Unveiling BT’s full year results, last month, the company’s chief executive, Philip Jansen, made clear he felt the shares were a long term investment.
For the second consecutive year, he announced an increase in spending in fibre rollout, disappointing some shareholders who would rather have seen BT focusing on returns in the shorter run rather than promising jam tomorrow.
Today, though, came proof that some investors in the broadband and telecoms stalwart are prepared to take a longer view.
Image: BT made clear that Mr Drahi had already spoken with chief executive Philip Jansen Pic: BT
Altice, the second-largest telecoms company in France after Orange (the renamed France Telecom), announced it had snapped up a 12.1% stake in BT worth roughly £2.2bn.
It means Altice – which is owned by France’s ninth-richest man, Patrick Drahi – becomes the biggest single shareholder in BT, overtaking Deutsche Telekom, which has a 12.06% stake as a result of BT’s 2014 acquisition of the mobile operator EE, which was previously part-owned by the German giant.
Advertisement
Shares of BT shot up by 3% at one point to take them to their highest level since January last year.
That was despite an unequivocal statement from Altice that it has no intention of bidding for BT.
More from Business
It said: “Altice holds the board and management team of BT in high regard and is supportive of their strategy.
“Altice UK has informed the BT board that it does not intend to make a takeover offer for BT.
Image: BT shares climbed to their highest level since January last year
“Altice UK has made this significant investment in BT as it believes that it has a compelling opportunity to deliver one of the UK government’s most important policies, namely the substantial expansion of access to a full-fibre, gigabit-capable broadband network throughout the UK.
“Altice believes that the UK provides a sound environment for substantial long-term investment.
“This is supported by the current regulatory framework, which offers BT the appropriate incentives to make the necessary investments.”
In other words, then, the stake-building appears to be a strong endorsement of and vote of confidence in the long-term approach set out by Mr Jansen who, last month, said cash flow would “go through the roof” once the majority of full fibre rollout had been completed in 2026.
BT responded: “BT Group notes the announcement from Altice of their investment in BT and their statement of support for our management and strategy.
“We welcome all investors who recognise the long-term value of our business and the important role it plays in the UK.
“We are making good progress in delivering our strategy and plan.”
The emphasis from Altice that it is a long term shareholder, rather than seeking to make a takeover bid, also reflects a degree of pragmatism.
Image: BT is increasing spending on its fibre roll-out Pic: BT
The UK government has recently bolstered its ability to intervene in takeovers of companies and particularly infrastructure that may be integral to national security.
As the owner of the UK’s largest fixed line and broadband network, Openreach, BT would appear to fall squarely into that category.
It makes it highly likely that the government would intervene were any bidder for BT to emerge.
That is not to say that Altice will not seek to influence what BT does.
Jerry Dellis, equity analyst at the investment bank Jefferies, told clients: “A key issue now is how Altice intends to unlock value.
“Encouraging an Openreach spin [off] seems most likely.
“A full takeover of BT or Openreach would be likely to run into political opposition given the strategic importance of networks.”
And Mr Drahi, the billionaire founder and owner of Altice, is used to getting his own way.
Image: Altice said it does not intend to make a takeover offer for BT
This was emphasised to the outside world when, in June 2019, he swooped to buy Sotheby’s, the world’s most famous auction house, which had looked poised to fall into the hands of the Chinese insurance billionaire Chen Dongsheng.
He has since announced plans to install his 26-year old son, Nathan, as head of Sotheby’s Asia at the end of the year.
Similarly, Mr Drahi pounced in 2014 to buy SFR, France’s second-largest mobile operator, from under the nose of the billionaire industrialist Martin Bouygues.
That business now forms the bulk of Altice Europe, which also owns Portugal Telecom, the country’s largest telecoms operator.
It also owns the second largest telecoms operators in Israel and the Dominican Republic.
Apart from SFR, its other assets in France include BFM TV, the country’s most-watched 24-hour rolling news channel and the radio broadcaster RMC.
Mr Drahi is also adept at pricing telecoms assets.
He bought out minority shareholders in Altice Europe in January this year, at a cost of €3.2bn (£2.7bn), after concluding it was undervalued by the market.
Image: Mr Drahi pounced in 2014 to buy SFR, France’s second-largest mobile operator
He also knows about demergers, having in 2018 spun off Altice’s majority shareholding in Altice USA, the cable and broadband operator, in response to concerns over the parent company’s debt.
What is quite striking about 57-year old Mr Drahi is that, unlike the heads of many of France’s richest business dynasties, he is an entirely self-made man.
Born in Casablanca, Morocco, his parents were maths teachers and he did not move to France until he was 15 years old.
Having studied at one of the country’s top engineering schools, Ecole Polytechnique, he joined the Dutch electronics giant Philips on graduation to work in fibre optics.
It was in this work that he first visited the United States and saw how the cable industry was growing.
On returning to France, he launched his first cable company, Sud Cable Services, using a student loan, the equivalent of the time of around £5,000, as seed capital.
He went on to sell the business to the US cable magnate John Malone four years later, becoming a multi-millionaire in the process, and going on to use the proceeds to set up Altice in 2002 with the intention of using it to consolidate cable and telecoms businesses across Europe.
Mr Malone, himself one of the industry’s most revered figures, has described him as a “genius”.
Image: US cable magnate John Malone has described Mr Drahi as a genius
Mr Drahi has been rumoured to have had his eye on BT for some time now.
The Mail on Sunday reported in August last year that he was eyeing Openreach in particular and had “secured financial backing from heavyweight bankers at JP Morgan with a view to paying £20bn for the unit”.
He is likely to keep his motivation in buying the stake in BT, who made clear today that Mr Drahi had already spoken with Mr Jansen, to himself.
Mr Drahi, who with his wife, Lina, has four children, prefers to take a low-key approach.
With homes in Paris, Geneva, Tel Aviv and the US – he has French, Israeli and Portuguese citizenship – he gives few interviews and has been known in the past to turn up to meetings on foot or on a bicycle rather than, as most executives do, in a chauffeur-driven car.
One thing is clear, though.
Life at BT will be more interesting with him on the shareholder register.
The bosses of four of Britain’s biggest banks are secretly urging the chancellor to ditch the most significant regulatory change imposed after the 2008 financial crisis, warning her its continued imposition is inhibiting UK economic growth.
Sky News has obtained an explosive letter sent this week by the chief executives of HSBC Holdings, Lloyds Banking Group, NatWest Group and Santander UK in which they argue that bank ring-fencing “is not only a drag on banks’ ability to support business and the economy, but is now redundant”.
The CEOs’ letter represents an unprecedented intervention by most of the UK’s major lenders to abolish a reform which cost them billions of pounds to implement and which was designed to make the banking system safer by separating groups’ high street retail operations from their riskier wholesale and investment banking activities.
Their request to Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, to abandon ring-fencing 15 years after it was conceived will be seen as a direct challenge to the government to take drastic action to support the economy during a period when it is forcing economic regulators to scrap red tape.
It will, however, ignite controversy among those who believe that ditching the UK’s most radical post-crisis reform risks exacerbating the consequences of any future banking industry meltdown.
In their letter to the chancellor, the quartet of bank chiefs told Ms Reeves that: “With global economic headwinds, it is crucial that, in support of its Industrial Strategy, the government’s Financial Services Growth and Competitiveness Strategy removes unnecessary constraints on the ability of UK banks to support businesses across the economy and sends the clearest possible signal to investors in the UK of your commitment to reform.
“While we welcomed the recent technical adjustments to the ring-fencing regime, we believe it is now imperative to go further.
More on Electoral Dysfunction
Related Topics:
“Removing the ring-fencing regime is, we believe, among the most significant steps the government could take to ensure the prudential framework maximises the banking sector’s ability to support UK businesses and promote economic growth.”
Work on the letter is said to have been led by HSBC, whose new chief executive, Georges Elhedery, is among the signatories.
His counterparts at Lloyds, Charlie Nunn; NatWest’s Paul Thwaite; and Mike Regnier, who runs Santander UK, also signed it.
While Mr Thwaite in particular has been public in questioning the continued need for ring-fencing, the letter – sent on Tuesday – is the first time that such a collective argument has been put so forcefully.
The only notable absentee from the signatories is CS Venkatakrishnan, the Barclays chief executive, although he has publicly said in the past that ring-fencing is not a major financial headache for his bank.
Other industry executives have expressed scepticism about that stance given that ring-fencing’s origination was largely viewed as being an attempt to solve the conundrum posed by Barclays’ vast investment banking operations.
The introduction of ring-fencing forced UK-based lenders with a deposit base of at least £25bn to segregate their retail and investment banking arms, supposedly making them easier to manage in the event that one part of the business faced insolvency.
Banks spent billions of pounds designing and setting up their ring-fenced entities, with separate boards of directors appointed to each division.
More recently, the Treasury has moved to increase the deposit threshold from £25bn to £35bn, amid pressure from a number of faster-growing banks.
