Two opposite visions of Italian finance challenge each other between record numbers, divergent strategies and an ops destined to make people discuss
Along the noisy path of the quarterly call conference, two opposite visions of the Italian banking system are clashing, at a distance but with growing intensity. On the one hand Luigi Lovaglio, at the helm of a Monte dei Paschi di Siena in full relaunch phase. On the other Alberto Nagel, the architect of Mediobanca’s metamorphosis in a sophisticated Wealth Management machine, convinced that the public exchange offer (OPS) launched by MPS is a strategic false step. The clash soil? The control of Mediobanca and, in cascade, the aggregation with Banca Generali.
LOVAGLIO does not go back. Indeed, it relaunches. “We do not perceive Mediobanca’s Oops on Banca Generali as an obstacle to our path,” said firmly, underlining the strong support of shareholders and reaffirming the industrial coherence of the operation. The first quarter of 2025, moreover, give him a breath: 413 million of net profit (+24.2%), a record asset solidity index at 19.6%, growth of the jobs and solid dynamic of the collection. With a net operating margin on the rise and dropping costs,
But as a square the answer is dry, almost sharp. For Nagel, the aggregation between Banca Generali and Mediobanca – already announced and close to the assembly vote of 16 June – “completes the transformation path in a diversified player with low capital absorption, excellent for the creation of value”. The operation, says the banker, not only strengthens the asset profile, but makes mediabanca a giant of over 210 billion managed masses, with 50% of the revenues from the Wealth Management.
The criticism of the MPS initiative is articulated. Nagel openly disputes the absence of synergies, the risk of cultural and managerial misalignment, and poor industrial consistency. “Montepaschi is a medium -sized and undifferentiated commercial bank – he said in no uncertain terms – a combination with Mediobanca would not make strengthening in any of the activities segments”. The Oops of Siena, according to Mediobanca, would dilute the value and multiples, would generate dissinergie and impose high costs of retent in private banking, putting the hold of the franchise itself at risk.
The two visions confront each other on a strategic scale. Mps aims at scale, to dimensional consolidation, with the aim of strengthening one’s weight in the banking panorama. Mediobanca, on the contrary, chases the specialization, the agile and capital-light model, betting on quality growth in Wealth Management. Two divergent roads, which make the contrast between the two protagonists even more clear.
The accounts strengthen their respective narrative. For Equita SIM, the results of MPS are “slightly better than expectations” thanks to the contribution of the commissions, although penalized by the drop in the margin of interest. Jefferies and Intesa Sanpaolo, on the other hand, praise Mediobanca for a quarter above consent, with net profit to 993 million (+5%), a capital coefficient at 15.6% and a mix of revenues in strong growth, especially in the Wealth and Consumer segments.
Autonomous effectively summarizes the scenario: Mediobanca’s shareholders are now in front of two alternative projects. On the one hand, the construction of a national champion of managed savings. On the other, a merger with a commercial bank like Mps, which management considers risky and dextructuring for the current model. In this setting, the real game is played on vision, credibility and market consensus.
