News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.7K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.5K     0 

Whether you feel this is a benefit to Canada or not... I don't see it happening.

This would be too much ammo for oppositions in Ontario and Canada, which is something Harper and McGuinty do not want to have to deal with.

There is also the fact that Canadians generally do not accept foreign take over... which is unique; since both left and right voters don't support it. I think that is mainly because some companies have just tanked after take over.

But I have a question (not really into economics, sorry if it isn't a good question): If TMX is such a powerful and successful part of Canada's economy (one of the richest)... why doesn't TMX just buy LSE?
 
Last edited:
Rowe said:
But I have a question (not really into economics, sorry if it isn't a good question): If the TSX is such a powerful and successful part of Canada's economy (one of the richest)... why doesn't TSX just buy LSE?
Click to expand...

The TMX is still smaller than the LSE.

From a post from Skyscrapercity:

Diesel_Power@ Skyscrapercity Toronto said:
TMX merged with every stock in Canada.

Hence it is called the TMX (Toronto, Montreal, eXchange).

I think it's last merge was with the Montreal exchange in 2006.

But the LSE already fought off 4 take over attempt by the NYSE. So they sure aren't gonig to accept a take over by the TMX.

I'm not sure if I read this in "The Globe" or "The Star", but one of their business analysis said the Brits would sell their grandparents into slavery before they sell the LSE.

During the 80's Great Britain's PM (Margeret Thatcher) said the future was in finance and she heavily invested in London and the LSE while pretty much gutting all of England's manufacturing. The LSE is really all Englad has left. They can't afford to sell it.

That doesn't stop me from wanting the TMX to buy them out.

The sad truth is the TMX either needs to start taking over or merging with other stocks or it risks dwindling away into nothing as it won't be able to compete with the bigger players. Investors will leave the TMX behind to go to bigger, greener fields.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
"But the LSE already fought off 4 take over attempt by the NYSE. So they sure aren't gonig to accept a take over by the TMX."

Why wouldn't the LSE want to join or 'merge' with the NYSE... listed companies will surely have access to more capital, so what's the problem?
 
Bogtrotter said:
"But the LSE already fought off 4 take over attempt by the NYSE. So they sure aren't gonig to accept a take over by the TMX."

Why wouldn't the LSE want to join or 'merge' with the NYSE... listed companies will surely have access to more capital, so what's the problem?
Click to expand...

It comes down to control -- the Brits want control in London, the Amerks want control in NYC. That's one reason the NYSE bought Euronext instead.

As for this quote: "The sad truth is the TMX either needs to start taking over or merging with other stocks or it risks dwindling away into nothing as it won't be able to compete with the bigger players. Investors will leave the TMX behind to go to bigger, greener fields." I completely disagree with this statement. Again, a good analogy is the bank mergers -- the fear-mongering of Canadian banks being irrelevant missed the point of why Canadians who were not bankers would need a bigger bank. Would my mortgage be cheaper or easier to get if the banks merged? No. So, why do you need to merge, from a Canadian mortgagee's point of view?

Yes, X gets bigger by merging, but it doesn't necessarily get better at what a stock exchange is supposed to do -- connect companies that need capital with investors willing to provide that capital, while allowing owners that no longer wish to hold a share in a company divest themselves of that position easily. At this point in time, X doesn't need a partner, is exploiting their expertise in a niche business that's booming (commodity listings), and overall seems to be in pretty good shape. It's not 'dwindling away to nothing'. Growing bigger for the sake of being bigger is neither necessary nor necessarily more efficient.
 
But what difference does it make WHERE (city, country) a major Exchange is located? What are the Brits so worried about if their major stock exchange goes to NYC, I mean exactly what 'control' are they losing?
 
Bogtrotter said:
But what difference does it make WHERE (city, country) a major Exchange is located? What are the Brits so worried about if their major stock exchange goes to NYC, I mean exactly what 'control' are they losing?
Click to expand...

