As the end of the forced marriage with the upcoming IPO in sight, do ABN Amro and the Ministry of Finance still less their best appearances to stop. The two spare each other the last time any more.
So Minister Dijsselbloem recently published a letter from Bank CEO Gerrit Zalm showing that ABN Amro felt no need his ministry informed of the fraud at a branch in Dubai. Only when the FD asked for clarification at the bank, the Ministry was informed while the case dates back to 2014.
In strictly legal terms is that position to defend no doubt, but is otherwise dissolved in a good relationship. Especially when the preparations for the IPO come at a crucial stage, you want to prevent an owner is surprised. This principle applies to an increased extent as who owns the Minister of Finance.
The state bank nor saw the need to Dijsselbloem a tedious passage save to the House by abandoning the purpose of the IPO of a salary increase of top management. An additional salary was to compensate for a lower variable compensation allowed by law and therefore legitimate. At the same time the bankers pay is still an open nerve in politics and society and thus a certainty that the minister has to answer in the House why he let this pass yet
Het reply Dijsselbloem was equally illustrative of the relationship. First, the Labour MP Henk Nijboer laid the ball on the spot by asking how full of emotion it was still possible. Then the minister could say loud and clear that he was also not agree, but he can not help it. It was to the outside world such a beautiful act that it seemed directed.
And then there’s the list of investment banks that can accompany the IPO. It is an open secret that the top of the bank wanted to set an example by choosing focus based on reputation and clean hands. However, the manager of the State shares NLFI, came up with a long list on which all were familiar names, including those whose reputation since the credit crisis has taken a knock.
Now the two parties can hardly wait until the divorce is a fact, it is interesting to see what shape it. Does Finance still reach out to the top of the bank when it comes to the protection structure? According to the schedule gives Dijsselbloem Friday insight into the line of march. Bank and ministry agree that there is a protective structure à la KPN has come, so one with a protection foundation. Still needs a legal quibble to be found so that the foundation does not sixty days have to wait for approval by the European Central Bank (ECB) to raise a wall, but that obstacle seems insurmountable.
Dat there is a protective structure, is pure profit for the bank since Dijsselbloem could have just note that supervisors DNB and ECB not just everyone off the couch let go. Anyone who wants to build a stake greater than 10%, must therefore first get approval. And according to the theoretical models a protective structure, the value of the business press in an IPO. Sanding with the desire to value maximization in Finance.
Although ABN Amro thus an important point scores, the bank will not completely again what it wants. End of this year will be a first harvest of 20 to 25% of the shares on the stock exchange. At that time, the question is when the protection structure must now go exactly. ABN Amro will be in charge as soon as possible and a protection foundation helps even against an existing shareholder.
At the bank, they are still Always remember that the government is ‘down’ left, when a consortium in 2007 reported to want to chop it up with the message ABN. With the growing influence of political parties on the left and right of the political spectrum, like Salmon & amp; Co fast security. From the first moment the protection foundation must be there, the bank says why. Only when the protective umbrella of the government fails as a major shareholder, says Finance.
The question is whether Dijsselbloem willing to risk that the foundation turns against the government. Consider the case that the government as a major shareholder wants to replace the commissioners because of an undesirable remuneration policy. The foundation could cast a rampart to protect the bank and its directors. It is pure theory, but it is so so but can happen. A question of a different order which is renowned driver or lawyer feels compelled to take a seat on the foundation as long as the government plays a dominant role. The arm of Finance reaches far after all.
Which option is preferred if a compromise is found, will depend primarily on whether both parties opt for a divorce battle or an amiable end of a forced relationship.
Majority funds protected from takeovers
Move over the company to see which foundations protect the interests of the Dutch listed companies.
No comments:
Post a Comment