Dollar Store Merger Attracts Anti-Trust Regulators. Really?

Government's role with dollar stores should be guarding against the value of the dollar, not larger dollar store companies


There's a dollar store down at the end of the street on which I live. I sometimes shop there. So I've been following the three-way corporate merger drama among Dollar General, Family Dollar, and Dollar Tree with more than merely ideological interest. 

In case you've been away on vacation or skipping the business pages of the newspaper, here's a quick summary of the state of play: Back in July, Dollar Tree announced a bid to take over Family Dollar for $74.50 a share in cash and stock, or about $8.5 billion. Last week, Family Dollar rejected an all-cash offer from Dollar General at $78.50 a share, or about $9 billion.

What strikes me about the whole thing is the role that the U.S. government seems to be playing in depriving the owners of Family Dollar of the extra half-billion dollars (though some of that half-billion would go toward paying a "breakup fee" to Dollar Tree).

As a New York Times news article about the situation put it, "Though it may seem strange for a would-be seller to spurn a higher-priced offer," a sale to Dollar General, the market leader, "would pose serious risk of rejection from antitrust regulators."

The Times went on, "The gap between the two companies may not be unbridgeable. Family Dollar is still demanding stronger protections against antitrust risk from its bigger competitor, according to a person briefed on the matter. Among those may be a so-called hell or high water provision that would compel Dollar General to do whatever is necessary, including divesting more stores, to satisfy regulators."

I chuckled at the concept of a "hell or high water provision." But as a customer, I laughed, too, at the idea that government antitrust regulators are needed to protect me from a merger of dollar-store parent companies. What am I being protected against? The risk that the dollar store company will use its newly enlarged market clout to negotiate better terms from its suppliers, thus saving customers like me even more money? 

Seriously, the risk to consumers in antitrust regulation seems to be that a firm might get so large it could use its monopoly power to charge consumers extortionately high prices. But the stores don't sell admission for the dollar store experience. They sell merchandise, pretty much all of which is widely available elsewhere. The dollar store at the end of my street sells cleaning supplies — but so do a CVS, a Walgreen's, and a supermarket within walking distance. The dollar store sells gardening supplies, batteries, and lightbulbs — but so do the hardware store across the street and a Home Depot a couple of miles away. Many of the goods are also available online from Amazon or other retailers, or at Walmart or Costco.

One product that the dollar store sells — cigarettes — isn't available at the CVS a block away only because CVS caved to government pressure to stop tobacco sales at drugstores. And anyway, if the government wanted to reduce cigarette prices, the way to do it wouldn't be more aggressive antitrust enforcement against retailers, but a rollback of taxes, which can total $7 or $8 a pack.

If there is some product that a newly merged and enlarged dollar store firm can jack up the prices on, there's little to stop some new dollar store firm from entering the market with lower prices. It's not like cellphones, where there's a limited amount of spectrum bandwith, or like medicine, where drugs have patent protection. The barriers to entry in the dollar store business are low. 

It's possible that the whole antitrust issue is just a red herring promoted by Family Dollar management, which, Family Dollar shareholder Carl Icahn suggests, has a better shot at a future role in a deal with Dollar Tree than with Dollar General. But if the government is really spending time and money trying to manage the market for dollar stores, it just shows how impenetrably complex and absurd antitrust regulation has become.

Why, even the sage of Omaha, the sainted Warren Buffett, was caught out earlier this month missing a filing deadline. His company, Berkshire Hathaway, had to pay an $896,000 civil penalty for "failure to comply with the premerger reporting and waiting requirements of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act," a 1976 antitrust law.

If there's a role for the government in the dollar store business, it involves guarding the value of the dollar itself. That's a responsibility that Congress is given in the Constitution, and it is one that it has failed so miserably at that most of the items for sale at the "dollar store" cost more than a dollar. In other words, if there are to be any regulators concerned with the prices at the dollar store, the ones who should be on their toes are the ones at the Federal Reserve, not the antitrust division of the Department of Justice or the Federal Trade Commission. 

Ira Stoll is editor of and author of JFK, Conservative.


NEXT: Ukraine's President Dissolves Parliament, Calls for New Elections

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Sorry to be pedantic, but, despite the name, “Family Dollar” isn’t a “Dollar Store”, they’re more in the class of stores with CVS, but without a pharmacy.

    1. True plus there more of their store fronts then starbucks across the country.

  2. These stores bestride rural America like a colossus.

  3. In rural Texas north of Houston it’s either a fairly long drive to Walmart, Home Depot, etc, or a short drive to the DG or Family Dollar. If DG and Family Dollar merge then I expect prices will go up because there will be less competition. The government probably shouldn’t get involved since, like Milton might have said, they’ll cause prices to go up in the interest of keeping them down.

    BTW I like seeing DG bringing it to Walmart by making stores like Walmart used to have before they started building the giant stores of today.

    1. That’s the assumption anyway. But it’s funny how, if the Feds get their share, mergers tend to get green light-ed anyway. Of course, it’s green lit with provisos, typically oversight by the justice department. It’s the brick and mortar of the corporo-fascistic monstrosity we know and hate.

  4. I’ll buy THAT for a dollar!

  5. To emphasize the point that the “dollar” stores are in competition with other giant retailers (and not just each other), see the problem WalMart, Target, and Toy’s R Us had with a price-matching guarantee vis a vis Dollar General:…..1406135415

    And just last night I saw a commercial where WalMart was comparing their price for a basket of goods versus one of the “dollar” stores (I forget which one).

  6. “What am I being protected against? The risk that the dollar store company will use its newly enlarged market clout to negotiate better terms from its suppliers, thus saving customers like me even more money?”

    Without opining on the merits of such a review the answer is yes. The FTC reviews mergers to prevent monopsonies (oligopsonies?), where a firm achieves a dominant position as a buyer of goods.

    Any Dollar combination is not going to create a monopsony in the products they sell; as you note, they are also available elsewhere. But in the submarket for odd lots, near-expired items, merchandise purchases from non manufacturers (primarily failed retailers and retailers who have made a buying mistake) and the like it could be that Family Dollar General would increase its monopsony power.

    Directly, so what? As a consumer one might not immediately care if poor Proctor and Gamble has to accept a lower price for that huge warehouse of Crest printed in Spanish that they couldn’t sell at full retail or if the bankruptcy trustee of the next Dart Drugs gets a lower price for shelves and shelves of soon-to-be-banned bug spray.

    But indirectly in the longer run the P&Gs; of the world bake a guessed return for the kinds of stuff that often ends up in Dollar stores and if that guessed return were to fall significantly they would be pressured to bake some additional return into the full retail price.

    1. As a libertarian one might still say “so what?” That’s what I say. But the law says differently. As a believer in the rule of law I would prefer that the executive enforce the laws that Congress has passed, not the ones I wish they would pass. So while I believe that a review would survive FTC scrutiny with fewer changes than Family Dollar apparently believes, I think that a review is called for.

      1. So you are a believer in the rule of stupid law. Therefore, you can be ignored.

        1. You know, I was wondering what made President Obama think he could get away with only enforcing those laws he personally agreed with. Now I know. It’s you.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.