Italian lender BPER boosts Pop Sondrio bid to $6.39 billion
The bid represents a premium of 3% based on Popolare di Sondrio (BPSO) shares' last closing price, valuing the bank at 5.44 billion euros, according to Reuters' calculation.
The revised offer includes 1.450 newly issued BPER shares and an additional cash consideration of 1.00 euro per BP Sondrio share.
The bid comes just a day after Italy's antitrust authority, AGCM, conditionally approved BPER's deal for BPSO, stating that BPER is required to sell six branches, which includes 5 of BPER and 1 of BP Sondrio, within 10 months.
BPER and BPSO have in common their main shareholder, insurer Unipol , which distributes its products through both banks. Unipol agreed to BPER's bid last week.
In February, BPER joined in a raft of takeover bids rocking the country's financial sector, with an initial offer of 4.3 billion euros for all BPSO shares.
BPER's market capitalisation of about 10.9 billion euros is more than double mid-sized lender BPSO's market value of 5.32 billion euros, according to LSEG data.
The increased offer from Italy's fourth-largest bank comes just weeks after BPER Chief Executive Gianni Franco Papa said that the bank would stick to its current bid.
Italy's banking sector has in the last year witnessed a wave of bids and offers, including UniCredit's (CRDI.MI), opens new tab all-share offer for smaller peer Banco BPM (BAMI.MI), opens new tab, creating a complex web of deals between some of its biggest players.
($1 = 0.8511 euros)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
30 minutes ago
- The Independent
Reeves refuses to rule out tax rises after ‘damaging' welfare bill U-turn
Rachel Reeves has avoided ruling out future tax rises after admitting the government's concessions on its welfare reforms had been ' damaging '. The government narrowly avoided a major Commons defeat on Tuesday in the wake of a backbench rebellion after it U-turned on plans restrict eligibility for the personal independence payment (Pip). But as she faced questions about how the climbdown would affect the Treasury, the chancellor warned there would be ' costs to what happened '. The original welfare proposals had been part of a package that ministers expected would save up to £5 billion a year -with economists warning that tax rises are now likely to plug a gap left by the concessions to rebels. Ms Reeves said: 'It's been damaging. 'I'm not going to deny that, but I think where we are now, with a review led by (disability minister) Stephen Timms, who is obviously incredibly respected and has a huge amount of experience, that's the route we're taking now.' Prime minister Sir Keir Starmer has said the Government is still committed to welfare reform, but ministers will now wait for the conclusions of the Timms review before implementing changes to Pip. The fallout threatens to cause lasting damage to morale in Labour ranks, with some MPs calling for a reset in relations between the parliamentary party and the leadership before fractures widen. Images of the Chancellor crying in the Commons on Wednesday also spooked the financial markets and led to questions about her future, though a Treasury spokesman said the tears were the result of a personal matter and Downing Street said she would remain in post. In an interview with The Guardia n newspaper, Ms Reeves said she had never considered resigning, adding: 'I didn't work that hard to then quit.' She said she had gone to PMQs because she 'thought that was the right thing to do' but that 'in retrospect, I probably wished I hadn't gone in… (on) a tough day in the office'.
Times
38 minutes ago
- Times
How much one year of Labour has cost you
The Labour Party won the general election a year ago in a landslide victory after promising to restore economic stability, kick-start growth and keep taxes on workers as low as Keir Starmer had also pledged to reduce energy and food bills, and raise living standards. However, after a revolt over welfare reforms forced a fiscal U-turn this week, the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, now faces having to find another £5 billion to plug the black hole in the nation's finances. Economists are predicting tax rises in the autumn budget, and restrictions on the amount that you can save tax-free into a cash Isa are also said to be on the cards. So, after 365 days, are you better off under this government — and are your fortunes likely to improve over the next four years? Here's what you need to know. Labour's economic plan was built around growth. 'Sustained economic growth is the only route to improving the prosperity of our country and the living standards of working people,' the party manifesto said. But in March the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) cut its growth forecast for 2025 in half. The official economic forecaster had expected GDP (the value of UK goods and services) to grow 2 per cent this year, but reduced that to 1 per cent, effectively wiping out £9.9 billion worth of budget wiggle room for the government. The OBR said that the 'economic and fiscal outlook' had become more challenging since the 2024 budget, and that domestic output had stagnated while business and consumer confidence had declined. Critics partly blamed the chancellor's decision to increase employer national insurance contributions, which they said would hamper companies' ability to invest and suppress wages. All this has had a knock-on effect on your finances. If the economy is growing, businesses are likely to be hiring and investing more, and wages will typically rise. Weak GDP growth means that companies are more likely to cut jobs and wages will be stagnant, leaving households worse off. The latest figures, for the three months to April 2025, show that GDP grew 0.7 per cent, up from the 0.5 per cent in the three months before the election. The outlookThings are, however, expected to look up. The OBR has forecast 1.9 per cent growth in 2026 and 1.8 per cent in 2027. Before the election Labour pledged not to increase national insurance, income tax or VAT. It also said that it would not extend the Conservatives' freeze on income tax and national insurance thresholds, so would raise them in line with inflation from April 2028. These pledges have been kept, so far. But when questioned in parliament this week, Reeves would not rule out extending the freeze on income tax for a further two years. This came in the week that Office for National Statistics data showed that living standards fell at the sharpest rate in two years in the first quarter of 2025. The Resolution Foundation, a think tank, estimated in 2023 that the threshold freezes, brought in by the Conservative government, would cost taxpayers £40 billion a year by 2028. 'It can be difficult for people to pinpoint why their finances feel tighter, but a significant reason for many is that they may be paying more in income tax while also seeing inflation push their household bills ever higher,' said Chris Etherington from the accountancy firm RSM. 'This so-called fiscal drag can squeeze your income before you even get it.' • What is the UK inflation rate and what does it mean for you? If tax thresholds had risen with inflation at the start of the tax year in April, it is likely they would have gone up 1.7 per cent (the consumer price index inflation figure for the previous September, which is the measure usually used by the government). The personal allowance — the amount you can earn tax-free — would now be £12,784 instead of £12,570 and the higher-rate threshold would be £51,125 instead of £50,270. Someone earning £60,000 would have paid £11,218 income tax instead of £11,432. The outlook Workers and pensioners are unlikely to get any relief from fiscal drag until at least 2028. It means most people pay more tax every year, as incomes rise and tax thresholds don't keep up.A clear example of this is the state pension, which under the triple lock is guaranteed to go up by inflation, wage growth or 2.5 per cent a year, whichever is highest. If its annual value goes above the £12,570 tax threshold the government will be handing out state pension just to take some back in income tax. Capital gains tax (CGT) allowances — the amount you can earn tax-free from the sale of assets such as second homes, art or investments held outside an Isa — were slashed by the Conservatives, from £12,300 to £6,000 in 2023, and then to £3,000 in April last year. The Labour government then raised the basic rate of CGT from 10 to 18 per cent in October and the higher rate from 20 to 24 per cent. Someone making a £10,000 profit and paying the basic rate of CGT would have paid £400 tax in March last year, but today would pay £1,260. The government also extended the freeze on the inheritance tax threshold for another two years, until April 2030. The main tax-free allowance has been £325,000 since 2009, and the additional residential allowance, which you get if you leave your home to a child or grandchild and your estate is worth less than £2 million, has been £175,000 since 2020. Any value in an estate above the thresholds can be taxed at 40 per cent. If thresholds had risen in April in line with the 1.7 per cent inflation figure, they would now be £330,525 (or £508,500 with the residential allowance). An estate worth £1 million would save £3,400. Homebuyers have also been hit. The Conservative government increased the price levels at which stamp duty charges kick in as a permanent policy in 2022 to boost the market, then quickly made it a temporary measure that would end in March 2025, pushing costs for buyers back up. Labour stuck with that plan. The 3 per cent stamp duty surcharge paid by second-home owners, introduced in 2016, went up to 5 per cent in Reeves's budget last year. This, plus the lowering of the thresholds, means that someone buying a £300,000 second home now pays £20,000 in stamp duty, up from £11,500 in September. The outlookThere is more to come. From April 2027 any money left in your pension pots when you die will be included in your estate for inheritance tax purposes. If your estate (including property, cash savings and any investments you have) takes you over the £325,000 threshold (£500,000 including property), your pension pot will be taxed at 40 per cent. • How much do I need to retire? Labour's manifesto pledged to bring down the cost of energy, and reduce food prices. The energy price cap — the limit on what suppliers can charge per unit of gas and electricity to customers on a default tariff — works out at an average bill of £1,720 a year. This is down from the £1,849 level of the cap from April until the end of June. Analysts at Cornwall Insight expect it to fall again to £1,697 in October but, because the price cap is determined by wholesale oil prices, it can be volatile. Groceries are now 4.7 per cent more expensive than a year ago, according to the analysts Kantar. When it comes to the general cost of living, inflation was 3.4 per cent for the year to May, compared with 3.1 per cent at the time of the election. Other bills have also been affected. Families who educate their children privately are paying about 14 per cent more in fees since the government levied 20 per cent VAT on public schools. The Independent Schools Council annual census found that the average annual cost of sending a child to a day school was £18,064 last year, so a 14 per cent increase would cost families about £2,500 a year per child. And about a quarter of pensioners will not get the winter fuel payment, worth either £200 or £300 a year, from this winter. The payments used to be made to all pensioners, but this was restricted to those claiming pension credit after the election last year. Now, after a U-turn, only those with income greater than £35,000 will have that payment clawed back through the tax system. The outlookThe future picture for inflation looks more positive. The OBR expects inflation to level out at about the Bank of England's target of 2 per cent from spring next year. But Rachel Vahey from the investment firm AJ Bell said: 'The government has to balance a difficult economic equation and has banked on an improving economy to help boost tax revenues via fiscal drag while still leaving just enough left over to make people feel a little better off. 'Even though inflation has cooled somewhat and earnings are now rising above inflation, the financial pain of recent years will take some time to be erased. Many households, still reeling from inflation that far outstripped wage growth in 2022 and 2023, will feel that they are struggling to get back into a position of financial security.'
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
It's time to show us that things are going to get better, prime minister
Sir Keir Starmer's first anniversary in No 10 has been marked by three notable stories. He was forced by his own MPs to withdraw his attempt to make savings in the disability benefit bill. His chancellor caused consternation in the bond markets by crying in the House of Commons. And a left-wing party has been chaotically launched by former Labour MPs. Each of those events was laden with significance for a government that is still young, but which has struggled to communicate a sense of purpose after being elected on the vague promise of 'change'. It may have been right to pause the welfare changes, but Labour MPs blocked them mostly for the wrong reason, namely that they see a rising social security budget as a measure of moral virtue. The right reason would have been that Labour failed to prepare for government, and so had no plan for deep reform of the incentives that are driving so many people away from the labour market and onto long-term benefits. The party's instincts, if unchecked, would bankrupt the country. That is why it is probably a good thing that Rachel Reeves survived her 'personal issue' and stayed as chancellor. The idea of Ed Miliband at the Treasury, as was canvassed by some this week, does not inspire confidence that taxpayers' money would be wisely spent. Sir Keir persuaded enough of the voters last year that he would cleave to the centrist virtues of fiscal responsibility, moderation and pragmatism. It would be disastrous if he were to yield any more to the utopians in his party, whose answer to every problem is more public spending paid for by more taxes. That said, however, taxes do need to rise further. It was naive of Sir Keir and Ms Reeves to imply that last year's record tax increases were all that was needed to 'restore stability'. They were reckless in failing to leave any buffer against adverse fiscal trends – trends that have duly emerged and so the chancellor will have to come back for more in the autumn. This is bad, but it ought not to be disastrous. The British people are prepared to suffer pain today for the sake of gain tomorrow, but they do not like being taken for fools. The prime minister and the chancellor should now be open about the need for taxes, and about the hard choices needed to bear down on public spending, but they have to have a credible plan for a better tomorrow. On the cost of living, which is what people care about most, the government has done some of the right things to promote growth. It has talked about rationalising planning laws to get Britain building again, and Ms Reeves has sensibly tweaked the fiscal rules to allow more public investment. Sir Keir can be justifiably proud of the three trade deals he has negotiated, with India, the United States and the European Union. However, the one big growth opportunity, namely rejoining the EU, remains in that compartment of ministerial brains marked: 'What we believe but cannot say.' There is the barest outline of a plan for the NHS, unveiled this week, which is welcome as far as it goes. But there is no plan to stop the small boats, and attempts to clear the asylum backlog seem to be going backwards. Some of this is a communications problem. 'We haven't always told our story as well as we should,' the prime minister said in Canada last month. He then proceeded to demonstrate what he meant by giving a series of long interviews laced with self-pity in which he admitted he did not always read his speeches 'properly' before he delivered them; said that he had not focused on the welfare rebellion in his own party because he was abroad; and that he had not noticed that the chancellor was in tears in the Commons because MPs were asked him questions, 'bang bang bang'. He needs to do better than this. Fortunately, for him and the country, there are some signs that he can improve. He has learned in his first year. His speaking style has become more relaxed, but he now needs to be more disciplined about explaining to people how the government is going to make their lives better. The launch of a Corbyn-Sultana party may make this task easier for him, paradoxically, bringing into sharper focus the unrealistic prospectus offered by left-wing populists beyond a selective compassion for the suffering of the people of Gaza. Our verdict, as Sir Keir passes the one-year milestone of his premiership, is that he is better than his party, and better than any of the alternative leaders who might theoretically replace him. Angela Rayner and Wes Streeting have their strengths, but let us see how many houses are built and how far NHS waiting lists fall before we encourage the Labour Party to imitate the Conservatives in changing prime minister every few years. And if the choice at the next election really will be between Sir Keir and Nigel Farage, that only strengthens our conviction that Sir Keir must learn the lessons of his first year, not only to rewire government to deliver results – but to rewire his relationship with the British people.
