> permanently staffing the regulatory force sounds very reasonable

There are permanent staff. There are also legions of industry experts contracted on a case by case basis. Full staff on standby would mean having, on retainer, experts in every industry where a merger might happen.

There are permanent staff. The issue of time isn't any individual regulator - it's that there's regulators in every country they operate in. And the company is negotiating with them all simultaneously - figuring out what would make the EU say yes, and then taking that to the US and see if that will let them say yes, then going to Japan and making sure they'll say yes, then going to India - and you don't want some of them knowing that everyone else has already said yes, because then they'll hold out to get some last special thing.

These are complicated negotiations, in many complicated jurisdictions.

How quick do you think they should be? For everyone to understand the potential ramifications and consult appropriate industry experts? Let competitors et al file briefs?

Once they get working on it, I would think they could get consultation and competitor briefs back within a month. Then have an initial answer within two months of the announcement, and if that answer is a "no" they'd have a good idea of what would need to be changed.

And I don't see a great reason that negotiations should more than triple that amount of time. If they're not budging, make the "no" final. So two months initial, six months max, would be good numbers.

If the company wants to negotiate with everyone in serial... that's their problem.

> and you don't want some of them knowing that everyone else has already said yes, because then they'll hold out to get some last special thing

Wasn't the thesis of this comment line that government regulators are being slow or being a problem? This supports that idea, I think.

> If they're not budging, make the "no" final. So two months initial, six months max, would be good numbers

Have you been proximate to a merger?