IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ids/injbaf/v11y2020i3p361-384.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Market reaction to the European antitrust investigations in the payment card industry

Author

Listed:
  • Francesca Battaglia
  • Lucia Leonelli
  • Ornella Ricci

Abstract

This paper aims to analyse the stock price reaction of European banks involved in antitrust authority interventions regarding the payment card business. The main objective is to assess whether market discipline is effective and able to complement regulation (Berger et al., 2000) despite the opacity of the business (Morgan, 2002). To this end, we collect all interventions made by both domestic antitrust authorities and by the European Commission to investigate and/or sanction anticompetitive behaviour in the payment card sector over the period 2004-2015. This results in a sample of 24 events, involving 135 listed banks operating in the EU-27 area. We run an event study analysis based on a traditional market model in order to estimate cumulated abnormal returns (CARs), considering both the date when the formal investigation is open and the date when the outcome of the procedure is communicated to the market. Our findings provide weak evidence in favour of the effectiveness of market discipline, with a significant (negative) market reaction only for investigations involving a small number of well-identified banking institutions, while procedures involving large banking associations or payment networks do not generate any relevant reaction.

Suggested Citation

  • Francesca Battaglia & Lucia Leonelli & Ornella Ricci, 2020. "Market reaction to the European antitrust investigations in the payment card industry," International Journal of Banking, Accounting and Finance, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 11(3), pages 361-384.
  • Handle: RePEc:ids:injbaf:v:11:y:2020:i:3:p:361-384
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.inderscience.com/link.php?id=107949
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ids:injbaf:v:11:y:2020:i:3:p:361-384. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sarah Parker (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=277 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.