Connect with us

News

Andrea Orcel plots UniCredit’s boldest move yet on Commerzbank

Published

on

Andrea Orcel plots UniCredit’s boldest move yet on Commerzbank

UniCredit’s announcement on Wednesday morning that it had built a 9 per cent stake in rival Commerzbank caught the German establishment by surprise. But the move was at least seven years in the making.

Shares in Commerzbank jumped 17 per cent as investors bet that the purchase would lead to a full-blown bid by UniCredit, which has been surrounded in takeover rumours since chief executive Andrea Orcel took charge more than three years ago.

The move paves the way for a deeper tie-up between the second-biggest listed lenders in Italy and Germany, potentially leading to one of the most significant cross-border mergers in European banking and kick-starting a much-anticipated consolidation wave across the continent’s fragmented banking sector.

“Orcel is making clear that UniCredit will be the largest consolidated bank in Europe — and that is what Europe needs,” said Cole Smead, chief executive of UniCredit shareholder Smead Capital Management.

Since the former Merrill Lynch and UBS dealmaker took over at UniCredit, he has done little to quash speculation he would embark on a major takeover. In May, Orcel told the Financial Times that “theoretically, most of the rumours are true inasmuch as, in every single market we look at every possible target”.

Advertisement

The bank’s estimated €6bn of excess capital has only added to the talk.

In fact, a tie-up between UniCredit and Commerzbank has been discussed between the two sides on several occasions over the past few years, the FT has reported. And the Milan-based lender has discussed its interest in its German rival with German government officials on multiple occasions before this week, according to people with knowledge of the talks.

The deal is also viewed as the most likely in Europe by M&A bankers given the potential synergies between Commerzbank and UniCredit’s HypoVereinsbank German subsidiary.

UniCredit has requested permission from the European Central Bank to increase its Commerzbank stake to above 9.9 per cent and executives at the German lender were on Wednesday considering the approach, according to people briefed on internal discussions.

On Thursday morning, Orcel confirmed that UniCredit was considering increasing its stake and potentially merging with Commerzbank.

Advertisement

“We think there is space given fragmentation of the market to add further value by consolidating,” he said in an interview with Bloomberg TV.

“If there is the basis to do that constructively and strengthen what we can provide to the German economy and Europe then that is a great move for UniCredit.”

While Orcel is the first chief executive at UniCredit to make a public move on the German lender, UniCredit executives first approached German officials about a potential deal as early as 2017. At that time, they decided not to pursue talks due to political opposition to cross-border deals in Germany and the Milan-based lender’s own restructuring plans.

Two years later, UniCredit under chief executive Jean-Pierre Mustier prepared a bid to take control of Commerzbank, which received a €23bn state bailout during the financial crisis.

The plan offered an alternative to the merger that the German lender was then discussing with its domestic rival Deutsche Bank.

Advertisement

The idea was to combine Commerzbank with HypoVereinsbank, a more complementary fit than the Deutsche proposal that could mean fewer job cuts and branch closures. HypoVereinsbank, which is predominantly based in Bavaria and the Hamburg area, had less overlap with Commerzbank’s nationwide business.

Mustier was also prepared to consider listing the merged bank in Germany, a suggestion that proved politically toxic in Italy and hastened the Frenchman’s exit in 2021.

Talks over both deals fell through, however, and the German state was left with a roughly 16 per cent stake in the bank.

UniCredit revived its interest in Commerzbank soon after Orcel, who succeeded Mustier, aborted a deal to buy Italian lender Monte dei Paschi di Siena in late 2021.

Informal talks were planned between Orcel and Manfred Knof, his opposite number at Commerzbank, in early 2022. But they were abandoned after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine forced UniCredit to prioritise dealing with its Russian subsidiary.

Advertisement

Under the original plans, a merger between Commerzbank and HypoVereinsbank would have created a powerhouse in Germany with €785bn in assets, 1,000 branches and 48,000 employees — second only to Deutsche Bank.

UniCredit was then prepared to amass a sizeable stake in Commerzbank and merge the German lender with HypoVereinsbank. The combined entity would have been based in Germany, while UniCredit would have maintained its headquarters and listing in Milan. Commerzbank would have retained a free float of shares listed on the Frankfurt stock exchange.

There is uncertainty about how UniCredit would seek to structure any deal this time around. But the Commerzbank deal follows a similar model UniCredit used when it bought a 9 per cent stake in Alpha Bank from the Greek state last year. Investors predicted the Alpha Bank purchase was a way of UniCredit testing the water in advance of building a bigger position over time — something that has yet to happen.

While there is expectation among some UniCredit investors and bank insiders that it could take the same tack with Commerzbank, there are potential roadblocks to a full takeover.

First, the German government — which is still the biggest shareholder in Commerzbank with a 12 per cent holding — could demand the lender retains a listing in the country as well as its own domestic supervisory board, which is currently chaired by Jens Weidmann, the former German central bank governor.

