Barclays Categorically Refuses To Bring More To The Table

barclayseagle.gifBarclays formally launched its 65 billion euro ($89 billion) bid for ABN Amro today. The British bank offered 2.13 ordinary shares and 13.15 euros per share for each ordinary share of the Amsterdam-based bank, the soaring eagles said in a statement today, and the acceptance period runs from tomorrow until October 4. The bid, as the ABN Amro aficionados in the audience well know, is part of Barclays’ attempt to beat a takeover by a Royal Bank of Scotland-captained team of RBS, Banco Santander SA, and Fortis (who just this morning won initial shareholder approval for the deal).

Let’s discuss that rival proposition for a second. The consortium is offering 71 billion euros (of which about 93% is in cash) to Barclays’ 65. I’ll say it again, for the Rain Men in the group—71 versus 65. On July 30, ABN withdrew its recommendation for the Barclays bid, rocket-scientifically noting that it’s inferior to the Royal Bank’s offer. But the very next day, its chief executive, Rijkman Groenink, said “We continue to support the Barclays offer because we believe overall it is to the benefit of shareholders and stakeholders,” and noted that the Dutch bank would probably formally recommend it to shareholders later. They like Barclays, they want Barclays, they just want more money from Barclays, or at least something on par with what the Royal Bank is offering. I get that, you get that, why doesn’t Barclays, who just came up with an offer of 65 billion euros (not >71 billion euros) get that? They’ve been told by ABN Amro, “We prefer you, just bring up those numbers and we’ll endorse it,” but for some reason are all “Nah. We’re good.” They’ve been told “71” and they’re saying “No. 65.”

Maybe it’s because it’s Monday, maybe it’s because some of us have a gaping hole in our foot from stepping on the prong of an errant belt buckle Sunday morning, but I’m flat-out asking you to either confirm that this is a matter of Barclays not getting the embarrassingly overt message or me not getting what the hell is going on ("they're playing hardball" is not an acceptable answer unless you elaborate, btw). You were already planning on trying to correct/humiliate me in the comments section for failing to understand the inner-workings of this deal (other than the SS implications), or for an improperly-placed apostrophe,* anyway, and now you have my blessing.

Earlier: ABN Amro Playing Horrible Game of Hard-To-Get With Barclays

Barclays launches $89 bln ABN takeover offer [Reuters]
Barclays Makes Formal Offer to Investors for ABN Amro [Bloomberg]
Fortis shareholders give initial OK to ABN deal [MarketWatch]

*FIND IT.

Comments

1

Posted by , Aug 06, 2007 12:52PM

hardball

2

Posted by RunsWithScissors , Aug 06, 2007 1:02PM

"for an improperly-placed apostrophe,* anyway,"

Couldnt find the missing apostrophe, but that asterisk is in the wrong spot.

* FIND MINE

3

Posted by RunsWithRocks , Aug 06, 2007 1:07PM

pretty sure that asterisk is squarely where it hsould be

4

Posted by RunsWithScissors , Aug 06, 2007 1:09PM

Is there a reason that it is outside the comma Rocks?

5

Posted by KLW , Aug 06, 2007 1:09PM

Couldn't find the apostrophe, but you have an awesome double negative there in the second graf ("why doesn’t Barclays, who just came up with an offer of 65 billion euros (not >71 billion euros) not get that?")

6

Posted by , Aug 06, 2007 1:11PM

i'm gonna say, Barclays' should be Barclays's because it is singular, even though it ends with an S

7

Posted by tell us about the belt buckle , Aug 06, 2007 1:12PM

fuck you klw

8

Posted by , Aug 06, 2007 1:13PM

actually, 1:11, that one's a matter of preference.

9

Posted by Ajax , Aug 06, 2007 1:13PM

"rocket-scientifically noting that it’s inferior to the Royal Bank’s offer."

Well since "Royal Bank" is a proper name, and not the Queen's bank (e.g., the royal bank), one could argue that "the" is unnecessary above (e.g., "to Royal Bank's offer"). In the alternative, if "Royal Bank" is being used as an adjective, it should read, "to the Royal Bank offer."

