View Full Version: NYSE and the LSE

Politics And Prose > The Economist > NYSE and the LSE


Title: NYSE and the LSE
Description: A buyout?


Deltasix - March 12, 2006 08:34 PM (GMT)
QUOTE
NYSE 'plans London Exchange bid'

The New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) is reported to be considering whether to launch a bid for the London Stock Exchange (LSE).

According to several Sunday newspapers, NYSE chief John Thain is currently consulting advisers about tabling a counter-bid for the exchange.

It comes days after the LSE rebuffed a £2.43bn ($4.2bn) bid from Nasdaq.

Nasdaq said it would prefer to reach an agreed deal, but has not ruled out raising its bid or going hostile.

The LSE turned down the all cash offer of 950 pence per share on Friday saying it "substantially" undervalued the firm.

Speculation now suggests Nasdaq could raise its bid to £10 per share.

Takeover tussle?

However, the group could face an uphill struggle should the NYSE decide to throw its hat into the ring.

According to the Sunday Times and The Business the exchange has instructed its banker Citigroup to examine a possible counterbid.

Experts suggest the NYSE - the world's biggest stock exchange - would not like to miss the opportunity to buy the LSE - nor would it like to see its smaller rival Nasdaq steal that chance away.

However, any offer from the NYSE is likely to take at least six weeks.

The New York exchange has just made its debut on the stock market, while its merger with electronic trading network Archipelago was completed only four days ago.

Potential suitors

But if the NYSE does decide to make an approach it will become the fourth major world exchange to show an interest in the London exchange.

Germany's Deutsche Boerse kicked off the takeover race for the exchange with a £1.25bn approach in 2004. It later walked away in the face of shareholder protests.

Since then, Paris-based Euronext has expressed and interest while Australia's Macquarie Bank recently dropped its £2.6bn offer.

An offer from a US group is expected to lead to considerable cost savings and synergies.

It would also be free of the hurdles as Euronext and Deutsche Boerse faced.

Last year, UK regulators said they would back a takeover by either firm on condition that each company ensured the independence of the London exchange's clearing provider, Clearnet.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4799242.stm


Any thoughts concerning what and why and how?

Lorpius Prime - March 13, 2006 01:20 AM (GMT)
I want someone to buy NYSE. That would give me no end of amusement.

Deltasix - March 13, 2006 04:41 AM (GMT)
What exactly is the point of the NYSE buying the LSE?

Lorpius Prime - March 13, 2006 07:49 AM (GMT)
Apart from the fact that the LSE rakes in huge amounts of cash?

Deltasix - March 13, 2006 01:29 PM (GMT)
No, LP, I understand that. I guess its more of a question of why is (or would) the LSE be on the market to begin with. Even a conservitive estimate would say that the NYSE's bid of 4 billion, over time, would be a little low.

Lorpius Prime - March 13, 2006 05:55 PM (GMT)
The key to that is over time. Buyouts usually mean that the former owners get a very large amount of money immediately, which can be more attractive than waiting for share value to increase slowly over time. They may also be paid in stocks of the NYSE, whose share value should theoretically increase because of this acquisition as well.

Deltasix - March 13, 2006 05:58 PM (GMT)
QUOTE
They may also be paid in stocks of the NYSE, whose share value should theoretically increase because of this acquisition as well.


I actually never considerd that. That wouldn't be that bad of an idea...

Lorpius Prime - March 13, 2006 06:15 PM (GMT)
A lot of buyouts work that way... well, the friendly ones.

Keys - March 14, 2006 07:51 AM (GMT)
For no apparent reason my thoughts are this will only strenthen globilization, therefore probably good for the financial institutions of the WTO & thus will not be good for most people (workers) in the world.

Lorpius Prime - March 14, 2006 08:48 AM (GMT)
Well, gee, I'm glad you form opinions without reasons.

Keys - March 14, 2006 09:15 AM (GMT)
I understand but there it remains. What your saying I mean.

Deltasix - April 14, 2006 05:55 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Keys @ Mar 14 2006, 02:51 AM)
For no apparent reason my thoughts are this will only strenthen globilization, therefore probably good for the financial institutions of the WTO & thus will not be good for most people (workers) in the world.

Explain what you mean, if you would.

Keys - April 15, 2006 03:11 AM (GMT)
Where is worker representation in the WTO? Without empowered workers, people are just a commodity. Treating people like commodities is not good for humanity, in terms of civilized behavior, enlightenment, or even mutual coexistence. We should be striving to better humanitarian standards. Not bowing to organizations which ultimately seek to be become monopolies of the world's resources.

In corporate terms however, I would venture to guess that with the markets merged then maybe they can stay open longer or accomplish something or other that raises the GDP of the US and England.

Deltasix - April 15, 2006 04:02 AM (GMT)
QUOTE
Where is worker representation in the WTO? Without empowered workers, people are just a commodity. Treating people like commodities is not good for humanity, in terms of civilized behavior, enlightenment, or even mutual coexistence. We should be striving to better humanitarian standards. Not bowing to organizations which ultimately seek to be become monopolies of the world's resources.


And how exactly does the WTO fit in to the NYSE and LSE? I think I missed that part.

Keys - April 15, 2006 05:11 AM (GMT)
They're both corporate driven entities. Why is income from stocks taxed less for people who live off it? Why are wages taxed more for people who live off of them?

There's something wrong with the picture and its corporate driven.




Hosted for free by InvisionFree