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
Asset collegati
Ultime news
Disclaimer: le entità di XM Group forniscono servizi di sola esecuzione e accesso al nostro servizio di trading online, che permette all'individuo di visualizzare e/o utilizzare i contenuti disponibili sul sito o attraverso di esso; non ha il proposito di modificare o espandere le proprie funzioni, né le modifica o espande. L'accesso e l'utilizzo sono sempre soggetti a: (i) Termini e condizioni; (ii) Avvertenza sui rischi e (iii) Disclaimer completo. Tali contenuti sono perciò forniti a scopo puramente informativo. Nello specifico, ti preghiamo di considerare che i contenuti del nostro servizio di trading online non rappresentano un sollecito né un'offerta ad operare sui mercati finanziari. Il trading su qualsiasi mercato finanziario comporta un notevole livello di rischio per il tuo capitale.
Tutto il materiale pubblicato sul nostro servizio di trading online è unicamente a scopo educativo e informativo, e non contiene (e non dovrebbe essere considerato come contenente) consigli e raccomandazioni di carattere finanziario, di trading o fiscale, né informazioni riguardanti i nostri prezzi di trading, offerte o solleciti riguardanti transazioni che possano coinvolgere strumenti finanziari, oppure promozioni finanziarie da te non richieste.
Tutti i contenuti di terze parti, oltre ai contenuti offerti da XM, siano essi opinioni, news, ricerca, analisi, prezzi, altre informazioni o link a siti di terzi presenti su questo sito, sono forniti "così com'è", e vanno considerati come commenti generali sui mercati; per questo motivo, non possono essere visti come consigli di investimento. Dato che tutti i contenuti sono intesi come ricerche di investimento, devi considerare e accettare che non sono stati preparati né creati seguendo i requisiti normativi pensati per promuovere l'indipendenza delle ricerche di investimento; per questo motivo, questi contenuti devono essere considerati come comunicazioni di marketing in base alle leggi e normative vigenti. Assicurati di avere letto e compreso pienamente la nostra Notifica sulla ricerca di investimento non indipendente e la nostra Informativa sul rischio riguardante le informazioni sopra citate; tali documenti sono consultabili qui.
