Published on: 09 Feb 2011
Last year, the Australian and Singaporean stock exchanges announced plans to merge.
Earlier today the London Stock Exchange and Toronto Stock Exchange announced that they had formally agreed to merge and Deutsche Borse and NYSE Euronext, two of the world’s largest stock exchange operators, have now just disclosed that they are in “advanced merger discussions”.
Wow – it’s all happening on the exchanges.
If you look at the transatlantic merger between the London and Toronto exchanges then the merger has been valued at an impressive £5.5 billion.
It has been presented very much as a “merger of equals” and not a takeover (although the London Stock Exchange shareholders will get 55% of the newly created entity).
The new entity will have its headquarters in both London and Toronto and whilst some people may say that having two headquarters is a bit of a “cop out”, it does avoid the accusation that one organisation has taken over the other.
There will of course be an interesting internal discussion about where THE boardroom will be located. The more likely situation though is that they will have two boardrooms, one in London and one in Toronto.
Either way the new enlarged entity will certainly become a dominant player. It will have over 6,700 listings and will become the largest exchange in terms of companies traded with an aggregate market capitalisation of approximately £3.7 trillion.
Mining companies will also no doubt be interested as the Toronto exchange claims to be the world’s leading resources market and approximately a third of the companies in the FTSE 100 Index (the 100 largest companies on the London Stock Exchange) are from the mining and energy sectors.
The proposed benefits of the merger include anticipated annual savings of £35 million by the second year of the merger.
Whether they could save more by only having the one boardroom table is a separate discussion point.
Published on: 27 Aug 2010
Bethany Hare is a remarkable young lady. She’s only 10 years old and wanted to raise money for a local children’s hospice.
She came up with the idea of dressing up as Charlie Chaplin, singing the song “Smile” (the theme from Chaplin’s 1936 film “Modern Times”) and then posting it on a charity website.
She was aiming to raise £5,500 and it all started well with people appreciating the effort she had put in and making donations.
She was then contacted by New York based Bourne Music Publishers, who own the rights to the song. Several discussions between Bethany’s mum and the Publishers later and the end result was that Bethany was told that she must either remove the song or pay a license fee of $2,000 to keep it online for one year plus a further $250 every time she performs it in public.
This is a lot of money for a little girl of 10 years old to pay to a big music publisher especially when she’s trying to raise £5,500 for terminally ill children. Bethany removed the song from her video and in true Chaplin style ran it as a “silent movie”.
A lot of people will question the approach taken by Bourne Music.
Mendelow’s Matrix is a method of analysing stakeholders in a business. According to this model the stakeholders that management should really look after are the “key players” (high interest / high power). Bethany falls within the low interest / low power quadrant of Bourne Music’s matrix and hence the theory goes that they can employ “minimal effort” to this category.
Some would argue that they had a duty to protect the song and obtain all the royalties they could from it but it seemed obvious that Bethany was never going to pay that sort of money.
This story has however got a happy ending. Ben Model from Silent Clowns in New York wrote a piano score especially for Bethany to use and she has now reached her money raising target. Bethany’s performance can be seen here.
I’ll leave it up to you to decide who you think are the good guys and the bad guys in this story. My view is that the title of the song in debate was “Smile” and I’m pretty certain that not a lot of people were smiling when they heard the approach taken by the Publishers.
Published on: 29 Nov 2009
RBS was a big success story in the last decade, showing very fast growth and taking over bigger banks such as Nat West. Its considerable returns appear to have been won, rather predictably, by taking a high level of risk. Previous blog entries have mused on the wisdom of having fired their risk manager.
The banking group was saved from collapse by receiving vast emergency support from the UK government. This was controversial but almost everybody agrees that it was necessary in order to avoid a collapse of the entire banking system. Such a collapse would certainly have made the recession very much worse.
The British public thus became an involuntary shareholder in RBS. Indeed, the UK government now holds a controlling interest in RBS, though it’s been keen to avoid interfering much in the management of the bank.
The image of bankers in the UK at the moment is very tarnished. Most people who have an opinion on senior bank staff have an unfavourable opinion; often seeing them as people who were over-rewarded for taking excessive risks. Many resent having to bail out a bank ruined by unwise risk management.
So it came as a surprise to many when the directors of RBS said that they intended giving bonuses and pay increases to many staff last week. This provoked anger from the government and outrage from the public. The RBS board stated that they would resign if they weren’t allowed to pay the bonuses, as failing to pay people well would result in loss of talented staff.
It has to be questioned whether the board have ever studied stakeholder management and the Mendelow matrix. With 70% of the ordinary shares, the government is a key player; the views of the public must be respected. If that means the synchronised departure of the board of RBS, so be it. Bankers’ salaries and bonuses have been in an inflationary spiral in recent years and some bank must be the first to bring their salaries into the realm of sustainable expenses.
It will be interesting to see if the directors follow through on their threat, back down or are even removed from office by the shareholders (ie the government). Whatever the outcome, their credibility is arguably much tarnished.