessoren für die Computing-, Grafik- und Consumer Electronics-Märkte.
AMD steht für das Vorantreiben von Innovationen, Wahlfreiheit und Wachstum in der Computerindustrie. Durch überlegene Produkte, die die Bedürfnisse der Kunden in den Mittelpunkt stellen, will AMD Privat- und Geschäftskunden weltweit in ihrer Position stärken. Weitere Informationen: www.amd.com.
Advanced Micro Devices GmbH AMD GmbH Karl-Hammerschmidt-Str. 34 85609 Dornach b. München Germany Tel: +49 89 45053 199 Fax: +44 1276 803277 Email: tech.support@amd.com
 |
