The companies do not know exactly how antitrust enforcement would change under a new administration, putting off merger plans until an outcome in 2024 is certain.

Chipmaker Qualcomm (QCOM) has halted its acquisition of struggling chipmaker Intel (INTC), according to a report of Bloomberga delay designed to help the company assess the new administration’s approach to antitrust enforcement and US-China relations.

Oil giant ConocoPhillips (COP) also hopes to push the closure of Marathon Oil (MRO) acquisition after the investiture of a new president, according to a report by The New York Times.

Another big issue hanging in the balance in this heated political season is the credit card union Capital One (COF) and Discover (DFS).

Capital One CEO Richard Fairbank told analysts on Thursday that it expects to complete the tie-up “in early 2025, subject to regulatory and shareholder approvals.”

The New York Times previously reported that the companies hoped to close by Dec. 31 because of fears that Donald Trump might look unfavorably on their merger if he were to win.

New York Attorney General Letitia James reportedly shot down the odds for an early shutdown. Wednesday, James he announced an investigation into whether the Capital One-Discover tie-up would harm New Yorkers.

“We continue to work through the regulatory approval process and are fully committed to planning and executing a successful integration,” Fairbank added in an earnings statement Thursday.

The problem for any business considering M&A activity right now is that little was said during the campaign by either Vice President Kamala Harris or former President Trump about how they would shape the agencies that oversee US competition laws: The Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission.

Moreover, changes to antitrust agency guidelines and public sentiment could mean the tea leaves won’t be easy to read, no matter who wins the White House.

“The issue for business is what kind of person is going to have these jobs at both the DOJ and the FTC,” said Yale economics professor Fiona. Scott Morton.

Greg Bader, an antitrust attorney and shareholder at Gunster, said his firm continued to see reportable M&A transactions, but with the election pending “you really don’t want to start a merger now … when it’s so troubled”.

Barclays analyst Jason Goldberg said he believed the move to the US election “regardless of who wins” could be positive for corporate investment banking.

“Companies will have a better idea of ​​the policies they will face over the next four years,” he added.

Trump vs. Harris

There are several reasons to believe that both candidates could take a tough stance on corporate mergers.

Although Harris has not publicly disclosed his antitrust stance, Bader and Scott Morton have said they expect the vice president to continue President Joe Biden’s sweeping effort to crack down on what his administration sees as anti-competitive behavior in a range of industries.

On Thursday, the White House announced a new investigation into air travel competition after successfully blocking three airline mergers in four years.

The administration also alleged anti-competitive behavior by tech giants Apple (AAPL) and Amazon (AMZN) and claimed that Microsoft (MSFT) acquisition of the gaming giant Activision Blizzard would create a monopoly in the gambling market (a link that a district court refused to put on hold at the request of the FTC).

The FTC, led by chairwoman Lina Khan, has also won some victories, including a US judge’s decision on Thursday to block the $8.5 billion merger of bag and accessories maker Tapestry and Capri.

The agency also challenged the connection between grocery chains Kroger (Cr) and Albertsons (needles), which is now pending. During the campaign, Harris specifically named consolidations of food and beverage companies when discussing how he would increase regulatory scrutiny as president.

But Trump could support some of those cases, based on his past actions. One of the Biden administration’s most significant antitrust victories — over search giant Google (Google, GOOGLE)— was a case originally filed by Trump’s Justice Department that alleged the tech giant illegally monopolized the search engine market.

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom noted that the Trump administration took more supporting actions antitrust enforcement, raising new theories to challenge vertical mergers, creating the FTC’s Technology Task Force, and opening investigations into Google, Amazon, Facebook (THE TARGET), Apple (AAPL) and Microsoft.

Scott Morton, on the other hand, said he expects Trump to lean toward a Republican preference for corporate profits, “allowing whoever wants to merge.”

Otherwise, she expects the former president to make exceptions to exact revenge on those he perceives as rivals, citing the DOJ. challenge to AT&T’s acquisition of CNN and the alleged crackdown on the mergers of marijuana companies.

The Justice Department said it may recommend to a federal judge that Google be broken up as an antidote to unhealthy competition in the search engine market.

In a recent interview conducted by Bloomberg’s editor-in-chief before the Economic Club of Chicago, Trump suggested that Google’s punishment could be served without forcing it to sell parts of its empire.

“What you can do without tearing it apart is make sure it’s fairer,” Trump said said in that Oct. 15 interview. The former president described Google’s search engine as “rigged” and expressed concern that the consequences for Google in the case could favor China.

Easier touch

Other antitrust lawyers predict that Trump may take a lighter approach to challenges related to mergers and acquisitions and monopoly behavior.

Schwabe shareholder Matt Bisturis PREDICTED that a new Trump administration could “de-emphasize regulatory scrutiny and go easier on private equity packages.”

Barry Barnettan antitrust litigator with Susman Godfrey, pointed out that while people at the top of the Trump administration may be less aggressive in the types of cases they bring and may be willing to settle them without seeking severance, enforcement will be affected by other causes. influences.

Even a second Trump administration could look different, Barnett said, because the DOJ and FTC have repealed vertical merger guidelines developed under the Trump administration and replaced them with a more lenient standard for assuming that mergers are illegal.

And Barnett and Scott Morton agreed that judges are also changing how they evaluate antitrust cases, moving away from defendant-friendly interpretations. consumer welfare standard.

“That general social understanding that we have a problem and we need to move the policy levers to solve the problem undoubtedly affects judges,” said Scott Morton, “because they are responsible for looking at the evidence, and the evidence I’m really, really strong.”

Alexis Keenan is a legal reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow Alexis on X @alexiskweed. David Hollerith of Yahoo Finance contributed to this report.

Click here for an in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events in changing share prices

Read the latest financial and business news from Yahoo Finance