Borsa, Unicredit, Mediobanca, Generali and more. What is (and what is not) with the Copasir report
Conversation of Michele Arnese, director of Start, with the analyst Alessandro Aresu, scientific advisor of Limes, to deepen the Copasir report "on the protection of national strategic assets in the banking and insurance sectors": Borsa Italiana, Unicredit, Mediobanca, Generali and not only
Copasir is critical of the transaction that led to the entry of Cassa Depositi e Prestiti into Euronext and the simultaneous acquisition of Borsa Italiana. Do you share?
No. As I wrote, I believe that the Copasir document is useful for reflection on the country, especially in the parts in which it analyzes the impact of technological transformations on banks and in the reflection on impaired loans, but I do not share the criticism of that operation .
Copasir writes that for the German offer, "which was apparently the most economically advantageous", "the reasons that led to the choice towards the other solution have not been clarified". But does the Committee for the Security of the Republic therefore prefer the economic aspect to the strategic one? Shouldn't it be the other way around? And then: if on the one hand it highlights the dangers of a Franco-German advance in finance, how does it look at Deutsche Borsa?
The structural aspect to consider are the technological transformations in finance, which is why I proposed to audit Euklid, or at least the many interesting realities where Italians are active. At a strategic level, in transactions on financial infrastructures it is important that stable Italian investors are involved and guarantee a well-defined supervision. On Borsa Italiana there was this logic, then we will see its development over time.
We're on Cdp. Copasir first praises it for its strategic value and in the end hopes that Parliament will give the directions to the Cassa, which is also controlled by the Mef and participated by the foundations, well beyond the tasks of the current parliamentary commission on the Cassa. Here is the precise passage: "The Committee, considering that the intervention of Cdp involves a significant political and economic choice on the part of the Ministry of Economy, underlines the importance of Parliament being adequately involved in this process, attributing to it the task of determining, on the one hand, the guidelines for the use of the resources of the "strategic fund" at Cassa Depositi e Prestiti, and on the other, the work of the latter in its new dimension of "sovereign fund". Furthermore, also the exercise of the control action on the full correspondence of the employments to the addresses provided should be traced back to the functions of parliamentary direction ". But at this point why – I wondered – a supervisory commission also for Invitalia or for Mediocredito centrale? …
In this context, I try to defend the Copasir perspective, because I am more moderate in my reading. Let's do some order. A Parliamentary Supervisory Commission already exists on the activities of Cassa Depositi e Prestiti under separate management and carries out hearings. Copasir clearly knows this. Therefore the Copasir point may concern a general reference to the areas of its competence, relating to national security. Economic intelligence, technological intelligence and awareness of national security are aspects that do not only concern the information system for security but involve a widespread culture of our country. The theme concerns the conversation about what is strategic, which must also indicate what is not, so as not to put everything in the same cauldron. It is this conversation that I consider important, also for the Italian "sovereign fund" (expression I used on Limes in 2015) and for the investee companies. It being understood that the geopolitical and security dimension in the organization of the public economy in Italy deserves a broad discussion.
Copasir writes: “The fear is that common initiatives of the Franco-German axis could marginalize Italy”. Do we mention names and surnames? They indicate fears that Generali may be bought by Axa. Just this? And what are the potential “joint initiatives of the Franco-German framework”? They appear to be expressions more from journalistic editorials than from Copasir reports …
The theme of the Copasir report, in summary, reminds us that in the last decade a gap has emerged between the two main Italian banking groups: Unicredit and Intesa Sanpaolo. Both are the result of the mergers of 2007, but which have seen a clear change in the balance of power: the internationalized and more systemic actor (Unicredit) has weakened, while clearly Intesa has strengthened significantly. At the turn of this process, the French actors (Bnp Paribas and Crédit Agricole) have become more present in our country, a fact that builds dependence in two directions, with unbalanced power relations on Paris. There have been Italian finance operations in France (for example, Mediobanca with Messier Maris), but still not on the same level.
So always and in any case "no to the French"?
I don't think we need to draw conclusions to say "no to the French" at all, as the main element that defines us as a country. It would be a weak position. Of course, we must not deny the problems: for example, the umpteenth attack on Fincantieri in the report edited by the parliamentarian Sophie Primas must be rejected and criticized, also because it presents unfounded and instrumental arguments. I have also formulated my vision on Espresso : starting from the existing differences and the areas of collaboration, we need to discuss with France at the highest level, to find a thread in some events that concern us.
Therefore?
In the light of recent history, however, we must above all question ourselves, because international financial capacity always speaks of national capacity.
As written on Start , it is not clear whether for Copasir – also given the declarations of many of its exponents before the approval of the final document – Del Vecchio is or is not a Trojan horse of the French in Mediobanca or Generali. The report reads: "Delfin's capital increase in Mediobanca could change its corporate structure, with consequences for our main insurance institution, Generali, which, as is well known, holds a considerable package of government bonds". And the Copasir president, commenting on the report, said: "I will limit myself to saying that Del Vecchio is a great Italian". Therefore?
I can say my opinion as an analyst on Del Vecchio and on the context in which it is placed. What have we seen over the years? The growing approach of individual Italian entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial families to the French system. It is a process I described in 2017. Where does this process come from? Only from the charm of Paris? No, in my opinion it comes from the search for a system that better accompanies the dimensional growth than ours. In Italy there are extraordinary entrepreneurial skills, but medium-sized enterprises do not grow in size, they do not make acquisitions in a systemic and widespread way, and there is no national structure (financial, legal, advisory) to accompany these processes, in a capitalism that still has few listed companies. But size is essential in global competition, as the late Marcello De Cecco already reminded us.
What to do then?
So in my opinion the Italian weakness comes from this situation. In related terms, it also comes from the fact that the Leonardo Del Vecchio are few, so there is a risk of hanging on to a single, however not at the beginning of his career. There are too few stories of large private companies, which then also invest heavily in finance, technology and defense. This is the structural element of Italian weakness. However, it seems to me that Del Vecchio has not indicated the prospect of a merger for Generali.
On Limes you wrote: “The least interesting parts of the report are undoubtedly the addenda on Chinese and Russian investments in our country. Although such a survey is an obligatory gesture for our geopolitical alignment, Copasir's analysis on the subject is concise and lacking in originality ”. And what guesses us that at the end of the report "on the protection of national strategic assets in the banking and insurance sectors", the in-depth analysis, for example, of Barilla's relations with Russia and Pirelli with China?
An entire report could undoubtedly be dedicated to relations with China, therefore, in my opinion, it is not necessary to proceed in brief addenda, such as those we find in the report. However, at least Copasir did a job – which could be improved – in some areas where there was a public void. It decided to proceed in sectoral terms: telecommunications first, then the financial aspects, then energy. The themes to talk about are always many. In telecommunications, the emphasis as we know was on 5G, but there are other important aspects of the country's competitiveness and sector evolution that should be considered (for example, IT services companies, data centers, towers). The choice of sectors then reminds us that there are other sensitive elements to consider, in the context in which we live, to understand national capabilities and perspectives.
What are you talking about?
I am thinking, for example, of biotechnologies. Here too, the risk that we run – and that we will run – is to wake up to the importance of something when the news reminds us of it. But we as a country cannot do this, otherwise we are late. The importance of biotechnology had to be considered earlier, years ago, particularly given the contribution of pharmaceuticals to the recovery. It is a very important topic.
This is a machine translation from Italian language of a post published on Start Magazine at the URL https://www.startmag.it/economia/borsa-unicredit-mediobanca-generali-e-non-solo-cosa-va-e-cosa-non-va-nel-rapporto-copasir/ on Sun, 15 Nov 2020 09:50:42 +0000.