4 ms·

it's illegal if and only if it can be proven that they coordinated their production cut. They all respond to the same changing market conditions -- they can't

it's illegal if and only if it can be proven that they coordinated their production cut. They all respond to the same changing market conditions -- they can't just continue increasing their production when the price continues its downward spiral. Further, the largest producer Samsung hasn't joined the foray yet according to the article. Samsung is a big variable in this -- the company's expansion created the memory glut that drove the whole industry to record loss in 2015-2016. The EU's antitrust authority claims that the automakers "coordinated" strategies to limit competition. This is probably not the case here.

mises 7y ago
It is possible that Samsung will not do so. It's the same problem that would have affected them had they actually colluded: each player has incentive to wait until others have cut production/raised price and maintain their own. Handy way to snap up market share. Every one loves to scream "price fixing!", but it's not easy to do and almost always collapses.
wnevets 7y ago
>This is probably not the case here. Why do we think that? Hasn't these companies and/or industry been caught and fined for illegally coordinating their efforts before?
- tooltalk 7y ago
  Well, one of the reasons is that that's what we've expected all along. When Samsung announced a major expansion in early 2010's, many analysts predicted the price glut in 2015-16 that followed. That memory price glut (and a record loss by all industry participants) in turn discouraged capex by memory makers that resulted in the 2017-18 boom we just witnessed. So now, the windfall during the last boom likewise encouraged higher capex and production increase that is now driving down the price and their bottom line again -- the industry nearly completes a full cycle and is at another trough marked by decrease in capex and production cut. There is really nothing too conspiratorial about this business cycle. Sure, I think every memory makers at one point got caught price-fixing, but you can't just say they are colluding again just because they are all cutting production under unfavorable market condition (ie, lower demand/falling price).
  - wtallis 7y ago
    Another important contributing factor is how well the manufacturers do at getting each generation of NAND to actually work. Samsung's 48L 3D NAND was a relative failure around the same time that their competitors were trying to get their first 3D NANDs working to overcome the limitations of planar NAND. That kicked off a serious shortage, so when almost everybody came out with successful, high-yield 64L 3D NAND around the same time, prices had a long way to fall. The current moves are attempts to ensure that the transition to 96L NAND doesn't continue the price drops.

mises 7y ago

It is possible that Samsung will not do so. It's the same problem that would have affected them had they actually colluded: each player has incentive to wait until others have cut production/raised price and maintain their own. Handy way to snap up market share. Every one loves to scream "price fixing!", but it's not easy to do and almost always collapses.

wnevets 7y ago

>This is probably not the case here. Why do we think that? Hasn't these companies and/or industry been caught and fined for illegally coordinating their efforts before?

tooltalk 7y ago
Well, one of the reasons is that that's what we've expected all along. When Samsung announced a major expansion in early 2010's, many analysts predicted the price glut in 2015-16 that followed. That memory price glut (and a record loss by all industry participants) in turn discouraged capex by memory makers that resulted in the 2017-18 boom we just witnessed. So now, the windfall during the last boom likewise encouraged higher capex and production increase that is now driving down the price and their bottom line again -- the industry nearly completes a full cycle and is at another trough marked by decrease in capex and production cut. There is really nothing too conspiratorial about this business cycle. Sure, I think every memory makers at one point got caught price-fixing, but you can't just say they are colluding again just because they are all cutting production under unfavorable market condition (ie, lower demand/falling price).
- wtallis 7y ago
  Another important contributing factor is how well the manufacturers do at getting each generation of NAND to actually work. Samsung's 48L 3D NAND was a relative failure around the same time that their competitors were trying to get their first 3D NANDs working to overcome the limitations of planar NAND. That kicked off a serious shortage, so when almost everybody came out with successful, high-yield 64L 3D NAND around the same time, prices had a long way to fall. The current moves are attempts to ensure that the transition to 96L NAND doesn't continue the price drops.