Advertisement

“Germany needs to have domestic banks to finance its economy, the Mittelstand, and Commerzbank is key here,” said a banker who has experience negotiating with the German government. “This is not only a financial deal, it is a political deal and UniCredit will need to be careful how they deal with the German government.”

UniCredit also faces resistance from Germany’s powerful unions over potential job cuts and a shift in power from Frankfurt to Milan.

“We will fight such a transaction tooth and nail,” said Stefan Wittmann, a senior official at Germany’s services sector union and a Commerzbank supervisory board member. “If necessary, will also organise public protests.”

There is also a scenario where Deutsche Bank would renew interest in its domestic competitor and launch a rival bid, having failed to strike a deal five years ago. However, people close to Deutsche said the bank’s recovery in recent years made it much less interested in pursuing a deal.

Another potential hurdle for UniCredit is if its own investors — who have enjoyed a 230 per cent share price gain over the past three years — push back against the deal because of concerns it might affect the bank’s promise of returns to shareholders. The bank has committed to returning €8.6bn, its entire 2023 profit pool, to investors in the form of buybacks and dividends, and has built an expectation of further returns.

Advertisement

Orcel has been clear with investors he would only pursue a transaction if it meets certain conditions, including a 15 per cent return on investment.

But his empire-building met with a muted response on Wednesday. Shares in UniCredit closed flat, giving the Milan-listed bank a market value of €59bn — three times that of Commerzbank. One top 10 shareholder told the FT that they did not expect the return policy to be affected even if UniCredit were to increase its stake in Commerzbank.

“It’s not an either-or,” they said. “On paper it’s the best match [for UniCredit]. It’s a good deal if they can clear it — but whether they can, we will see.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

News

As Harvard Battles Trump, Its President Will Take a 25% Pay Cut

Published

on

As Harvard Battles Trump, Its President Will Take a 25% Pay Cut

Harvard University, which is clashing with the Trump administration over its academic independence and the withdrawal of billions of dollars in research funding, said on Wednesday that its president had chosen to cut his own pay by 25 percent starting later this year.

The university has not disclosed specifics about its compensation package for the president, Alan M. Garber, who became Harvard’s permanent leader last year. His recent predecessors were paid around $1 million a year.

Whatever it amounts to in dollar terms, though, the pay reduction is a symbolic gesture compared with the scale of the university’s fight with the federal government, which has already moved to block more than $2.6 billion in funding for Harvard.

A university spokesman, Jonathan L. Swain, said Dr. Garber’s salary would be reduced starting July 1, when Harvard’s next fiscal year begins. The university, which has already halted new hiring and suspended merit raises for many employees, said that other Harvard leaders were planning contributions to the school.

The university acknowledged Dr. Garber’s decision the day after it expanded its lawsuit against the Trump administration.

Advertisement

The government made a range of intrusive demands of Harvard last month, asserting that the university had, among other things, not done enough to combat antisemitism. The university has sharply contested those accusations. Then last week, Linda McMahon, the education secretary, said that Harvard would not be eligible for any more federal grants.

Legal experts have cast doubt on the viability of Ms. McMahon’s decree, and many of them believe that Harvard has a strong legal case to reverse the cuts the Trump administration has already made. Even so, Harvard, which has routinely received hundreds of millions of dollars a year in federal research funding, is preparing for turmoil as long as President Trump remains in office.

In the first months of Mr. Trump’s second term, Harvard has already had to scale back or eliminate some research programs, including efforts to study tuberculosis, Lou Gehrig’s disease and radiation sickness, because of federal funding cuts. The university’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, faced with some of the most significant funding losses, is eliminating desktop phones, limiting catering, reducing security and cutting back on purchases of new computers. The school has also cut back on leased office space, slots for doctoral students and a shuttle that ferries employees between offices.

The Crimson, the Harvard campus newspaper, first reported Dr. Garber’s pay decision.

A sense of campus solidarity in the funding fight extends beyond Harvard’s top ranks. Ninety tenured professors have pledged to take 10 percent pay cuts in order to help Harvard, the nation’s oldest and wealthiest university, weather the Trump administration’s onslaught. Ryan D. Enos, a professor of government and a leader of the group, said the university had expressed its gratitude.

Advertisement

The group came together, Dr. Enos said, in recognition that some Harvard employees could be harder hit than others by the federal cuts.

In a statement, the professors, some of whom have not been named publicly, said their offer to work for less pay signaled “our commitment as faculty members to use means at our disposal to protect the university and, especially, staff and students who do not have the same protections.”

Continue Reading

News

Qatar orders up to 210 Boeing jets during Trump visit

Published

on

Qatar orders up to 210 Boeing jets during Trump visit

Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for free

Qatar has agreed to buy up to 210 aircraft from Boeing in what US President Donald Trump hailed as the largest order of jets in the history of the American aerospace company as he visited the Gulf state. 

The White House announced economic deals worth more than $243bn as Qatar became the latest oil-rich country to earn plaudits from the president for buying into his “America first” investment policy as he toured the Gulf in pursuit of headline-grabbing business deals.

