I write this first part of the analysis without knowing the result. I didn't like anything about this takeover bid. Not even the fierce advertisements in the media on either side have had any fun, beyond the fact that some have made a fool of themselves. I repeat what I said at moment zero: that the takeover bid not have been carried out was desirable for me. No more banking oligopolies. No more internal merges, and fewer unforced ones (like with box absorption). When will there be a return on savings that at least covers inflation? How inefficient our banks are that they punish us savers with negative real interest, and they play it safe: the ECB remunerates them at 2%, so the easy thing is to pay interest below that and keep the margin, without incurring any risk. And from there, chain clients with insurance and all kinds of services at a quoted price.
Initiated, repeated, this takeover bid has become an obsession in which the participants have moved in a misleading, anything-goes manner, assuming that the premium was the one at each moment and not the one from when the operation began, with independent directors who have signed statements that clearly violated their supposed independence, who have played with the confusion of the price of second takeover bids or similar, ignoring the day after the operation, and that the dispute has lasted a long time (Escrivá dixit). All evidence that while part of macroeconomics refers its analysis to assumptions of rational expectations, we observe in the most typical sector of capitalism, that of capital, the confusions of rationality between the short and long term, of behaviors due to different motivations, of Institutional funds and indexed liabilities, motivated by announcement effects and almost patriotic enthrallment of small shareholders.