Stock Market Reaction to Regulatory Action on Anticompetitive Practices in India


Jayasankar Ramanathan


This study examines the impact of regulatory action against anti-competitive practices on the stock market by using the event study method. Orders released by the Competition Commission of India are analysed. The mean cumulative abnormal return for the respondent firms is negative and statistically significant for orders taking up complaints for investigation, not statistically significant for orders dismissing complaints, and positive and statistically significant for orders upholding complaints. These results imply that the regulatory body is a credible information provider of the lawful nature of firms. The regulatory body should enhance investor awareness of its role as the enforcer of lawful competition and reduce environmental distortions that may alter the complementary deterrent effect of its orders. Studies of the impact of regulatory action against anti-competitive practices on investors are scarce, especially in emerging economies, and this study attempts to fill this void.


How to Cite
Ramanathan, J. (2022). Stock Market Reaction to Regulatory Action on Anticompetitive Practices in India. Competition Commission of India Journal on Competition Law and Policy, 45–70.


  1. Armitage, S. (1995). Event study methods and evidence on their perforagainst Microsoft created value in the computer industry? Journal of Financial Economics mance. Journal of Economic Surveys, 55(3), 329–359., 9(1), 25–52.
  2. Binder, J. (1998). The event study methodology since 1969. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 11(2), 111–137.
  3. Bittlingmayer, G., & Hazlett, T. W. (2000). DOS Kapital: Has antitrust action.
  4. Bizjak, J. M., & Coles, J. L. (1995). The effect of private antitrust litigation on the stock-market valuation of the firm. The American Economic Review, 85(3), 436–461.
  5. Boehmer, E., Musumeci, J., & Poulsen, A. B. (1991). Event-study methodology under conditions of event-induced variance. Journal of Financial Economics, 30(2), 253–272.
  6. Bosch, J. C., & Eckard, E. W., Jr. (1991). The profitability of price fixing: Evidence from stock market reaction to federal indictments. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 73(2), 309–317.
  7. Brown, S. J., & Warner, J. B. (1980). Measuring security price performance. Journal of Financial Economics, 8(3), 205–258.
  8. Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1988). Nonverbal expectancy violations: Model elaboration and application to immediacy behaviors. Communications Monographs, 55(1), 58–79.
  9. Burgoon, J. K., & Le Poire, B. A. (1993). Effects of communication expectancies, actual communication, and expectancy disconfirmation on evaluations of communicators and their communication behavior. Human Communication Research, 20(1), 67–96.
  10. Carberry, E. J., Engelen, P. J., & Van Essen, M. (2018). Which firms get punished for unethical behavior? Explaining variation in stock market reactions to corporate misconduct. Business Ethics Quarterly, 28(2), 119–151.
  11. CCI. (2021a). About CCI.
  12. CCI. (2021b). Competition Act.
  13. CCI. (2021c). International Cooperation.
  14. CCI. (2021d). Antitrust-Section 26(1).
  15. CCI. (2021e). Antitrust-Section 26(2).
  16. CCI. (2021f). Antitrust-Section 26(6).
  17. CCI. (2021g). Antitrust-Section 26(7).
  18. CCI. (2021h). Antitrust-Section 27.
  19. CMIE. (2021). ProwessIQ.
  20. Corrado, C. J. (1989). A nonparametric test for abnormal security price performance in event studies. Journal of Financial Economics, 23(2), 385–395.
  21. Cowan, A. R. (1992). Nonparametric event study tests. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 2(4), 353–371.
  22. De Vany, A., & McMillan, H. (2004). Was the antitrust action that broke up the movie studios good for the movies? Evidence from the stock market. American Law and Economics Review, 6(1), 135–153.
  23. Event Study Metrics. (2014). User Manual. Bornheim: Event Study Metrics UG.
  24. Feinberg, R. M., & Round, D. K. (2005). Share-price responses to antitrust enforcement in Australia: Do investors care about price-fixing cases? Competition and Consumer Law Journal, 13(1), 23–39.
  25. Garbade, K. D., Silber, W. L., & White, L. J. (1982). Market reaction to the filing of antitrust suits: An aggregate and cross-sectional analysis. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 64(4), 686–691.
  26. Gilligan, T. W. (1986). The competitive effects of resale price maintenance. The RAND Journal of Economics, 17(4), 544–556.
  27. Günster, A., & van Dijk, M. (2016). The impact of European antitrust policy: Evidence from the stock market. International Review of Law and Economics, 46(June), 20–33.
  28. Khemani, R. S., & Shapiro, D. M. (1993). Glossary of industrial organisation economics and competition law. OECD.
  29. Kolari, J. W., & Pynnönen, S. (2010). Event study testing with cross-sectional correlation of abnormal returns. The Review of Financial Studies, 23(11), 3996–4025.
  30. Mirchandani, N. (2020, December 10). Cement stocks fall as CCI probe alleged anti-competitive behaviour. Bloomberg Quint.
  31. Ouyang, Z., Wei, J., & Zhao, D. (2017). Stock market’s reaction to self-disclosure of work safety accidents: an empirical study in China. Quality & Quantity, 51(4), 1611–1626.
  32. Park, N. K. (2004). A guide to using event study methods in multi-country settings. Strategic Management Journal, 25(7), 655–668.
  33. Ramachandran, L. (2019, March 25). Personal communication with author.
  34. Ramachandran, L. (2020, November 1). Personal communication with author.
  35. SEBI. (2021). About.
  36. Song, C., & Han, S. H. (2017). Stock market reaction to corporate crime: Evidence from South Korea. Journal of Busine 143(2), 323–351.
  37. Tanimura, J. K., & Okamoto, M. G. (2013). Reputational penalties: Evidence from corporate scandals. Asian Economic Journal, 27(1), 39–57.
  38. Xu, X. D., Zeng, S. X., & Tam, C. M. (2012). Stock market’s reaction to disclosure of environmental violations: Evidence from China. Journal of Business Ethics, 107(2), 227–237.