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
Actifs liés
Dernières actualités
Avertissement : Les entités de XM Group proposent à notre plateforme de trading en ligne un service d'exécution uniquement, autorisant une personne à consulter et/ou à utiliser le contenu disponible sur ou via le site internet, qui n'a pas pour but de modifier ou d'élargir cette situation. De tels accès et utilisation sont toujours soumis aux : (i) Conditions générales ; (ii) Avertissements sur les risques et (iii) Avertissement complet. Un tel contenu n'est par conséquent fourni que pour information générale. En particulier, sachez que les contenus de notre plateforme de trading en ligne ne sont ni une sollicitation ni une offre de participation à toute transaction sur les marchés financiers. Le trading sur les marchés financiers implique un niveau significatif de risques pour votre capital.
Tout le matériel publié dans notre Centre de trading en ligne est destiné à des fins de formation / d'information uniquement et ne contient pas – et ne doit pas être considéré comme contenant – des conseils et recommandations en matière de finance, de fiscalité des investissements ou de trading, ou un enregistrement de nos prix de trading ou une offre, une sollicitation, une transaction à propos de tout instrument financier ou bien des promotions financières non sollicitées à votre égard.
Tout contenu tiers, de même que le contenu préparé par XM, tels que les opinions, actualités, études, analyses, prix, autres informations ou liens vers des sites tiers contenus sur ce site internet sont fournis "tels quels", comme commentaires généraux sur le marché et ne constituent pas des conseils en investissement. Dans la mesure où tout contenu est considéré comme de la recherche en investissement, vous devez noter et accepter que le contenu n'a pas été conçu ni préparé conformément aux exigences légales visant à promouvoir l'indépendance de la recherche en investissement et, en tant que tel, il serait considéré comme une communication marketing selon les lois et réglementations applicables. Veuillez vous assurer que vous avez lu et compris notre Avis sur la recherche en investissement non indépendante et notre avertissement sur les risques concernant les informations susdites, qui peuvent consultés ici.
