Skip to main content
//empty //empty

People like Prime Minister Stephen Harper may be worrying too much about foreign state-controlled companies buying homegrown companies. Mr. Harper, who is mulling CNOOC's $15.1-billion bid for oil company Nexen, is skeptical. The fear is the motives of such companies are more than commercial. But evidence from a recent study suggests that if state buyers have a hidden agenda, they aren't paying for it.

Two deals currently being considered in Ottawa involve conspicuously large takeover premiums. CNOOC offered 61 per cent above the market price of shares for Nexen, hardly one of North America's best-run oil companies. And Malaysia's state-controlled Petronas is willing to hand over 77 per cent more than the undisturbed share price for Canada's Progress Energy. Critics suggest this generosity can only be explained by a desire to control the nation's strategic resources.

But in a broader context, these look more like outliers. For a start, there are examples of high-priced deals not involving government-controlled companies – like the 45-per-cent premium Apache offered for Mariner Energy in 2010. And across a bigger sample of energy transactions, there's no sign of what might be called a geopolitical premium.

Story continues below advertisement

An analysis of 180 foreign purchases of oil and gas reserves conducted by George Washington University showed the price of companies selling assets – or themselves – rising by an average of 4 per cent the day after transactions were announced. The boost was the same whether the buyer was state-owned or held by private-sector investors.

Foreign governments might be interested in acquiring energy know-how their top companies can apply at home, but that's more a commercial consideration than anything more sinister. In any event, buying a company that has rights over a foreign nation's resources is no guarantee of controlling them. After all, a country like Canada would still have the option to prohibit exports.

Some degree of extra scrutiny may be warranted when state-owned firms come knocking. But it looks as though politicians needn't let paranoia trump the benefits of foreign investment.

Report an error
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies