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
Activos relacionados
Últimas noticias
Descargo de responsabilidades: Cada una de las entidades de XM Group proporciona un servicio de solo ejecución y acceso a nuestra plataforma de trading online, permitiendo a una persona ver o usar el contenido disponible en o a través del sitio web, sin intención de cambiarlo ni ampliarlo. Dicho acceso y uso están sujetos en todo momento a: (i) Términos y Condiciones; (ii) Advertencias de riesgo; y (iii) Descargo completo de responsabilidades. Por lo tanto, dicho contenido se proporciona exclusivamente como información general. En particular, por favor tenga en cuenta que, los contenidos de nuestra plataforma de trading online no son ni solicitud ni una oferta para entrar a realizar transacciones en los mercados financieros. Operar en cualquier mercado financiero implica un nivel de riesgo significativo para su capital.
Todo el material publicado en nuestra plataforma de trading online tiene únicamente fines educativos/informativos y no contiene –y no debe considerarse que contenga– asesoramiento ni recomendaciones financieras, tributarias o de inversión, ni un registro de nuestros precios de trading, ni una oferta ni solicitud de transacción con instrumentos financieros ni promociones financieras no solicitadas.
Cualquier contenido de terceros, así como el contenido preparado por XM, como por ejemplo opiniones, noticias, investigaciones, análisis, precios, otras informaciones o enlaces a sitios de terceros que figuran en este sitio web se proporcionan “tal cual”, como comentarios generales del mercado y no constituyen un asesoramiento en materia de inversión. En la medida en que cualquier contenido se interprete como investigación de inversión, usted debe tener en cuenta y aceptar que dicho contenido no fue concebido ni elaborado de acuerdo con los requisitos legales diseñados para promover la independencia en materia de investigación de inversiones y, por tanto, se considera como una comunicación comercial en virtud de las leyes y regulaciones pertinentes. Por favor, asegúrese de haber leído y comprendido nuestro Aviso sobre investigación de inversión no independiente y advertencia de riesgo en relación con la información anterior, al que se puede acceder aquí.
