Unicredit, Banco Bpm and the market slapped

The so-called banking risk is turning into an institutional crisis, or rather, into a crisis of credibility of the institutions. It all started with the unprecedented decision of the Meloni government to apply the golden power to the public exchange offer (OPS) of Unicredit on Banco Bpm , providing very stringent requirements and invasive constraints on the operation, not welcomed by the government, of the bank led by Andrea Orcel. On Wednesday, Consob , the authority that supervises listed companies, decided to suspend the OPS for a month (new deadline end of July), considering the requests of Unicredit which in a self-protection request asked the government to reopen the procedure on the golden power because it provides for requirements that are too stringent and ambiguous. Thus, considering the "situation of uncertainty" that does not allow "the recipients to reach a well-founded judgment on the offer", Consob suspended the OPS.

Banco Bpm CEO Giuseppe Castagna expressed disappointment, considering Consob's decision "an abnormal measure", which damages his bank by keeping it, as a consequence of the passivity rule, blocked while the banking system is restructuring. Therefore Banco Bpm has announced that it will appeal against Consob's measure: "We will defend ourselves in every venue", said Castagna. In the meantime, Unicredit, taking advantage of the suspension of the takeover bid, has announced that it will appeal to the TAR against the government's golden power . Palazzo Chigi, for its part, has reacted - according to Bloomberg - by maintaining a hard line: no softening of the requirements. There is no negotiation.

The government parties also attacked the president of Consob, Paolo Savona, head-on, arguing that the authority's decision delegitimizes the government and distorts the free market. A surreal comment, given the heavy protagonism of the government and politics in this operation. But, perhaps more paradoxically, Savona inadvertently contributed to delegitimizing Consob by putting his resignation on the table: "I am always ready to leave. I leave when I am no longer welcome and this in all institutions - said the economist - As long as I am welcome I will stay, otherwise I will leave". Savona's position is dangerous, even if consistent with the institutional involution that brought him to the top of the Authority back in 2019.

Those were the days of the yellow-green Conte government, when the assault on technicians and independent authorities was methodical. At the time, one of the targets of the majority parties was precisely Consob. At the top was Mario Nava, a technician who came from Brussels and who had in mind to relaunch the institution by opening it to the markets (“I take over the leadership of Consob at a time of low reputation,” said Nava). But after a few months his reform process was crippled and the parties, especially the M5S, began to undermine him with specious arguments: the accusation was that Nava, whose appointment had passed all the checks, was “incompatible with the independence and autonomy of Consob” because he had been detached rather than given leave of absence by the European Commission.

After months of mud-slinging and repeated requests for his resignation due to lack of independence, acknowledging the impossibility of carrying out his mandate as he would have liked, Nava resigned because he had received “a clear and unequivocal signal of total political disapproval”. It was an institutional surrender, because the mandate of the president of Consob is designed precisely to resist political pressure. The accusations against Nava were so specious that in his place they did not choose a “more independent” personality, but a representative of the executive power: the then Minister for European Affairs Paolo Savona. The goal was to place Consob under the control of the government.

Savona, by making his mandate as president of Consob available because he was “no longer welcome”, is certainly consistent with the method that brought him to the top of the Authority: the government's approval. Intended not as personal and professional appreciation at the time of appointment, but as a source of continuous legitimacy: the work of Consob must be “welcome” to the government, otherwise its leaders fall.

In any case, this is a bad signal for the market, for Italian savers and international investors, but it explains well why the stock market in Italy is asphyxiated. If Savona's resignation were to become effective, it would be, after Nava, the second consecutive case of a president who leaves to make room for people more faithful to the line. At this point, before proceeding with the new appointment, it would be preferable to bring Consob back under the Mef: a reform certainly terrible, but one that would do away with the fiction of independence.

More on these topics: