The public exchange offer launched by Unicredit on Banco BPM represents much more than a simple market operation: it is a step that could redesign the entire Italian banking landscape. And when we talk about banks, especially in Italy, we talk about the control not only of the characteristic activities of financial institutions, but also of the control of many other levers of power (including shareholdings in companies, loans and real estate investments). The statements of the most important representatives of the League, the deputy prime minister Matteo Salvini and the minister of the economy, Giancarlo Giorgetti, must also be seen in this light.

If the attack on Bpm were to succeed – which is anything but a given – Unicredit would become the leading banking group in the country, but a market scenario would emerge based essentially on two large main poles: on the one hand Intesa Sanpaolo, on the other other Unicredit.

The operation launched by CEO Andrea Orcel aims precisely to nip in the bud what has all the characteristics of becoming a third banking hub which, led by Bpm, would also bring together Monte dei Paschi, Anima and other smaller operators that would fall within the Bpm orbit. An aggregation that could also be interesting for other operators and therefore potentially hinder Unicredit’s ambitious expansion plans which, as is known, also look abroad.

A few weeks ago the Italian group (but which has a varied and international corporate structure) launched its takeover bid for Commerzbank, the second largest German banking institution. However, this operation faces major obstacles, including resistance from German trade unions, skepticism from the Berlin government and a climate of political uncertainty linked to early elections in Germany.

Why Giorgetti and Salvini defend Bpm from Unicredit

The obstacles within national borders do not seem to be of minor importance. In addition to the coldness of Salvini and Giorgetti (also the result of Bpm’s roots and the territorial roots of the League in the territories where Bpm is strongest), a reduction of the market to a substantial duopoly raises doubts, not to say concern.

The concerns that are expressed in majority and opposition parliamentary circles concern the significant potential repercussions for users, be they families, businesses or individual citizens. In a context with fewer alternatives, the risk of a weakening of competition could be real, with possible negative effects from several points of view.

It is also true, however, that more solid structures could better face global challenges, be better responsive to the needs of businesses to compete in the world, activate new and greater investments. All assessments which in the Unicredit-BPM operation, which the market will decide whether it can/should go through or not, currently end up in the background.

What is certain is that the actors involved in the affair will not stand by and watch. Other banking institutions will not do it, the shareholders of Bpm will not do it (some of whom are also involved in Unicredit) and the Government will not do it, which even went so far as to evoke, through the mouth of Minister Giorgetti, the use of golden power. We will understand in the next few days whether we are on the eve of a new banking risk.