THE London Stock Exchange's (LSE) defence against the OM bid is a disappointing document.
It is a reiteration of what it has already stated and contains nothing on where the exchange goes from here, although this is what everyone is waiting to
hear.
Obviously it should not
reveal its negotiating hand in
any detail, nor let slip how it intends to play one possible
bidder against another, but some formal indication of its think-
ing would have been welcome - and a defence document would have been the appropriate place for it.
The LSE might not want to do deals and would like to continue hiding behind the 4.9% shareholder limit, but deals are going to be thrust upon it and shortly, because a lot was riding on the publication of the defence document.
Judging by its performance so far, the exchange will wait until the OM bid fails, as it certainly deserves to, before moving on to the next stage. It is to be hoped the matter comes to a head earlier than this.
What we should be hearing is the LSE initiating discussions, using its self-proclaimed position as the pre-eminent European exchange, but we are more likely to hear that it is reacting to an approach, with Euronext possibly first off the mark.
The stakes are high and the LSE should be able to remain
on top, given the bargaining position it ought to have - ought to, because this power has been reduced by the collapse of the Deutsche Boerse merger and the forced departure of Gavin Casey as chief executive after a large minority of LSE shareholders voted against him.
Nevertheless, this should
not prevent the LSE from
driving a hard bargain from
any new bidder. After all, European consolidation cannot proceed without the LSE's full participation.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article