incomplete, however, because the upstream division will generally raise the
external market price in response to mandated internal discounts. Specifically,
the external price will move even further away from the external
monopoly price if that price was below the internal monopoly price to begin
with. Any such losses from external sales have to be netted against gains
from internal trade and therefore the resulting net effect of intracompany
discounts remains generally ambiguous.8
With constrained production capacity, in contrast, intracompany discounts
will always improve the firm’s total profit. If the internal transfer
price is set equal to the market price, the resulting transfer quantity will
be such that the marginal revenue of the downstream division equals the
(transfer) price, which always exceeds the external marginal revenue with a
downward sloping demand curve. Thus, double marginalization results in
a biased allocation of the firm’s scarce production capacity such that the
external sales quantity is too high. By mandating intracompany discounts,
the firm’s central office effectively reallocates the available capacity so as to
increase the firm’s overall revenue. Our results therefore provide an alternative
to the usual justification for intracompany discounts as an adjustment
that accounts for cost differences between external and internal sales.
To achieve fully efficient outcomes that maximize a firm’s overall corporate
profit, the transfer price faced by the internal buyer must be equal to the
marginal cost of internal transfers. With constrained capacity, this marginal
cost is given by the external marginal revenue, evaluated at the efficient
external sales quantity. Therefore the intracompany discount must be set
as the inverse of the external price elasticity of demand at the optimal price.
Even though in our model the central office does not have sufficient information
to determine the efficient price and quantity decisions, we identify
conditions under which it can design a suitable intracompany discount rule.
Such a rule serves as an effective decentralization device in that the better
informed upstream division will in equilibrium be induced to implement
the efficient solution.
The possibility of achieving efficient outcomes through market-based
transfer pricing hinges critically on the presence of a capacity constraint.
Such constraints ensure that the upstream division cannot do better from
its own perspective than to choose the efficient external price because it is
“wedged in” between the discount rule and the capacity constraint. With
unlimited capacity, in contrast, efficiency would require that the external
monopoly price be charged to outside buyers while the internal price be
equal to the marginal cost of the intermediate product.
 
incomplete, however, because the upstream division will generally raise theexternal market price in response to mandated internal discounts. Specifically,the external price will move even further away from the externalmonopoly price if that price was below the internal monopoly price to beginwith. Any such losses from external sales have to be netted against gainsfrom internal trade and therefore the resulting net effect of intracompanydiscounts remains generally ambiguous.8With constrained production capacity, in contrast, intracompany discountswill always improve the firm’s total profit. If the internal transferprice is set equal to the market price, the resulting transfer quantity willbe such that the marginal revenue of the downstream division equals the(transfer) price, which always exceeds the external marginal revenue with adownward sloping demand curve. Thus, double marginalization results ina biased allocation of the firm’s scarce production capacity such that theexternal sales quantity is too high. By mandating intracompany discounts,the firm’s central office effectively reallocates the available capacity so as toincrease the firm’s overall revenue. Our results therefore provide an alternativeto the usual justification for intracompany discounts as an adjustmentthat accounts for cost differences between external and internal sales.To achieve fully efficient outcomes that maximize a firm’s overall corporateprofit, the transfer price faced by the internal buyer must be equal to themarginal cost of internal transfers. With constrained capacity, this marginalcost is given by the external marginal revenue, evaluated at the efficientexternal sales quantity. Therefore the intracompany discount must be setas the inverse of the external price elasticity of demand at the optimal price.Even though in our model the central office does not have sufficient informationto determine the efficient price and quantity decisions, we identifyconditions under which it can design a suitable intracompany discount rule.Such a rule serves as an effective decentralization device in that the betterinformed upstream division will in equilibrium be induced to implementthe efficient solution.The possibility of achieving efficient outcomes through market-basedtransfer pricing hinges critically on the presence of a capacity constraint.Such constraints ensure that the upstream division cannot do better fromits own perspective than to choose the efficient external price because it is“wedged in” between the discount rule and the capacity constraint. Withunlimited capacity, in contrast, efficiency would require that the externalmonopoly price be charged to outside buyers while the internal price beequal to the marginal cost of the intermediate product.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..

 
 
incomplete, however, because the upstream division will generally raise the
external market price in response to mandated internal discounts. Specifically,
the external price will move even further away from the external
monopoly price if that price was below the internal monopoly price to begin
with. Any such losses from external sales have to be netted against gains
from internal trade and therefore the resulting net effect of intracompany
discounts remains generally ambiguous.8
With constrained production capacity, in contrast, intracompany discounts
will always improve the firm’s total profit. If the internal transfer
price is set equal to the market price, the resulting transfer quantity will
be such that the marginal revenue of the downstream division equals the
(transfer) price, which always exceeds the external marginal revenue with a
downward sloping demand curve. Thus, double marginalization results in
a biased allocation of the firm’s scarce production capacity such that the
external sales quantity is too high. By mandating intracompany discounts,
the firm’s central office effectively reallocates the available capacity so as to
increase the firm’s overall revenue. Our results therefore provide an alternative
to the usual justification for intracompany discounts as an adjustment
that accounts for cost differences between external and internal sales.
To achieve fully efficient outcomes that maximize a firm’s overall corporate
profit, the transfer price faced by the internal buyer must be equal to the
marginal cost of internal transfers. With constrained capacity, this marginal
cost is given by the external marginal revenue, evaluated at the efficient
external sales quantity. Therefore the intracompany discount must be set
as the inverse of the external price elasticity of demand at the optimal price.
Even though in our model the central office does not have sufficient information
to determine the efficient price and quantity decisions, we identify
conditions under which it can design a suitable intracompany discount rule.
Such a rule serves as an effective decentralization device in that the better
informed upstream division will in equilibrium be induced to implement
the efficient solution.
The possibility of achieving efficient outcomes through market-based
transfer pricing hinges critically on the presence of a capacity constraint.
Such constraints ensure that the upstream division cannot do better from
its own perspective than to choose the efficient external price because it is
“wedged in” between the discount rule and the capacity constraint. With
unlimited capacity, in contrast, efficiency would require that the external
monopoly price be charged to outside buyers while the internal price be
equal to the marginal cost of the intermediate product.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
