According to the Voice of the Economy, Yangguang Finance Review, the National Development and Reform Commission sounded anti-monopoly alerts last summer. The market has been waiting for the answer: Which companies in the auto industry will fall under the gun? Now, the situation is becoming clearer, and the monopolistic behavior of Audi and Chrysler has been determined and will be punished. Yesterday, the anti-monopoly investigation for the automotive industry once again showed the sword, this time, pointing to the luxury car brand Mercedes-Benz. hisense , https://www.hisensegroups.com
The National Development and Reform Commission anti-monopoly investigation team yesterday raided the Mercedes-Benz Shanghai office, several executives were interviewed, and several computers were inspected. Previously, the anti-monopoly branch of the Jiangsu Provincial Price Bureau had conducted anti-monopoly investigations on Mercedes-Benz dealers in five cities including Suzhou, Wuxi and Danyang.
Just the day before the NDRC investigated Mercedes-Benz, Mercedes-Benz just announced that it would actively reduce the price of parts and components in China, with an average drop of 15%. Not a month ago, Mercedes-Benz drove down the price of maintenance services, with an average drop of 20%. But it turns out that price cuts have not worked for antitrust investigations. Whether Mercedes-Benz has a monopolistic behavior is currently in the process of investigating evidence. The National Development and Reform Commission frequently showed the anti-monopoly "killer", which fully explained the strong determination to break the "hidden rules" of luxury brand prices and let the market speak.
For ordinary consumers, “zero ratio†may be a relatively unfamiliar concept. “Zero ratio†refers to the ratio of the retail price of all the auto parts of the whole vehicle to the sales price of the whole vehicle. According to the standards prevailing in the global automotive industry, the total price of auto parts and vehicle sales is 300%, which means that after removing various costs, the overall profit of parts and components is less than 200%. However, the proportion of domestic luxury car brands usually exceeds 400%. China Insurance Industry Association and China Automobile Maintenance Association jointly released 18 major models of "automobile parts zero ratio" and "50 items of vulnerable parts zero ratio" two important factors show that Mercedes-Benz C-class W204 models with a percentage The coefficient of 1273 reached the top and shocked the market. The monopolistic behavior of imported automakers, we can know a little from the mouth of Qiao Yongfeng, the secretary general of China Auto Auto Accessories Industry Association.
Qiao Yongfeng: Not only does it monopolize the whole vehicle, it is also a monopoly on parts and components. The old 4S shop is expensive, not expensive. If it is expensive, it can only increase the price. It has an agreement, and it promises when signing. How many parts are sold and how many parts are sold, which is how many parts you have to enter.
Wang Xiaotong, an expert on the Anti-monopoly Committee of the State Council, interpreted this.
The voice of the economy: From Qualcomm, to Audi, Chrysler, to the luxury car brand Mercedes-Benz involved in anti-monopoly investigations, the National Development and Reform Commission's anti-monopoly investigation has recently been frequently shot and the results are quite fruitful, people can not help but sigh the current anti-monopoly. How do you evaluate the recent anti-monopoly initiatives? In the future, will anti-monopoly form the norm?
Wang Xiaotong: Our investigation of this anti-monopoly law is very normal now. The first is the environment of our country. Everyone knows that our country's economic system has been going for more than 30 years. The direction of our economic system is marketization. In order to market, there must be competition; if there is competition, there will be some unfair competition or restrictions on competition. In this case, the relevant government departments should pay close attention to this issue. Therefore, the State Council issued a No. 20 document in July to promote fair competition in the market and maintain the normal order of the market. This is closely related to our investigation of anti-monopoly law.
Secondly, we have been practicing anti-monopoly for six years. In the past six years, anti-monopoly law enforcement agencies have gained more and more anti-monopoly propaganda and law enforcement experience. Enterprises in our society and consumers are also educated by anti-monopoly law. When they encounter these unfair competitions or restrict competition, they will go to the anti-monopoly law enforcement agencies to make complaints. Therefore, the investigation of anti-monopoly law enforcement is now more and more, and it is very normal. In this respect, I want to explain a problem. Now, the anti-monopoly law enforcement agencies are targeting Qualcomm, and the Industry and Commerce Bureau has proposed to investigate Microsoft. There are some investigations of Mercedes-Benz, and some people say that you are China. Whether the anti-monopoly law enforcement agency is targeting the investigation of multinational corporations, I think this kind of understanding is wrong.
Because everyone has to look at our anti-monopoly law enforcement agencies, especially the National Development and Reform Commission, the Trade and Industry Bureau, and the Ministry of Commerce, they have anti-monopoly law enforcement. There are many domestic enterprises, but also large state-owned enterprises, such as China Telecom, China Unicom, and Maotai Wuliangye. survey. Therefore, for Qualcomm, Mercedes-Benz or Microsoft, this is also very normal. An important stipulation of our anti-monopoly law is to prohibit the abuse of market dominance, because many of these multinational companies are dominant in the market in our Chinese market. If there is a restriction on competition and abuse, it is normal for them to be investigated in this respect, which means that their investigation is against their abuse of market dominance, not their nationality.