8.
According to the Commission, there are no overlaps in the activities of the merging parties, because although both Siemens and Flender
participate in the provision of incomplete drive solutions, they bid for the supply of different product components.
“...Siemens will bid for the supply of drives and electric motors (components) or for a combination of both and [therefore will] compete with other motor and drive suppliers for the tender. Flender will bid for the supply of gears or geared motors (components)
or drive application systems will compete against suppliers in these markets for the tender…”
Vertical Assessment
9.
The transaction does give rise to certain vertical issues, as post merger the merged entity will compete for the provision of a complete
drive solution that requires a combination of various components. Flender is a supplier of gears and drive application systems while
Siemens supplies electric motors and drives. According to the Commission, these are all components that may be required for the production
of the final drive solution.
10.
The Commission identified the following upstream markets: supply of electric motors, gears, geared motors, drives and of industrial
drive applications. The downstream market is the market for the provision of complete drive solutions.
11.
The Commission examined the post merger market shares in the upstream markets and concluded that there would be no risk of reduced
competition in any of the markets concerned because there are alternative sources of supply and the merged entity faced several strong
internationally based competitors. In the downstream market for the provision of complete drive solutions, the Commission considered the characteristics and dynamics
of the market and concluded inter alia that:
♣
The various component markets are highly competitive;
♣
Contracts for the supply of components at all market levels and for the construction of the final drive solution are based on a tender
and bid process - market shares are therefore lumpy and vary depending on which bidder is rewarded the contract;
♣
The specifications and design of the system rests with the customer who will decide on the best bid put forward - Customers therefore
exercise significant countervailing power;
♣
Finally, the merged entity would be a new entrant and would be competing against other fully integrated competitors such as ABB, SEW,
Bearing Man and Alstom.
Conclusion
12.
Having considered the merging parties’ submissions and the Competition Commission’s report, we are satisfied that the
transaction will not substantially prevent or lessen competition in any of the markets identified above. Furthermore there are no
public interest concerns which would alter our view.
13.
We agree with the Commission’s recommendation that the transaction be unconditionally approved.
12 August 2005
N Manoim
Date
Concurring: Y Carrim and T Orleyn
For the merging parties: V Koovejee (Deneys Reitz)
For the Commission: S Nunkoo (Mergers and Acquisitions)
SAFLII:
|
Terms of Use
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACT/2005/53.html