But what on earth does the Merlyn fund say about Tim?
The role of Comin & Partners in the communication of the Merlyn fund on Tim. Francis Walsingham's letter
Dear director,
since you still don't throw away my letters and since I'm enjoying trying to be a journalist – albeit sui generis – with these letters of mine, this time I'm also applying to be a headline writer and therefore I propose to you: "But what on earth does the Merlyn fund communicate about Tim?”.
The title comes to me spontaneously while reading the economic-financial news in the newspapers this morning.
I read this “brief” (that's what they say, right?) in the Corriere della Sera : “Consob shines a spotlight on Merlyn's moves. At the end of October the fund launched an activist campaign proposing to Tim and its partners an alternative plan to the sale of the network to KKR. In announcing the initiative, Merlyn declared "a stake of less than 3%" in the group, saying it was willing to rise above 5% in the event of inaction from the board. To do this, now that the board of directors has accepted KKR's offer, the fund would have to purchase many shares. At the request of the stock exchange authority on Sunday Merlyn specified that he holds 0.021% of Tim, a share much lower than 3%”.
Oh well, I said to myself: but does anyone who advertised that they have a share of less than 3% actually only hold 0.021% of Tim?
Unlikely, impossible, I told myself. So I called you last night, but as usual you didn't answer me, perhaps because it was just after 10.30pm and you were already in bed (you've always told me that shortly after 10pm you're already in bed and you're almost precise of the communicators of the Merlyn fund).
So I called one of your colleagues from the press – they work late afterwards, unlike you – to whom I asked to have the press releases sent by the Merlyn fund in recent days.
And I noticed that Corriere della Sera was – perhaps unintentionally – benign towards Alessandro Barnaba and Stefano Siragusa, leaders of the alternative plan to that of KKR on the Tim network via the Merlyn fund. Oh yes, because if we read in the RCS newspaper today that Merlyn had declared "a share of less than 3%", the press release sent from the Comin & Partners email address on 27 October is even more precise.
We read: “Dear colleague, we would like to inform you that the Merlyn Partners investment fund, which currently holds an amount of TIM shares of just under 3%, has just sent the President and members of the Board of Directors of TIM an industrial plan for the relaunch of TIM as an alternative to that of Dr. Labriola”.
So not "less than 3%", as Corriere della Sera writes today, and therefore it could also have been 2% or 1%, who knows. No, Merlyn's communicators put in black and white "just under 3%". So 2.9% or so. Instead it is 0.021%. Perhaps it was better to communicate that he had a share in Tim of just over zero percent.
These are trivial issues for me, as I am not accustomed to the consolidated finance law and stock market issues.
But fortunately this morning I was enlightened by Il Sole 24 Ore , which explains: “However, it was the Authority chaired by Paolo Savona who took the trouble to verify the ownership quotas, who asked the promoters of the plan for Tim for clarification, alternative to the spin-off and sale of the network (KKR's offer of 18.8 billion for the network was then approved by the Tim board of directors on Sunday 5 November), obtaining the response that the position, which remained unchanged on 12 November when at Consob's request was been communicated to the market, it is far from being close to the 3% threshold. 3% constitutes the first information threshold, beyond which the obligation to communicate to Consob and the market is triggered. But this is not the case. It is within the powers of Consob to investigate across the board according to the market abuse directives, which include the case of information manipulation".
In short, the precise number is not a question of the sex of angels or a diatribe for quibbling lawyers and time wasters, if I understand correctly.
Furthermore, that final hint from the newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore is perhaps made more explicit by a passage from Vittorio Malagutti's article in the newspaper Domani , when he writes : "After the great fuss of the past few days, between press releases, newspaper interviews and various indiscretions , it is probable that Consob will proceed with further investigations to verify whether there has been a market disturbance".
Market disruption? Okay, now it's going too far, I think.
All this could simply be part of a usual strategy of the press offices based on what a journalistic award celebrated just last night in Milan defines as " constructive communication ". In short, there is no malice and there is no deception: we are constructive and wish well .
You are, my dear director, the only or almost the only skeptic on the market for the healthy combination of communication and information .
Best regards and try to be a little constructive too.
Francis Walsingham
This is a machine translation from Italian language of a post published on Start Magazine at the URL https://www.startmag.it/economia/ma-cosa-diavolo-comunica-il-fondo-merlyn-su-tim/ on Tue, 14 Nov 2023 07:13:27 +0000.