10

Posted by , Aug 06, 2007 1:22PM

name of the company is "The Royal Bank of Scotland Group" commonly knows as the Royal Bank

11

Posted by , Aug 06, 2007 1:29PM

She's messing with you there is not misplaced apostrophe it's just fun to see you guys go nuts over it

12

Posted by Ajax , Aug 06, 2007 1:30PM

No shit sherlocks

13

Posted by , Aug 06, 2007 1:41PM

1:13 is it? i didn't know. if anything i would have thought the S represents a non-apostrophetic possessive (re: James Barclay)

damn we're easily amused.

14

Posted by Ajax , Aug 06, 2007 1:50PM

to 1:41:

if so, i don't think the following would make sense "...inferior to the James Barclay's offer."

i'm actually very busy, but i'm OCD about this stuff too

15

Posted by this is embarassing, i refuse to admit my identity , Aug 06, 2007 1:58PM

well, it's the name of a bank, so "... inferior to the James Barclay's Bank's offer" isn't pretty and it's nonstandard but it makes sense.

16

Posted by , Aug 06, 2007 2:01PM

WAIT what were we talking about again?

17

Posted by Ajax , Aug 06, 2007 2:01PM

Well i'd maintain in that phrasology that "the" should be dropped. once bess gets back from her three-hour lunch break she can arbitrate

18

Posted by RunsWithScissors , Aug 06, 2007 2:24PM

The name "Barclays" is neither plural nor possesive and thus, when making singular, non-possesive, word ending in the letter s possesive, an apostrophe is added following the s.

The post is correct as stands - although the asterisk is still in the wrong place.

19

Posted by Ajax , Aug 06, 2007 2:43PM

Nope, because if Citibank, not Barclays, was the bidder one wouldn't write, "...inferior to the Citibank's offer." If the singular possessive is used, the word "the" should not be.

Thus, it should either be "...inferior to Barclays' [Citibank's] offer" or "...inferior to the Barclays [Citibank] offer."

20

Posted by Ajax , Aug 06, 2007 2:45PM

Nope, because if Citibank, not Barclays, was the bidder one wouldn't write, "...inferior to the Citibank's offer." If the singular possessive is used, the word "the" should not be.

Thus, it should either be "...inferior to Barclays' [Citibank's] offer" or "...inferior to the Barclays [Citibank] offer."

21

Posted by , Aug 06, 2007 2:47PM

look what levin has reduced you guys to. is there nothing she can't do?

22

Posted by golly , Aug 06, 2007 2:48PM

Wow RunsWithScissors you sure said that with considerable authority. Considering you're wrong.

s' is used to signify possessives for plural nouns, not singular nouns like Barclays.

to wit:

James's hat
Barclays's offer

vs

James's hats' brims
Barclays's offers' failures

23

Posted by RunsWithScissors , Aug 06, 2007 2:52PM

There are no apostrophes in her posts - you have managed to be wrong 6 times (two mentions of the Barclays bid/offer, One reference to the wrong quote, all in a double post). Most impressive

"“We continue to support the Barclays offer because we believe overall it is to the benefit of shareholders and stakeholders,"

and

"ABN withdrew its recommendation for the Barclays bid, rocket-scientifically noting that it’s inferior to the Royal Bank’s offer. But the very next day,"

24

Posted by *sigh* , Aug 06, 2007 3:06PM

The consortium is offering 71 billion euros (of which about 93% is in cash) to Barclays’ 65.

25

Posted by the red ant , Aug 06, 2007 3:07PM

She uses Barclays and Barclays' to show possesion thoughout...one has to be wrong.

26

Posted by the red ant , Aug 06, 2007 3:07PM

She uses Barclays and Barclays' to show possession thoughout...one has to be wrong.

27

Posted by KLW , Aug 06, 2007 3:39PM

Psh. Why all the hostility? What makes you think I even let them unbuckle? Must have been someone else's fault.

Post Your Comment