Deliberations among the nations of the European Union about a new level of regulations for hedge funds there have reached an impasse.
I wrote here 11 months ago that the draft directive circulating at that time was dead as written. There have been lots of developments since.
The U.K., where most of the Europe-headquartered funds actually are, has been working to water down the more draconian aspects of these proposals from within the EU system, and the U.S. has been exerting some pressure from without.
The Brits are worried that this will hurt London's status as one of the world's great financial hubs, while the U.S., and in particular Treasury Secretary Geithner, worries that the EU is going protectionist -- that it will put barriers in the path of any institutions and high net worth investors there who want to entrust their money to operations in New York.
Meanwhile, the French and the Germans are pulling in the other direction, to make the regulations tougher on the nasty hedge funds, whether of New York or London, than the drafts of the directive would have it.
There is an idea circulating in some quarters that hedge funds were at fault in the 2007-08 credit crunch. That is utter nonsense. Quite old-fashioned, supposedly conservative and stodgy, institutions like banks were the real trouble makers. The hedgers generally did a good job of keeping their head while bankers all around them were losing theirs.
At any rate: the news this week is that EU diplomats tried to push the process forward at a meeting Monday, the 27th, but they failed.
A big possible winner is Switzerland. A map will tell you that the Swiss are in Europe, but they don't act like it. They've stayed away from the EU, and if EU rules do become too onerous for HFs, we might see a lot of them developing a taste for Alpine air.
Showing posts with label Switzerland. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Switzerland. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Monday, August 30, 2010
Sanofi and Genzyme: They'll do it the hard way
Negotiations for a friendly merger between Sanofi-Aventis and Genzyme, which I discussed here a month ago, now seem to have fallen apart.
Sanofi's CEO has written a "bear hug" letter in the first instance to the Genzyme CEO but in reality to the Genzyme shareholders. The idea is to get the shareholders ticked off that their management is standing between them and a nice pay-out.
Here's a discussion from two and a half years ago about the art of giving a bear hug.
A little history. Back in 2004, a company then called Sanofi-Synthélabo made a 47.8 bn euro for Aventis, a Strasbourg based concern. At first, Initially, Aventis spurned the bid, and a three-month battle resulted. The merger did in time come about, but the price increased, from the original 47.8 billion to 54.5 billion euros.
The French government played a big role in that imbroglio. The government was concerned that a Swiss company (Novartis) would step in as Aventis' white knight if Sanofi-Synthélabo didn't raise its bid. That would lead to Aventis falling under the control of foreigners. Indeed, non-EU foreigners! (The Swiss are only geographically part of Europe.)
The lesson: there is good reason, based on their fiduciary obligation to their shareholders, for the management of Genzyme to make this difficult for Sanofi. They shouldn't make it impossible, but they should make it difficult.
Sanofi's CEO has written a "bear hug" letter in the first instance to the Genzyme CEO but in reality to the Genzyme shareholders. The idea is to get the shareholders ticked off that their management is standing between them and a nice pay-out.
Here's a discussion from two and a half years ago about the art of giving a bear hug.
A little history. Back in 2004, a company then called Sanofi-Synthélabo made a 47.8 bn euro for Aventis, a Strasbourg based concern. At first, Initially, Aventis spurned the bid, and a three-month battle resulted. The merger did in time come about, but the price increased, from the original 47.8 billion to 54.5 billion euros.
The French government played a big role in that imbroglio. The government was concerned that a Swiss company (Novartis) would step in as Aventis' white knight if Sanofi-Synthélabo didn't raise its bid. That would lead to Aventis falling under the control of foreigners. Indeed, non-EU foreigners! (The Swiss are only geographically part of Europe.)
The lesson: there is good reason, based on their fiduciary obligation to their shareholders, for the management of Genzyme to make this difficult for Sanofi. They shouldn't make it impossible, but they should make it difficult.
Labels:
France,
Genzyme,
Novartis,
Sanofi-Aventis,
Switzerland
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
A Potash Auction?

The giant Anglo-Australian mining concern BHP Billeton (LSE: BLT) -- which has a stock symbol that reminds me of a sandwich -- has bid $38.6 billion for Potash Corp., of Canada, and has also put on something of a charm offensive, seeking to persuade Canadians that locals will continue to run the place.
Canadian regulators have taken a permissive attitude of late toward foreign companies who want to take over the mining concerns of the Great White North. Xstrata, of Switzerland, bought Falconbridge (a nickel miner) without a fuss, for example.
Anyway, the key question here is: how much will Potash go for? Can the incumbent board set off an auction? You need more than one bidder for a good auction. Potash is apparently in discussions with a couple of Chinese concerns: the Sinochem Group and Hopu Investment Management.
As you can see from the chart, the course of BHP's stock price has been pretty rocky since April. Nonetheless, the company has deep pockets, and analysts are convinced it can sweeten its offer if it has to.
Indeed, Marius Kloppers, the CEO of BHP, has referred to the bid -- which stands at US$130 per share, as "full and fair." If he had wanted to say "last and best," he would have done so.
Labels:
Australia,
BHP Billiton,
Canada,
minerals,
potash,
Potash Corp.,
Switzerland,
Xstrata
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Switzerland as tax, not sex crime, haven
Switzerland's reputation as a tax haven has taken some hits lately. Or (to put the point positively) its repute as a member of the family of nations willing to co-operate with other nations in going after tax cheats has improved.
Indeed, it was only Friday, September 25, that the OECD promoted Switzerland from the gray to the "white list" of mutually co-operative countries.
Intriguingly, it was only one day later that Roman Polanski tried to enter the country of Switzerland to accept an award and found himself under arrest on sex crime charges dating back to the 1970s.
Is there a connection between the two events other than geography? Consider, whilst pondering this, that the government of the US has a good reason to want to be friends with Switzerland, quite aside from tax revenue. Those Guantanamo prisoners have to go somewhere, and a nice isolated spot in the Alps could be just the ticket. The AP recently said that the Swiss Justice Ministrty is "gathering information" relevant to such a development.
In a related development, the largest Swiss bank, UBS, especially wants to get back into the good graces of the United States after a run-in with the IRS. Could UBS have been part of a back channel deal for Polanski?
I suspect there is more to this arrest than a by-the-book extradition proceeding.
Indeed, it was only Friday, September 25, that the OECD promoted Switzerland from the gray to the "white list" of mutually co-operative countries.
Intriguingly, it was only one day later that Roman Polanski tried to enter the country of Switzerland to accept an award and found himself under arrest on sex crime charges dating back to the 1970s.
Is there a connection between the two events other than geography? Consider, whilst pondering this, that the government of the US has a good reason to want to be friends with Switzerland, quite aside from tax revenue. Those Guantanamo prisoners have to go somewhere, and a nice isolated spot in the Alps could be just the ticket. The AP recently said that the Swiss Justice Ministrty is "gathering information" relevant to such a development.
In a related development, the largest Swiss bank, UBS, especially wants to get back into the good graces of the United States after a run-in with the IRS. Could UBS have been part of a back channel deal for Polanski?
I suspect there is more to this arrest than a by-the-book extradition proceeding.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
