TheChek News Flow

- PEUGEOT : State might sell its 14% stake to

• Family and DONGFENG ,whose stakes would be identically raised from 14% to 21%

• a manufacturer ,in the context of another strategic alliance

- ADP : could be privatized after 2017 presidential elections

- ORANGE : might sell a 2% stake ,if/when markets stabilize

- SAFRAN ,ENGIE or RENAULT

• “difficult to sell more than 5% of SAFRAN”

• State seems “willing to sell an up to 10% stake in ENGIE”

• Mr MACRON has reiterated intention to re-sell a 4.7% stake in RENAULT

EU parliamentarians and environmental campaigners have long had suspicions about Europe’s truckmakers. For 20 years, lorries seemed strangely impervious to market forces that were supposed to make them more fuel efficient and reduce hazardous emissions.

Some clues to the mystery emerged in November 2014, when Brussels levelled formal cartel charges against the continent’s biggest truck manufacturers: DAF, Daimler, Iveco, MAN, Volvo/Renault and Scania.

Accused of widespread price-fixing between 1997 and 2011 and delaying the introduction of new emissions technologies, the companies are expected to receive the highest cartel fine in EU history in the coming months — running to several billion euros.

But the cartel investigation is only one strand of a far broader pattern of alleged collusive behaviour by lorry makers and the governments that lobby for them.

Environmental campaigners argue that the cartel relates to the pricing and timing of technologies intended to reduce toxic nitrogen oxides (NOx), which exacerbate lung and heart ailments.

However, beyond the scope of the cartel inquiry, they also allege that the truck industry has strongly resisted attempts to improve fuel consumption and slash emissions of carbon dioxide, the most significant greenhouse gas.

Emissions from lorries are a subject of intense concern because they produce about 25 per cent of the CO2 from road transport, while representing fewer than 5 per cent of vehicles on the roads. Despite new, greener technologies being available, the European Commission reported in 2014 that heavy vehicles’ fuel efficiency had stagnated since the mid-1990s and estimated that their CO2 emissions increased 36 per cent between 1990 and 2010.

One of the most conspicuous cases of lorry makers flexing their muscles to resist technological change came in December 2014. The commission and European Parliament had pushed to introduce rules by 2017 that would enable truckmakers to replace their brick-shaped cabs with more aerodynamic and fuel efficient designs.

Countries such as France and Sweden lobbied hard to push the start-date to 2025 to protect their domestic producers. Finally, the parties struck a compromise of 2022.

Michael Cramer, chairman of the European Parliament’s transport committee, complained that member states’ protection of their truck manufacturers lay in stark contrast to Europe’s other main industries, which had cleaned up their businesses dramatically since 1990. “Transport is nullifying efforts in other sectors,” he told the Financial Times.

William Todts from the Transport and Environment campaign group accused the truckmakers of squandering a “unique opportunity” to produce a new generation of smooth-nosed, fuel efficient vehicles. “Instead of making the most of it, truckmakers got together and made a deal among themselves to block new designs for another decade. It’s this attitude that helps explaining 20 years of very little progress on truck fuel efficiency,” he said.

The motor industry says that its performance in CO2 emissions should be rated over a longer timeframe, noting big improvements since the mid-1960s.

Lorry manufacturers have also argued that they have made very significant steps to slice NOx emissions after the introduction of the so-called Euro 6 standards in 2014. Scania launched a Euro 6 truck as early as 2011 and Iveco insists it is embracing the “challenge of sustainability”. Daimler invested €2.8bn into improving environmental standards in vehicles of all types last year.

However, Transport and Environment has conducted recent surveys that provide further evidence of a lack of competition on fuel efficiency. Research published this month has found that only 3 per cent of French and German hauliers had ever switched brands to improve fuel efficiency.

Of 180 small and medium-sized hauliers across five big EU countries — France, Germany, Britain, Spain and Poland — only 12 per cent had ever changed brand.

Mr Todts said that the difference in fuel efficiency between the main truck models on offer was only about 5 per cent, although the vehicles were far from having reached maximum efficiency. Stressing that the “market alone cannot do the job”, Mr Todts called for the EU to legislate on binding standards for CO2 emissions as the US, Canada, Japan and China have done.

ACEA, the European Motor Manufacturers’ Association, declined to comment specifically on the alleged cartel involving its members.

However, it has played down the impact of Europe’s heavy-duty vehicles, saying that they represent only 5 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions., while transporting 75 per cent of all land-based freight.

“Since 1965, the fuel consumption of European trucks — and with that CO2 emissions — has come down by 60 per cent,” ACEA said in a statement this year.

“At the same time, truckmakers have delivered enormous advances in air quality. Pollutant emissions have been slashed to near-zero levels, down 98 per cent since 1990.”

Key aggregates and points of differentiation Italian banks reported an aggregate ROTE of 3.8% in 1Q16 vs. our forecast of 4.3%. The results had two main points in common: preprovision income disappointed, as fees weakened,

adding to the well know NIM pressure; but asset quality improved, with NPLs down for the second quarter running. More in detail:

* Core revenues fell by 5% yoy, missing Inquiry Financial consensus at all except MPS and UBI. ISP stepped away from the 10% fee growth for 2016, given the poor1Q. Weaker trading income compounded the weakeness, with total revenues down 10%. UCG and BPER outperformed peers; BAPO and ISP underperformed

* Costs surprised positively at all banks and decreased by 2% yoy. Yet pre-provision profit was down 20% yoy.

* Asset quality improved, with aggregate LLPs falling by 20 bp (BAPO aside), gross NPLs down qoq and coverage ratio of total NPEs up 30 bp qoq.

Key views, estimate changes and stock calls Overall, we still expect 2016 to show earnings improvement compared to 2015, as lower loan losses and the absence of large one-off charges should more than offset core revenue pressure. However, from a forecast revision perspective, welower our EPS estimates by 8% on softer than previously anticipated revenues resulting mainly from lower fee income.

We are CL-Buy on BPER as it screens comparatively inexpensive (0.4x 2016E TBV vs. 0.9x for the sector), could halve its NPLs with a 25% discount with minimal impact on CET1 (see Readacross from BAPO’s capital raise ahead of

merger; differentiation key, March 24), and once clean, has a stand-alone ROTE potential of 7%-8%,

with consolidation upside. 

We also switch our valuation of BAPO and BPM to the merged entity, following the release of the business plan last week and the board approvals of May 24. Whilst the rights issue at BAPO leads us to reduce our target for both banks, we align our rating for BAPO to that of BPM (Buy), given the now fixed exchange ratio for the merger.

bpost et PostNL, les deux opérateurs postaux, ont annoncé dimanche soir qu'ils cessaient leurs négociations concernant "une éventuelle combinaison des deux sociétés par le biais d'une offre publique d'acquisition amicale de toutes les actions de PostNL par bpost".

Bpost voulait acquérir la totalité des actions de PostNL en échange de cash et d'actions bpost. Ce qui veut dire que l'Etat belge aurait vu passer sa participation dans l'entreprise sous la barre des 50%. Cela n'aurait pas été un problème puisque le gouvernement a autorisé ce scénario. Il n'était toutefois pas question d'une vente des actions de l'Etat, avait déjà précisé Alexander De Croo vendredi.

Mais le projet d'acquisition de PostNL est définitivement abandonné.

♦ Pourquoi? "On négociait encore hier et aujourd'hui, mais nous avons finalement dû admettre qu'il n'y aurait pas d'accord", précise le CEO de bpost Koen Van Gerven. "Les négociations sur un projet de fusion se basaient sur un document de 60 pages, mais nos points de vue étaient trop divergents pour aboutir à un accord." Le CEO ne souhaite pas préciser si le noeud du problème était d'ordre financier.

Ces pourparlers étaient en cours depuis quelques mois. Selon le patron de l'entreprise postale, bpost lorgnait PostNL pour les possibilités de croissance sur le marché des paquets qu'elle offrait. "bpost et PostNL ont de gros clients qui apprécieraient une offre intégrée", a-t-il expliqué. La fusion aurait ainsi permis la mise en place de nouveaux services, comme des livraisons ayant lieu le même jour que le dépôt du colis ou des livraisons en soirée. "Nous aurions eu une offre plus solide ensemble et nous aurions pu renforcer nos croissances mutuelles", a estimé Koen Van Gerven.

♦ Et maintenant? "Il ne faut jamais dire jamais, mais ce chapitre-ci est clos." Koen Van Gerven reste cependant ouvert. "De nouvelles opportunités se présentent tous les jours. S'il y a des dossiers intéressants, alors on les examinera."

♦ Le temps des questions. "Que couvraient ces négociations? Quel projet était sur la table? Nous aimerions le savoir... Il nous importe, avant tout, de garantir le statut d'agent statutaire. Les employés actuels ont été engagés sous un régime d'état, il ne faut pas que cela change. Le personnel doit garder une qualité et une stabilité d'emploi, ce qui est loin d'être garanti avec l'opérateur PostNL, qui privilégie les contrats partiels et avec les indépendants", s'inquiète Stéphane Daussaint, responsable général de la CSC-Transcom Postes. "On reste avec nos inquiétudes, pour quelles raisons les tractations ont-elles échoué?"

Une rencontre est prévue lundi matin entre le CEO de bpost Koen Van Gerven et les syndicats.

Low sales even in healthy economy signal 'complete shift in shopping'

Neither consumers nor brands are getting much of what they want, and the unpredictability has caused chaos for retailers whose power has slipped away

Monday is Memorial Day, the official start of summer and another celebration traditionally marked by sales and a shopping bonanza. But the sun isn’t shining for US retailers.

On the face of it, the economic superpower that is the American consumer should be having a party. Low interest rates and unemployment rates, low oil prices, a high stock market, healthy property prices – nothing it would seem, to put off doing what comes most naturally to them – shopping.

