By Daniel Mogin, Bloomberg
The Federal Trade Commission appears, at long last, to be paying attention to the effects an organization’s ownership of stocks in competing companies has on competition in general and mergers and acquisitions in particular. Cross-shareholdings in horizontal competitors raises significant antitrust issues, particularly in concentrated markets.
As reported in Bloomberg, “Economists and antitrust lawyers are raising concerns that the fund houses are harming competition among the companies whose shares they jointly own.” These concerns, which are intensifying, are not new.
In certain situations, antitrust law recognizes de facto mergers. Other forms of common ownership or control have been prohibited for over 100 years. Section 7 of the Clayton Act bans any stock acquisition “where in any line of commerce or in any activity affecting commerce in any section of the country, the effect of such acquisition may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly,” and Clayton Act Section 8 prohibits interlocking directorates.
What Academia Says
Recent academic studies have focused on cross-holdings by financial fund firms. In a 2015 paper, noted antitrust scholar and Harvard Law Professor Einer Elhauge wrote that purchasing voting shares in competing companies can constitute de facto mergers. The net result of cross ownership can be to substantially lessen competition or even lead to monopolistic conduct in oligopolistic industries.
According to Elhague, “When two firms have the same shareholders, their actions on behalf of those shareholders will be precisely the same as if the two firms had merged or entered into a perfectly-enforced cartel … . Such horizontal shareholdings can help explain fundamental economic puzzles like the use of seeming perverse methods of executive compensation, the current failure of corporations to use high profits to expand output and employment, and the recent rise in economic inequality.”
Elhauge concluded, “These harmful economic effects could and should be reduced by using current antitrust law to challenge the stock acquisitions that have created such anticompetitive horizontal shareholdings.”
Oxford Associate Professor of Finance Martin C. Schmalz’ studies have shown that common ownership affects consumer prices, the rate of innovation, executive compensation, and even a corporation’s competitive spirit. Asked how common ownership injures consumers, Schmalz cited CEO pay as an example. Executive compensation is increasingly less performance-sensitive when competitors are commonly owned, a dynamic that can impact a CEO’s motivation to compete aggressively.
Featured News
Canada Investigates Major Grocers for Anticompetitive Practices
May 26, 2024 by
CPI
John Hess Scrambles to Secure Shareholder Approval for $53 Billion Chevron Merger
May 26, 2024 by
CPI
Petrobras Retains Refineries and Gas Pipeline in CADE’s Landmark Reversal
May 26, 2024 by
CPI
Meta Proposes New Data Limits on Facebook Marketplace in UK Amid CMA Oversight
May 26, 2024 by
CPI
EU Industry Chief Calls for Unified Tech Regulations Between US and Europe
May 26, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Merger Guidelines Retrospective
May 21, 2024 by
CPI
Mergers of Complements
May 21, 2024 by
CPI
Personality Traits, Private Equity, and Merger Analysis
May 21, 2024 by
CPI
The 2023 Merger Guidelines: Lessons in the Importance of Incipiency, Modern Economics, and Monopsony
May 21, 2024 by
CPI
The 2023 Merger Guidelines: Sharpening Merger Analysis
May 21, 2024 by
CPI