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
Ativos relacionados
Últimas notícias
Isenção de Responsabilidade: As entidades do XM Group proporcionam serviço de apenas-execução e acesso à nossa plataforma online de negociação, permitindo a visualização e/ou uso do conteúdo disponível no website ou através deste, o que não se destina a alterar ou a expandir o supracitado. Tal acesso e uso estão sempre sujeitos a: (i) Termos e Condições; (ii) Avisos de Risco; e (iii) Termos de Responsabilidade. Este, é desta forma, fornecido como informação generalizada. Particularmente, por favor esteja ciente que os conteúdos da nossa plataforma online de negociação não constituem solicitação ou oferta para iniciar qualquer transação nos mercados financeiros. Negociar em qualquer mercado financeiro envolve um nível de risco significativo de perda do capital.
Todo o material publicado na nossa plataforma de negociação online tem apenas objetivos educacionais/informativos e não contém — e não deve ser considerado conter — conselhos e recomendações financeiras, de negociação ou fiscalidade de investimentos, registo de preços de negociação, oferta e solicitação de transação em qualquer instrumento financeiro ou promoção financeira não solicitada direcionadas a si.
Qual conteúdo obtido por uma terceira parte, assim como o conteúdo preparado pela XM, tais como, opiniões, pesquisa, análises, preços, outra informação ou links para websites de terceiras partes contidos neste website são prestados "no estado em que se encontram", como um comentário de mercado generalizado e não constitui conselho de investimento. Na medida em que qualquer conteúdo é construído como pesquisa de investimento, deve considerar e aceitar que este não tem como objetivo e nem foi preparado de acordo com os requisitos legais concebidos para promover a independência da pesquisa de investimento, desta forma, deve ser considerado material de marketing sob as leis e regulações relevantes. Por favor, certifique-se que leu e compreendeu a nossa Notificação sobre Pesquisa de Investimento não-independente e o Aviso de Risco, relativos à informação supracitada, os quais podem ser acedidos aqui.
