Anthony Hilton: Irony as bankers ignore the sell-off mantra
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.I was intrigued to read this week that the stock market value of the big banks is now firmly stuck at typically at around half their book value, which means in theory that shareholders would find it more profitable to break them up and sell off the parts. I say in theory because it does assume there is someone out there willing to pay full value for the parts being sold. Lloyds, in agreeing Thursday's sale of 600 branches to the Co-op, had to let them go for a knockdown price.
Having said that, the investment bankers running most of these organisations believe as an article of faith that when the stock market does not fully appreciate the value of an asset, the business should sell it to someone who does, crystallising the hidden value for the shareholders.
It is ironic, however, that when it comes to their own businesses today, these bankers somehow forget the mantra. Lloyds only sold because the EU competition authority forced it to. Break-up and disposals might have been fine for their clients but not for themselves. This despite the fact that every day we have evidence that the banks as now constituted are too big and complicated to manage, and that customers, employees and shareholders would be much better off if they were broken up into smaller units.
It appears that primitive emotions still drive decisions in male-dominated boards. Size equates with success, shrinkage with failure, and efficiency does not come into it.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments