Bank defends underwriters
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The Bank of England yesterday stepped into the row over whether City underwriters are charging too much for share issues, by dismissing claims that there is not enough competition in the market.
An article for the Bank's quarterly bulletin said an investigation by Paul Marsh of the London Business School, commissioned by the Office of Fair Trading, heavily overstated the profits made by sub-underwriters, which were less than half the level claimed.
The OFT is inquiring into underwriting commissions, believing that there is profiteering, and may refer them to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission later this year.
The Bank admitted that it had failed to explain away all the excess profit Professor Marsh found in sub-underwriting fees, but concluded that the evidence did not show inadequate competition in the share-issuing market.
The significance of the two studies is that what began as a highly technical exercise has developed into a fundamental argument about whether the City is operating restrictive practices. If it is, that could keep the cost of capital for industry artificially high compared with international competitors.
The Treasury is also known to be concerned about the impact of the high cost of capital on company financing.
In a related development, it is thought to be backing pressure from industry to loosen the right of existing shareholders to have first refusal of new shares in rights issues.
Of the normally fixed fee of 2 per cent charged for an issue, other than privatisations, 0.5 per cent goes to the investment bank organising it, 0.25 per cent to the brokers and 1.25 per cent to the sub-underwriters.
Professor Marsh claimed that the excess return made by sub-underwriters was 1.14 percentage points of their 1.25 per cent fee.
The Bank study reworked Professor Marsh's figures with additional refinements, and concluded that the excess return was only 0.49 percentage points.
The article said that despite the smaller discrepancy between fees and the cost of the service provided, "It is not possible to conclude from this that there is inadequate competition in this market, since firms do have a choice both of issuance technique and of underwriter."
The Bank said that companies in the US had "puzzlingly" moved in recent decades away from cheaper share-issue methods to sales of entire issues direct to underwriters, which is the most expensive method of all.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments