If the Victory of Philippe Donnet in the highly anticipated Generali assembly it was largely predictable due to the favorable orientation of international funds, the real surprise of the assembly of Trieste was another: Unicredit's support for Francesco Gaetano Caltagirone's list. A choice, that of the CEO of the Milanese bank, Andrea Orcel, divergent from the advice of the proxy advisors Iss and Glass Lewis and from the same philosophy of Orcel, who has always presented himself as market banker he did not fail to react to political interference in the ongoing risk operations.
From the Capital Bill to the endorsement for the takeover bid by MPS, Caltagirone, Delfin and Mef on Mediobanca, the Government has never hidden its closeness to the actions and ambitions of the Roman builder, whose ultimate goal has always been not only the conquest of Mediobanca, but above all that of the generals.
Possible reasons for Orcel's choice
If we consider that once again international funds were decisive for Donnet's victory in Generali, driven both by the results obtained and the dividends distributed, and by the absence of conflicts of interest, What could have prompted Orcel to make the dramatic turn of events? which led him to support Caltagirone, despite having previously expressed appreciation for Donnet? Is it realistic to think that the move by the CEO of Unicredit is aimed at starting a comparison with the Government and to soften the prescriptions contained in the Golden power on the Ops launched from Piazza Gae Aulenti on Bpm bank. If this were the case, it would be a choice dictated more by tactical cunning than by market logic that has the flavour of a poisoned fruit of politics that when it intervenes forcefully can only cause damage.
We will see in the next few days if Orcel will get any discount from the government on the operation on Banco Bpm, but two aspects cannot be ignored: the first is that the image of the banker of the market so far considered the Cristiano Ronaldo of M&A is still overshadowed. The second is that the repeated interferences of the Executive in market operations weaken liberal democracy that our country has been accustomed to knowing up to now.
