LG, Samsung Giants, or New Allegations by NDRC

Conspiracy to manipulate the price of LCD panels, South Korea's Samsung, LG, China's Chi Mei, AUO and other six large panel makers, the National Development and Reform Commission recently received economic sanctions of 353 million yuan.

“The penalty does not mean the end.” Yesterday (January 6th), Huang Wei, a member of the investigation team of the National Development and Reform Commission who participated in the investigation and evidence collection of the case, told reporters that the punishment was for six large international panel manufacturers in 2001. ~ Price violations during 2006, but after 2006, the six companies also have highly consistent price behavior, and have requested the relevant law enforcement agencies to dynamically monitor this behavior.

The reporter also obtained a quotation from the panel makers of Chi Mei, AUO, LG (the main selling board name was LGD at the time), Samsung, and other panel companies to the 32-inch panel of a domestic color TV company from 2006 to 2010. The chart shows that they The quoted price is still highly convergent, and the rate of change is also highly consistent.

What is the basis for the maximum ticket?

From December 2006, the National Development and Reform Commission received for the first time report materials on the prices of six monopoly LCD panels monopolized by large international panel makers. By the end of 2012, it officially issued a ticket, which took six years.

In 2010, Beijing Tianyuan Law Firm was entrusted by designated reporters from major domestic color TV companies. From 2001 to 2006, Samsung, LG, Chi Mei Optoelectronics, AU Optronics, Sunny Crystal, and Chunghwa Picture Tubes were the leaders. The monopoly of liquid crystal panels implemented by global panel giants on a global scale represents the major color TV companies in the country and filed anti-monopoly investigations and other possible legal actions with relevant administrative authorities in China.

The lawyer, Huang Wei, said in an interview with the reporter that all six lawyers formed a team involved in the investigation. Among them, he and two other lawyers were members of the investigation team of the National Development and Reform Commission and assisted the relevant law enforcement agencies to complete the investigation and evidence collection, legal argumentation, and Data comparison, economic analysis, fixed evidence, case trials, etc.

In order to confirm the price monopoly's damage to domestic color TV companies, Tian Yuan's lawyers drafted a list of survey questions and extracted information lists, visited the major TV companies in China together with the reporters, and found that panel companies did indeed have quoted prices and price fluctuations. For a long period of time, TV companies have no bargaining power, and their profit space is severely squeezed.

On this basis, Tian Yuan’s lawyers reorganized and organized a detailed report material, attached relevant evidence and submitted it to the National Development and Reform Commission. Since then, the case has entered the fast lane.

Due to the requirement of confidentiality, Huang Wei did not want to reveal which domestic color TV companies the entrusted party is.

The amount of 353 million yuan in fines issued in this case was the largest ever issued by our country's anti-monopoly law enforcement agencies, but it is still lower than the United States and the European Union.

In this regard, Huang Wei explained that, first of all, the National Development and Reform Commission has clearly stated that different laws apply. The United States, the European Union, and South Korea are based on the anti-monopoly law. The penalty amount is a fixed ratio of the total sales of the host country and the corresponding weighting is added according to the circumstances of the case. Value, that is, based on total sales, and China's "Price Law," the penalty is based on the company's illegal income; Second, the punishment period of this case is from 2001 to 2006, China's LCD TV began trial production in 2004 Since mass production began in 2006, panel sales have been smaller than sales in Europe and the United States during the same period, and the amount of fines based on this is naturally smaller.

Or face new penalties

It can be seen that the punishment decision of the National Development and Reform Commission is aimed at the price violations of relevant companies during the period 2001-2006. However, Huang Wei disclosed to the reporter of the “Daily Economic News” that the whistleblower requested to investigate the price monopoly behavior of the relevant liquid crystal panel giant since 2001.

Huang Wei said that after a large number of investigations and comparison of data, it was found that after 2006, the relevant LCD panel companies also had a monthly quotation time and quotation model close to each other, the price level was close to the same, the price range was the same, and the bargaining space was small. Consistent price behavior.

"We do not have direct evidence as to whether such highly consistent price action is price synergy, but we will continue to pay attention to this price action, and we have also requested the relevant law enforcement agencies to dynamically monitor," said Huang Wei.

According to a report from a relevant lawyer yesterday, from 2006 to 2010, Chimei, AUO, LG (the main selling board name was LGD), Samsung, and other panel companies quoted a 32-inch panel from a domestic TV company. There is still a high degree of convergence.

Specifically, according to surveyed companies, at the end of each month, especially when panel supply is tight, Samsung, LG, Chi Mei, and AUO are usually one of the first to quote, and others immediately followed. The time difference is as short as two or three days, but it does not exceed one week.

“In 2010, for example, LG and other manufacturers basically followed Samsung. Generally, the price cuts of various companies are not very consistent, and the price increases are basically the same. In the aspect of ups and downs, the Korean manufacturers are more aggressive, especially in the market economy. Turn time." A color TV company said in the research record.

In addition, several international panel giants have similar supply prices. Whether it is the price at the end of the month or the price adjustment based on changes in market conditions, the prices of similar products supplied by the color TV companies in China are basically the same.

In the bargaining space, although there is still a bargaining session before formal procurement, the bargaining space is actually very small. Unless the market conditions have undergone drastic changes, the panel price will only be fine-tuned on the basis of the quotation. Domestic color TV companies basically have no room for bargaining, and they can only passively accept it.

According to the current data analysis, some panels of LCD panels have a dominant position in the Chinese market, and some LCD panel companies produce panels as well as TVs. Huang Wei pointed out that how to prevent related companies from abusing their dominant position, prevent price discrimination, and prevent any default, refusal of supply, and refusal to provide the latest products all require sustained attention.