????據(jù)報(bào)道,，歐迪辦公（Office Depot）與馬克斯辦公用品公司（Office Max）正在商談并購(gòu),，希望聯(lián)手挑戰(zhàn)史泰博（Staples）在辦公用品行業(yè)的霸主地位。不過,，這并不是歐迪辦公第一次嘗試放棄獨(dú)立地位,。

????早在1996年，歐迪辦公便同意以33.6億美元,，接受史泰博收購(gòu),。有人認(rèn)為，這個(gè)消息無(wú)異于對(duì)業(yè)內(nèi)排行第三的馬克斯辦公用品公司宣判了死刑,。消息傳出后,，馬克斯辦公用品公司的股票應(yīng)聲下跌。但也有人認(rèn)為,，這樣一來,，作為除史泰博之外最大的一家辦公用品公司，馬克斯公司可以更有效地展開競(jìng)爭(zhēng),。很快,，消費(fèi)者保護(hù)團(tuán)體展開猛烈抨擊，他們認(rèn)為,，辦公用品超市數(shù)量減少將導(dǎo)致從鉛筆到辦公椅等所有辦公用品的價(jià)格上漲,。例如，拉爾夫?納德爾的大眾公民組織（Public Citizen）便發(fā)現(xiàn),，與僅有一家辦公用品超市的市場(chǎng)相比,，在史泰博與歐迪辦公相互競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的市場(chǎng)，一盒傳真紙的價(jià)格要便宜7美元,。

????而美國(guó)聯(lián)邦貿(mào)易委員會(huì)（The Federal Trade Commission）似乎也被反對(duì)派的觀點(diǎn)所打動(dòng),。1997年3月，聯(lián)邦貿(mào)易委員會(huì)發(fā)布了一項(xiàng)反對(duì)并購(gòu)的臨時(shí)禁令,。之后,，史泰博與歐迪辦公曾試圖挽救這筆交易，提出同意將63家辦公用品超市出售給馬克斯公司,，這些超市所在的市場(chǎng)已經(jīng)不存在其他競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手,。然而，此舉純屬徒勞,，因?yàn)閹字苤?，美?guó)證監(jiān)會(huì)（SEC）便提出起訴，請(qǐng)求駁回這筆交易,。

????對(duì)于起訴的決定,，該委員會(huì)的一位委員給出了如下解釋：

????“兩家公司提出的方案無(wú)法解決可能導(dǎo)致價(jià)格上漲的不良競(jìng)爭(zhēng)問題。在目前有三家公司競(jìng)爭(zhēng)、而在并購(gòu)之后則將僅剩兩家的城市,，將超市出售給馬克斯辦公用品公司的方案解決不了這些城市的問題,。我們的數(shù)據(jù)顯示，在三家公司競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的市場(chǎng),，商品價(jià)格明顯低于僅有兩家公司競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的市場(chǎng),。此外，在原先被史泰博與歐迪辦公視為擴(kuò)張目標(biāo)的城市,，這個(gè)解決方案排除了增加競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的可能性,。最后，兩家公司的提議將使目前提供最低價(jià)格的歐迪辦公徹底消失,?！?/p>

????后來，聯(lián)邦貿(mào)易委員會(huì)的請(qǐng)求獲得了一位聯(lián)邦法官的支持,。但有人仍認(rèn)為,，這位法官的判決是造成辦公用品超市行業(yè)當(dāng)下困局的罪魁禍?zhǔn)住＠?，今?月份,，史泰博創(chuàng)始人兼前任CEO湯姆?斯坦伯格在接受《財(cái)富》雜志（Fortune）采訪時(shí)就曾經(jīng)說：

