Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.A&L, Woolwich go well together
WHAT TO make of the latest round of merger rumours in the UK banking sector? Alliance & Leicester is reported to be fluttering its eyelids at the Woolwich, a fellow former mutual. And, on the face of it at least, a tie-up between the two has its attractions.
Competition in the mortgage market is cut-throat. A link-up would generate some pounds 200m of cost savings and provide some breathing space on margins. A deal would also provide a neat answer to the tricky question of excess capital.
Both A&L and the Woolwich, like all the former mutuals, have more money sloshing about than they know what to with. If either were to make an acquisition on their own, they would lose their protected status - leaving them vulnerable to take-over - and would be unlikely to be able to afford a business of any real size. If the two join forces, on the other hand, they would lose one protected status to gain another - sufficient market share to make a bid from another mortgage provider impossible for competition reasons. They would also have sufficient financial muscle both to fend off unwanted bid approaches and to fund a reasonably-sized acquisition.
But this is all besides the point. The real question is could the two agree on who gets the top jobs. This, as we know, has come to be the deciding factor, the make or break issue, even for the most commercially compelling of mergers. The answer, it seems, is probably not. According to those in the know, neither John Stewart - Woolwich's young-ish, fairly democratic, chief executive - nor Peter White - Alliance & Leicester's old-ish, rather autocratic, chief executive - would happily step aside.
If any deal between A&L and the Woolwich is to work, it would have to be a friendly merger, a merger of equals. In this case we have two chief executives both equally intent on setting the agenda, plus a wider clash of both culture and strategic direction.
On paper, the deal doesn't look too bad. In practice, though, we may be looking at Glaxo/SmithKline Beecham Mark 2. A tie-up between the two would be lucky to even make it off the drawing board. So far, all the talk of major consolidation in the UK banking market has come to nought. Since friendly mergers seem to be so difficult to cement, it may mean that if market expectations are going to be satisfied, someone will eventually have to go hostile.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments