携程反垄断调查再思考：为何它比阿里、美团更值得警惕？

Core Viewpoint - Ctrip Group is under investigation for alleged abuse of market dominance, leading to a significant loss in market value, highlighting the severity of its monopolistic practices in the travel industry compared to previous cases involving Alibaba and Meituan [1] Group 1: Market Dominance and Impact - Ctrip's market share in the travel sector is projected to reach 56% by 2024, with competitors like Meituan, Fliggy, and Douyin holding only 13%, 8%, and 3% respectively [1] - The monopolistic nature of Ctrip is described as more insidious, with many platforms appearing independent but actually operating under Ctrip's control [2][11] Group 2: Ctrip's Business Structure - Ctrip's subsidiaries can be categorized into four types: fully controlled platforms, platforms with board representation, financial investment platforms, and those with deep cooperation agreements [2] - The company's growth strategy has heavily relied on stock acquisitions and capital operations, effectively consolidating its market position [3][5] Group 3: Financial Backing and Strategy - Ctrip's ownership structure is characterized by a high degree of dispersion, with seven of the top ten shareholders being prominent U.S. asset management firms [7] - The focus of these investors is on long-term expansion rather than short-term returns, allowing Ctrip to reinvest profits into acquisitions and market expansion [8][9] Group 4: Consumer Experience and Market Dynamics - Ctrip's monopolistic practices have led to poor consumer experiences, with issues such as price opacity, bundled sales, and complicated refund processes being prevalent [9][10] - Unlike the competitive landscape in e-commerce and food delivery, consumers in the travel sector face limited choices due to Ctrip's dominance, resulting in a significant power imbalance [11] Group 5: Antitrust Investigation Outcomes - The investigation could lead to three potential outcomes: structural separation of Ctrip's assets, substantial fines, or no action at all, with the latter being the least likely scenario [12][13] - A structural separation would directly address the monopolistic control, while fines could serve as a deterrent but may not significantly impact Ctrip's operations due to its high profitability [13][14]