????“我認(rèn)為，三家公司應(yīng)該變成兩家,。很顯然,，我當(dāng)時(shí)已經(jīng)為并購(gòu)做好一切準(zhǔn)備了，可最終還是沒能成功,。我認(rèn)為聯(lián)邦貿(mào)易委員會(huì)的做法是錯(cuò)誤的,，而它也知道自己做錯(cuò)了，因?yàn)椴①?gòu)才能更有效地為美國(guó)消費(fèi)者帶來價(jià)值,?！?/p>

????我們最終的結(jié)局看上去似乎就要實(shí)現(xiàn)斯坦伯格所說的雙雄并立的局面，只是過程并非他所預(yù)想的那樣,。無(wú)論如何,，市場(chǎng)似乎非常認(rèn)同斯坦伯格的總體觀點(diǎn)：三家辦公用品公司的股票今天均大幅上漲。

????還有一點(diǎn)筆者非常好奇,，對(duì)于一直默默伴隨史泰博的私募股權(quán)公司,，此次并購(gòu)是否會(huì)對(duì)它們產(chǎn)生影響,。歐迪辦公與馬克斯公司合并之后,，可能會(huì)超出私募股權(quán)公司的承受范圍，結(jié)合最近關(guān)于史泰博將獲準(zhǔn)在美國(guó)銷售蘋果（Apple）產(chǎn)品的報(bào)道,，情況就更是如此,。無(wú)論如何，至少這樣一來，未來辦公用品市場(chǎng)的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)格局將逐漸明朗,。

????譯者：劉進(jìn)龍/汪皓

????Office Depot (ODP) reportedly is in talks to merge with Office Max (OMX), in a consolidation play aimed at challenging Staples (SPLS) for office supply supremacy. But this isn't the first time that Office Depot has tried to lose its independence.

????Back in September 1996, Office Depot agreed to be acquired by Staples in a $3.36 billion deal. The announcement was seen in some quarters as a death knell for number three player Office Max -- whose shares slumped immediately on the news -- while others felt that it would be able to compete more effectively as the largest remaining alternative.

????Consumer advocates immediately pounced, arguing that fewer office superstores would lead to increased prices for everything from pencils to desk chairs. For example, Ralph Nader's Public Citizen group found that a box of fax paper cost $7 less in markets where Staples and Office Depot competed with each other, compared to markets with just a single office superstore.

????The Federal Trade Commission seemed persuaded by the naysayers. It issued a preliminary injunction against the merger in March 1997, after which Staples and Office Depot tried salvaging the deal by agreeing to sell 63 stores to Office Max in markets that didn't already have a rival office supply superstore. But it was for naught, with the SEC suing to kill the deal several weeks later.

????In explaining its decision to sue, an FTC director said:

????"The proposed settlement doesn't resolve the competitive problem that would lead to these higher prices. The proposal to sell stores to Office Max doesn't address cities where three superstores compete today but only two firms will remain after the merger. Our data shows that in markets where three superstores compete, prices are significantly lower than in two chain markets. The proposed settlement also eliminates the possibility of increased competition in cities where Staples and Office Depot had planned to expand. And finally, the proposal would permanently eliminate Office Depot, the superstore that currently offers the lowest price."

????A federal judge would later agree with the FTC, in a decision that some still blame for the office superstore industry's current travails. For example, here is what Staples founder and former CEO Tom Stemberg said during an August interview with Fortune:

????"I think three companies ought to be two. And obviously I put my money where my mouth was way back when but it failed. I think the FTC was wrong, and I think the FTC knows it was wrong and that a merger would be an effective and productive in providing value to the American consumer."

????So it seems we're finally getting to that dichotomy, albeit not in the way that Stemberg had originally envisioned. Nonetheless, the markets seem to agree with Stemberg's larger point: Shares of all three office superstores are up sharply today.

????Also worth wondering if the merger will have any impact on private equity firms that continue to quietly circle Staples. It's possible that the Office Depot-Office Max merger could put it a bit out of their price range, particularly when combined with a recent report that Staples will be allowed to sell Apple (AAPL) products in its U.S. stores. At the very least, it will clarify the sector's future players.