Trustbusters target poor man’s John D. Rockefeller
The author is a Reuters Breakingviews columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.
By Robert Cyran
NEW YORK, May 2 (Reuters Breakingviews) -Taking on industrialist John D. Rockefeller and breaking up his Standard Oil helped shape U.S. anti-monopoly law more than a century ago. By comparison, the Federal Trade Commission’s collusion case against the former CEO of Pioneer Natural Resources PXD.N in relation to the company’s merger with Exxon Mobil XOM.N looks decidedly symbolic.
The FTC had little rationale to block the $65 billion deal. Unlike when Rockefeller dominated the industry, oil and gas are now international commodities, with throngs of sellers and buyers. The combination of Exxon and Pioneer creates a slightly bigger fish in a giant ocean. Further, economist Adam Smith’s invisible hand tends to make the market relatively efficient, by arbitraging price differences between differing grades of purity and whence crude is sourced.
Smith also said, “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” The FTC alleges that Scott Sheffield, who helped orchestrate the sale of Pioneer, tried to conspire with the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and a related bloc of nations, through public statements and private messages. As a result, the agency has banned him from joining the board of the combined company and advising it. The FTC also intends to refer the case for possible criminal charges, Semafor reported on Thursday.
Sheffield may be in trouble, but consumers never were. Pioneer lays claim to less than 1% of the worldwide oil market. To successfully manipulate prices would require many companies banding together with OPEC to curb production. Before competition authorities came along, Standard Oil handled 90% of the refining, while owning wells and gas stations, too. Sheffield is no Rockefeller.
The FTC reasonably argues that Sheffield’s seat on the board of The Williams Companies WMB.N is problematic. The $47 billion gas producer overlaps with what Exxon does, and so-called interlocking directorates have become a target under the Biden administration. Such entanglements are better off unwound.
While competition authorities can trace some origins of their power back to the energy business, there are bigger priorities nowadays. They have set their sights on Silicon Valley, but healthcare also accounts for nearly a fifth of U.S. GDP, 3 times the amount spent on energy. Moreover, quasi-monopolies in drug production, hospitals and medical specialists abound. Patient insurance is highly concentrated and providers generate returns that suggest significant market power. Beyond oil is where today’s robber barons lurk.
Follow @rob_cyran on X
CONTEXT NEWS
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission said on May 2 it had cleared the way for energy producer Exxon Mobil to complete its $65 billion acquisition of rival Pioneer Natural Resources, with an accompanying consent order that prevents the seller’s former CEO, Scott Sheffield, from joining the board of directors or serving in an advisory role at the combined company.
The agency alleges that Sheffield, in both public statements and private communications, “attempted to collude” with representatives of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and a related bloc of oil-producing nations to curb oil and gas output.
Sheffield’s appointment to the board also would be anticompetitive because he is a director at natural gas supplier The Williams Companies, the FTC said.
Intent to collude is not ability to set oil prices Intent to collude is not ability to set oil prices https://reut.rs/3UnBbiS
Editing by Jeffrey Goldfarb and Pranav Kiran
Related Assets
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
