Invesco adds that it "believes the merger would materially jeopardize BAE's unique and privileged position in the United States defence market, and has been unable to identify any corresponding benefits to offset this".
And, Invesco also doubts the feasibility of the expected dual-listing of the combined group's shares, maintaining both BAE's London and EADS's Netherlands listings: "The proposed dual-listed (DLC) structure perpetuates the predecessor company identities and thus impedes synergies. It also divides share trading between two markets and therefore deprives the enlarged group of the benefits of a single deep pool of liquidity. This is why most of the recent DLC's have been subsequently dissolved."
Further, says Invesco, the deal would be costly for BAE shareholders, as the UK company pays twice the dividends and generates more cash than EADS, and also has a higher-quality earnings stream "derived from the length and nature of its customer contracts".

Separately, a research note from aerospace and defence sector analysts at Société Générale also sees few synergies in the merger which it describes as "a radical proposal, but the wrong deal at the wrong time".
BAE would benefit from the tie-up, says Société Générale - with 40% of the group, its shareholders would come out ahead and the defence-focussed partner would also get a lift by linking to Airbus's strong civil market growth prospects.
However, argues Société Générale, Airbus's "geographically well-diversified order backlog of eight years" suggests it is "significantly less cyclical than previously feared".
Thus, say the analysts, "merging with BAE at this point in the civil cycle gives away a lot of this upside".
Société Générale nevertheless rates EADS a "buy" and has uprated BAE from "sell" to "hold".
Post A Comment:
0 comments:
Post a Comment