If you're an M&A investment banker, or a proprietary trader, or do other wholesale financing stuff (build structured products or ETFs, e.g.) you have a regulator and an exchange. The regulator approves the product/purchase/whatever, but the exchange controls the public listing, sets up the security so the custodians know how to put it into their computers on behalf of the clients. It's much easier to do all of those things if you can go to a face to face meeting with the regulator, lawyers, exchange, etc. The 'alternative exchanges' hive off some of the trading fees, but they don't do the original listing, that's only the exchange itself. If you're in London and you have to wait until NYC wakes up to get final approval on something, it's a pain. Also, all of a sudden it's the Amerk SEC that's the dominant regulator rather than the UK gov't (at least theoretically.) Lastly, some number of those lucrative jobs will migrate to NYC or Frankfurt.

Now, our friend brockm when he's typing and spewing spittle on the screen seems to think that any concern about losing those ancillary jobs and regulatory control is tantamount to Stalinist-style communism when it's in Toronto, but a worthy concern if it's a Brit or Amerk. I think it's overblown, but there's an inkling of truth in there somewhere.
 
Last edited:
"Now, our friend brockm when he's typing and spewing spittle on the screen seems to think that any concern about losing those ancillary jobs and regulatory control is tantamount to Stalinist-style communism when it's in Toronto, but a worthy concern if it's a Brit or Amerk."

Well, it turns out that I don't condone protectionism in any country. But since this is the one in which I live, and where I have a meagre say, it's the one where my concern is most pronounced.
 
brockm said:
"Now, our friend brockm when he's typing and spewing spittle on the screen seems to think that any concern about losing those ancillary jobs and regulatory control is tantamount to Stalinist-style communism when it's in Toronto, but a worthy concern if it's a Brit or Amerk."

Well, it turns out that I don't condone protectionism in any country. But since this is the one in which I live, and where I have a meagre say, it's the one where my concern is most pronounced.
Click to expand...

How'd your protest go?
 
A 3-way now..:confused:

The London Stock Exchange is secretly eyeing a takeover of Nasdaq, its American rival, just weeks after announcing a merger with the Toronto exchange. The LSE made Nasdaq its top bid target after the American exchange was left out of a recent flurry of consolidation among the world’s biggest bourses. Although no talks have been held between the LSE, Toronto and Nasdaq about a three way tie-up, the UK and Canadian companies plan to make their move later this year, as soon as their own deal has been cemented, the Sunday Times reports.

http://www.sharecast.com/cgi-bin/sharecast/story.cgi?story_id=4090100
 
The LSE is behaving like the TMX buyout is a foregone conclusion- we'll see I guess. Judging from early comments by Duncan and with the upcoming elections I have doubts that this will get approval, or at least not without some revision to ensure Toronto operations aren't hollowed and marginalized to a branch office.
 
Bogtrotter said:
The LSE is behaving like the TMX buyout is a foregone conclusion- we'll see I guess. Judging from early comments by Duncan and with the upcoming elections I have doubts that this will get approval, or at least not without some revision to ensure Toronto operations aren't hollowed and marginalized to a branch office.
Click to expand...

Not only are the Dalton Liberals against the merger, but so are Hudak's Conservatives. This merger is truly DoA unless major concessions are made to Ontario.

I was reading up how some economists suggest Ontario should receive a 'golden' share to assure that if the merger does not go as planned, they can demerge the company at will.
 
Riverdale Rink Rat said:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...red-flags-over-tmx-lse-merger/article1934602/

G&M saying that the big banks (with the notable exception of Royal) are poised to 'just say no'.

http://www.preymareport.com/Files/TPL merger v1.pdf

An analysis by a woman linked to the G8/G20 research group at U of T in favour of the merger.

FWIW, I agree with TD -- X is already a global powerhouse in its niche. Combining with LSE doesn't help X, it helps LSE.
Click to expand...

There is a definite conflict of interest happening with RBC as they are part of the negotiators for LSE.
 
Filip said:
There is a definite conflict of interest happening with RBC as they are part of the negotiators for LSE.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that Stymiest was the CEO of the TSX last time they suggested mergers.

Aussies have rejected a merger with Singapore based on 'national interest' (sound familiar?) and the crazy M&A bunfight that is Minmetals, Lundin, Equinox, and Inmet getting big G&M press today due to the fact all of these global miners are situated in Toronto to draw upon the TSX' expertise and spinoff ancillary benefits, despite zero of the mines being in Canada, will also weigh upon the decision. My bet is LSE withdraws the bid and tries to do something with DB
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top