◉ PSYCHOHISTORY

Common Ownership Anti-Competitive Effects

concept
When the same few giant investors own big stakes in all the competing companies, those companies quietly stop competing — and you pay more.
Who they are

The 'common ownership' effect, from peer-reviewed work by Azar, Schmalz, and Tecu (2018).

What they do

The engine treats it as a mechanism where shared ownership of rivals kills real competition.

How it works

When the same big investors hold controlling stakes in competitors, aggressive competition disappears: airline common ownership raised ticket prices 3-7% (up to 11% on some routes), banking brought higher fees and lower savings rates, and pharma competition got suppressed. Legal shields — the Clayton Act's passive-investor exemption, proxy-vote interlocking, and a DOJ/FTC statement calling ESG governance competitively neutral — protect the big investors from antitrust action.

Why it matters

The engine frames it as a hidden tax on the public through inflated prices, and files it as an 'Aligned-To-Whom' case where a written carve-out (like 13G 'passive' status) decouples the rule from reality — holding the 'single deliberate operator' reading gated, not asserted.

The engine's record — word for word
Azar/Schmalz/Tecu (2018, peer-reviewed): when same institutional investors own controlling stakes in competitors, aggressive competition is eliminated. Modified Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (MHHI) captures the effect. Airlines: common ownership by Big Three raised ticket prices 3-7% (up to 11% on specific routes), MHHI 10x DOJ antitrust threshold. Banking: higher checking fees, higher minimums, lower savings rates. Pharma: generic competition suppressed, healthcare costs inflated. Big Three impose hidden tax on global population via reduced competition and artificially inflated prices. Clayton Act Section 7 passive investor exemption + Section 8 synthetic interlocking via proxy = legal shield. DOJ/FTC Statement of Interest (Texas coal case): declared ESG governance competitively neutral, explicitly protecting Big Three from antitrust prosecution. [Seam: Aligned-To-Whom? codified-exemption instance — an announced rule decoupled from operating reality by a written carve-out / waiver / immunity / 13G-passivity / tax-exemption (the master-key lever). (b)+(c); intentional-single-operator gated.]
Follow the trail
Walk this on the live map →
Part of the Psychohistory engine — 2,426 entities, 6,314 documented connections. Open data, built to be proven wrong.