Mediolanum closes 2014 with a net profit of 321 million euros, recording a decrease of 5% compared to 2013. The group communicates it, specifying that the balance of the dividend is 0,12 euros and brings the coupon to 0,27 euros. The share on the Stock Exchange reached its lows after the publication of the results and at the beginning of the afternoon it lost 1,15%, at 6,445 euros (ex-dividend date April 20th).
The interest margin decreased from 274,36 to 233,76 million, while the year recorded net losses from investments at fair value of 8,58 million, from equivalent income of 19,9 million in 2013.
“2015 certainly looks good in terms of collection and growth. The markets can help us or play against us, but we certainly expect an important harvest again this year. Since we are very strong financially – the vice president Massimo Doris told Radiocor – with a Cet 1 of over 18%, we were able to be generous with the shareholders, raising the pay-out from 55% to 62%”. "Also in 2015 - he added - on the other hand, an increase in costs is expected for projects already underway, in particular in IT and those that will start this year: the forecasts are for expenditure of around sixty million more".
Meanwhile, the Lazio Regional Administrative Court has postponed Silvio Berlusconi's appeal on Fininvest's stake in Mediolanum directly to the hearing on the merits, which will be held on 22 April. The decision was taken at the joint request of the parties. Berlusconi, together with Marina Berlusconi's Holding Italiana Quarta, had appealed asking to suspend the Banca d'Italia provision which obliges Fininvest to sell the portion exceeding 9,9% of Mediolanum after the loss of the honourability requirements of the former chairman of the Advise.
After today's decision of the third section of the court, therefore, the suspension will not be dealt with but we will go directly to the merits. On 9 January, the trust tasked with selling the Fininvest stake was set up but, in order to proceed with the process, the Bank of Italy's authorization to receive the shares was lacking. Authorization which, after the referral to the merits at the joint request of the parties, presumably should not arrive before the merits.