Yet they’re stubbornly refusing to do it – or at least refusing to do it in predictable ways – leaving consumer experts to wonder, as fashion bible Women’s Wear Daily recently did, if the consumer psyche, “bombarded by digital messages, stressed financially and overwrought emotionally”, has “finally exploded”.

Certainly, there’s conflicted evidence to suggest it has. Retail stocks for Macy’s, Nordstrom and Gap have all fallen sharply this year, with some reporting their worst comparable sales results since the Great Recession. Last week jeweler Tiffany’s reported its sharpest drop in quarterly sales since the global financial crisis pushed the world to the brink in 2008.

It’s an international trend. In the UK, analysts are reporting 10% declines in the number of shopper visits to high streets and shopping centres around the country over the past year.

In part, the shopping slump can still be blamed on the financial crisis. Consumers’ incomes have not kept pace with household spending, and they are less confident about long-term economic stability. According to a recent Pew Charitable Trust survey, American household incomes fell between 2010 and 2013. Adults in the survey questioned “whether the American Dream is within reach, and many doubt that their children will fare any better than they have”.

Earnings for those at the top of the economic food chain have soared. Analysis by the AFL-CIO union found that chief executive officers of the top 500 companies took home on $12.4m on average – or 355 times what an average worker makes.

Yet statistics show the same psychological hurdles to spending exist across income strata. At the high end of the US property market in New York and Miami a glut of residential developments and weak demand is triggering warnings that current pricing is unsustainable and future developments or commercial-to-residential conversions are being abandoned.

In the art market, record sales are being achieved but against a backdrop of reduced demand and lower volume of sales than even a year ago.

Executives spoke of “trepidation” and going into sales holding the hands of prospective buyers. “No one wants to be the last person at the party,” said Christie’s Brett Gorvy.

Beneath the economics, something else has changed. A contract has been broken. Researchers say neither consumers nor brands are getting much of what they want: consumers don’t want to put their money with brands that don’t speak to their values, while brands aren’t seeing any loyalty from consumers they are trying to cultivate. The apparent contradiction between a healthy economy and unpredictable consumer spending leads some market analysts to the conclusion that consumption as an activity was fundamentally altered by the 2008 recession.

The abrupt downturn shocked consumers but also placed them firmly in the driving seat when it came to making consumer choices. When you couple this with the power that technology has afforded them to research, learn and compare about their potential purchases, it is little wonder that consumer behavior is changing, analysts say.

“We’ve had to start looking at the consumer in a completely different way,” says Kit Yarrow, a consumer psychologist at Golden State University. “We can’t evaluate their confidence and willingness to spend in the ways we used to,” says Yarrow. “Consumers just don’t react the way they did even five years ago. Technology has taken over and they feel more empowered.”

“The recession was the first step toward the complete shift in shopping,” says Yarrow. “Consumers are more wary and self-protective about finances, and they’ve never dominated the market the way they do today. They’re informed and wary, and determined to be in control.”

The unpredictability has caused chaos for retailers, which have seen their power over consumers begin to slip away. “Technology means they can shop however and whenever they want, or they can shop all over the world, and that’s why we see retailers collapsing and relying completely on price reductions,” Yarrow said.

“It’s taking retailers forever to realise that when people go shopping they want to see new things all the time. This is what technology has done to our brains. We want a lot more excitement and product turnover in our lives. If we don’t see new product, we won’t go there any more.”

It’s a trend being observed across the consumer market. The same conscientiousness that exists in the middle market has taken hold at the top end where luxury retailers could once count on injudicious spending to pump up the books.

Yarrow’s research suggests even the one-percenters have adopted middle-class values. They feel guilty when they spend too much money, and quickly reject efforts to seduce them. “It’s a demographic that’s always been a little more entitled so patterns we’re seeing in the middle of the market are more pronounced: if I don’t get it how I want, when I want it, for the price I want it, I won’t have it at all,” she says.

But there are other factors feeding into consumers’ shattered psyches. For many consumers buying “stuff” just isn’t what it used to be. People are looking toward more “experiential” spending – holidays, concerts, plays – experiences that they can then share on social media.

Laurent Vernhes, co-founder and CEO of Tablethotels, a consumer website that specialises in high-end travel, told the Guardian “the more jaded you are the more you will seek experiential travel and beyond what you know.” And it’s not just holidaymakers – business people, too, want experiences.

Instead of heading to the mall on Monday, post-recession consumers are more likely to start planning their next vacation or trying to bag tickets for Hamilton. The hangover from hard times and a technological shift in power have reordered consumer priorities.

Consumers’ psyches may be shattered but they don’t want them put back together. “This is a much more conscious consumer,” Yarrow says. “They don’t want to go back to pre-2008. They want the power, and they want control.”

*EUTELSAT RAISED TO HOLD AT HSBC

>>> Down

/

>>> PT Change

/

>>> Initiation

/

>>> Call

/