Qatar Airways, the state-owned national carrier, had agreed to a $96bn deal to acquire up to 210 American-made Boeing 787 Dreamliner and 777X aircraft, the White House said, adding that it was Boeing’s “largest-ever wide-body order”.

Advertisement

“Congratulations to Boeing. Get those planes out there,” Trump said at a signing ceremony with Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani, Qatar’s emir. “I just want to thank you. We’ve been friends for a long time.” 

Boeing shares were up 2.3 per cent on Wednesday. Airlines often receive a discount off the list price of the aeroplanes they buy.

Other multibillion dollar deals have also been reached in defence, energy and technology, the White House said.

Continue Reading

News

A federal appeals panel has made enforcing the Voting Rights Act harder in 7 states

Published

on

A federal appeals panel has made enforcing the Voting Rights Act harder in 7 states

A demonstrator carrying a sign that says “VOTING RIGHTS NOW” walks across the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge in 2022 in Washington, D.C.

Samuel Corum/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Samuel Corum/Getty Images

A panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down one of the key remaining ways of enforcing the federal Voting Rights Act in seven mainly Midwestern states.

For decades, private individuals and groups have brought the majority of lawsuits for enforcing the landmark law’s Section 2 protections against racial discrimination in the election process.

But in a 2-1 ruling released Wednesday, the three-judge panel found that Section 2 cannot be enforced by lawsuits from private parties under a separate federal statute known as Section 1983.

Advertisement

That statute gives individuals the right to sue state and local government officials for violating their civil rights. Section 1983 stems from the Ku Klux Klan Act that Congress passed after the Civil War to protect Black people in the South from white supremacist violence, and voting rights advocates have considered it an antidote to a controversial 2023 decision by a different federal appeals panel that made it harder to enforce Section 2 in the 8th Circuit.

That earlier panel found that Section 2 is not privately enforceable because the Voting Rights Act does not explicitly name private individuals and groups. Only the head of the Justice Department can bring these types of lawsuits, that panel concluded.

The majority of the panel that released Wednesday’s opinion came to the same conclusion.

“Because [the Voting Rights Act’s Section 2] does not unambiguously confer an individual right, the plaintiffs do not have a cause of action under [Section 1983 of Title 42 of the U.S. Code] to enforce [Section 2] of the Act,” wrote Circuit Judge Raymond Gruender, who was nominated by former President George W. Bush and joined in the opinion by Circuit Judge Jonathan Kobes, a nominee of President Trump.

In a dissenting opinion, however, Chief Circuit Judge Steven Colloton, also a Bush nominee, pointed out the long history of private individuals and groups suing to enforce Section 2’s legal protections against any inequalities in the opportunities voters of colors have to elect preferred candidates in districts where voting is racially polarized.

Advertisement

“Since 1982, private plaintiffs have brought more than 400 actions based on [Section 2] that have resulted in judicial decisions. The majority concludes that all of those cases should have been dismissed because [Section 2] of the Voting Rights Act does not confer a voting right,” Colloton wrote.

Under the current Trump administration, the Justice Department has stepped away from Section 2 cases that had begun during the Biden administration.

The 8th Circuit includes Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota. The latest ruling comes out of a North Dakota redistricting lawsuit by the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians and the Spirit Lake Tribe. Citing Section 1983 as a basis for bringing the case as private groups, the tribal nations challenged a map of state legislative voting districts, which was approved by North Dakota’s Republican-controlled legislature after the 2020 census.

In a part of the state where voting is racially polarized, the tribal nations argued, the redistricting lines drawn by the state lawmakers reduce the opportunity for Native American voters to elect candidates of their choice.

“For the first time in over 30 years, there are zero Native Americans serving in the North Dakota state Senate today because of the way the 2020 redistricting lines were configured,” Mark Gaber, an attorney with the Campaign Legal Center, which is representing the tribal nations, said during a court hearing in October 2024.

Advertisement

A lower court struck down the redistricting plan for violating Section 2 by diluting the collective power of Native American voters in northeastern North Dakota.

But the state’s Republican secretary of state, Michael Howe, appealed the lower court’s ruling to the 8th Circuit, arguing that, contrary to decades of precedent, Section 1983 does not allow private individuals and groups to bring this kind of lawsuit.

Since 2021, Republican officials in Arkansas and Louisiana have made similar novel arguments in redistricting lawsuits after Justice Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s first Supreme Court appointee, issued a single-paragraph opinion that said lower courts have considered whether private individuals can sue an “open question.” For this North Dakota lawsuit, 14 GOP state attorneys general signed on to a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that private parties don’t have a right to sue with Section 2 claims.

In a separate Arkansas-based case before the 8th Circuit, GOP state officials have also questioned whether there is a private right of action under another part of the Voting Rights Acts — Section 208, which states that voters who need assistance to vote because of a disability or inability to read or write can generally receive help from a person of their choice.

Many legal experts consider this questioning of a private right of action as the prelude to the next potential showdown over the Voting Rights Act at the Supreme Court, where multiple rulings by the court’s conservative majority have eroded the law’s protections over the past decade.

Advertisement

Edited by Benjamin Swasey

Continue Reading

Trending