Comment: Double-guessing the OFT on Chubb
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.As the election approaches, the Office of Fair Trading's reputation for unpredictability grows steadily stronger. Attempting to double-guess what the politicians want is producing some perverse decisions. Just ask Liam Strong at Sears, who is still smarting over the OFT's advice that the sale of Freemans should go to the MMC. What then will it make of the pounds 1.3bn bid by Williams for Chubb?
There is obvious potential for difficulty here, for when Williams last bid for Chubb - when it was part of Racal six years ago - undertakings were required that it would sell Chubb's entire UK locks, safes and research business within 15 months. Williams is confident that this time round it will escape largely unscathed; since 1991 there has been greater import penetration and in any case, Williams argues, it is generally accepted that the market definition should be much wider than it was then. The 50 per cent share of the UK locks market that the two combined would have had in 1991 is, as a consequence, considerably lower.
Is the OFT going to buy it? If it doesn't, and Williams is again required to sell off all or part of the UK business, it makes the already toppy price it is paying for Chubb look even fuller. Williams can protest vainly about being mainly interested in Chubb's Far Eastern interests, but surely monopoly value in Britain is a large part of the motive for this deal? If not, why is the normally canny Sir Nigel Rudd paying so much?
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments