Anti-trust (literally: anti-trust) Yes, against the people's trust! The last exit
Antitrust about the branches of Intesa Sanpaolo
leaves me very perplexed ...
In short (as the article follows the current of thought that it is assumed that the reader is aware of the context), following the merger between the two banking giants, and the consequent presence of duplicated branches on the territory now belonging to the same bank, you ask Intesa and Sanpaolo to close some of them.
The reason is precisely that which the new bank would be at an advantage over competitors because it has a greater capillarity and spread of branches.
considerations flowing directly to me.
We are talking about medium and large cities, where there is currently a subsidiary of Intesa Sanpaolo. Logical to assume that the same center there are also other branches of banks.
I think the (alleged) claim made by them towards the new colossus is required to cover a much more serious structural flaw.
The user's preference should be gained through
quality, not quantity
! The Bank Piripacchio can have branches in every street, but if its services are poor account-holders should probably choose another financial institution whose conditions are more favorable. A fortiori the centers of medium-large size where the offer should be sufficiently diverse.
In the previous paragraph I used the conditional tense for several reasons.
The first is that in Italy as an argument that the Antitrust Authority has put together a good game: in a country where people have the myth of the food prepared in a chair, does not use public transport because they are not comfortable enough to do and when to the expenditure does not agree to park in front of the store (perhaps having to do 100 meter walk), it is difficult to agree to take an "extra mile" to address an agency that applies the most favorable terms.
The second is that the variety of the courted does not exist in reality, all the banks pull to do its convenience (see the various items of Maurizio Blondet on the subject) and there is a clear sign to maintain the conditions flatly equal (and disadvantageous for users) across. The Antitrust
would have to worry about undermining the foundations of this granite conspiracy, instead of answering questions of wool goats ... but the reality is that the account holder / user / taxpayer has in fact always the ' Last wagon wheel by virtue of the fact that does not have money or power, and it is easier for the authorities to show off a defender behavior facade that is careful not to put any spanner in the works of friends banks.
Indeed, in this way the group Intesa-Sanpaolo can happily afford to put at the door staff who will have to be made redundant with the justification: "I decided that I'm not rockin 'out! I require the Antitrust ... what can you do?"
And they all lived happily ever after (except the depositors and "purged" ... but for the good of many that need to accept some sacrifice!)