Sam Woods, the current chief executive of the main banking regulator, the Prudential Regulation Authority, was involved in formulating proposals published by the Sir John Vickers-led Independent Commission on Banking in 2011.
Legislation to establish ring-fencing was passed in the Financial Services Reform (Banking) Act 2013, and the regime came into effect in 2019.
In addition to ring-fencing, banks were forced to substantially increase the amount and quality of capital they held as a risk buffer, while they were also instructed to create so-called ‘living wills’ in the event that they ran into financial trouble.
The chancellor has repeatedly spoken of the need to regulate for growth rather than risk – a phrase the four banks hope will now persuade her to abandon ring-fencing.
Britain is the only major economy to have adopted such an approach to regulating its banking industry – a fact which the four bank chiefs say is now undermining UK competitiveness.
“Ring-fencing imposes significant and often overlooked costs on businesses, including SMEs, by exposing them to banking constraints not experienced by their international competitors, making it harder for them to scale and compete,” the letter said.
“Lending decisions and pricing are distorted as the considerable liquidity trapped inside the ring-fence can only be used for limited purposes.
“Corporate customers whose financial needs become more complex as they grow larger, more sophisticated, or engage in international trade, are adversely affected given the limits on services ring-fenced banks can provide.
“Removing ring-fencing would eliminate these cliff-edge effects and allow firms to obtain the full suite of products and services from a single bank, reducing administrative costs”.
In recent months, doubts have resurfaced about the commitment of Spanish banking giant Santander to its UK operations amid complaints about the costs of regulation and supervision.
The UK’s fifth-largest high street lender held tentative conversations about a sale to either Barclays or NatWest, although they did not progress to a formal stage.
HSBC, meanwhile, is particularly restless about the impact of ring-fencing on its business, given its sprawling international footprint.
“There has been a material decline in UK wholesale banking since ring-fencing was introduced, to the detriment of British businesses and the perception of the UK as an internationally orientated economy with a global financial centre,” the letter said.
“The regime causes capital inefficiencies and traps liquidity, preventing it from being deployed efficiently across Group entities.”
The four bosses called on Ms Reeves to use this summer’s Mansion House dinner – the City’s annual set-piece event – to deliver “a clear statement of intent…to abolish ring-fencing during this Parliament”.
Doing so, they argued, would “demonstrate the government’s determination to do what it takes to promote growth and send the strongest possible signal to investors of your commitment to the City and to strengthen the UK’s position as a leading international financial centre”.
The Post Office will next week unveil a £1.75bn deal with dozens of banks which will allow their customers to continue using Britain’s biggest retail network.
Sky News has learnt the next Post Office banking framework will be launched next Wednesday, with an agreement that will deliver an additional £500m to the government-owned company.
Banking industry sources said on Friday the deal would be worth roughly £350m annually to the Post Office – an uplift from the existing £250m-a-year deal, which expires at the end of the year.
The sources added that in return for the additional payments, the Post Office would make a range of commitments to improving the service it provides to banks’ customers who use its branches.
Banks which participate in the arrangements include Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds Banking Group, NatWest Group and Santander UK.
Under the Banking Framework Agreement, the 30 banks and mutuals’ customers can access the Post Office’s 11,500 branches for a range of services, including depositing and withdrawing cash.
More on Post Office Scandal
Related Topics:
The service is particularly valuable to those who still rely on physical cash after a decade in which well over 6,000 bank branches have been closed across Britain.
In 2023, more than £10bn worth of cash was withdrawn over the counter and £29bn in cash was deposited over the counter, the Post Office said last year.
A new, longer-term deal with the banks comes at a critical time for the Post Office, which is trying to secure government funding to bolster the pay of thousands of sub-postmasters.
Reliant on an annual government subsidy, the reputation of the network’s previous management team was left in tatters by the Horizon IT scandal and the wrongful conviction of hundreds of sub-postmasters.
A Post Office spokesperson declined to comment ahead of next week’s announcement.
As Chancellor Rachel Reeves meets her counterpart, US Treasury secretary Scott Bessent to discuss an “economic agreement” between the two countries, the latest trade figures confirm three realities that ought to shape negotiations.
The first is that the US remains a vital customer for UK businesses, the largest single-nation export market for British goods and the third-largest import partner, critical to the UK automotive industry, already landed with a 25% tariff, and pharmaceuticals, which might yet be.
In 2024 the US was the UK’s largest export market for cars, worth £9bn to companies including Jaguar Land Rover, Bentley and Aston Martin, and accounting for more than 27% of UK automotive exports.
Little wonder the domestic industry fears a heavy and immediate impact on sales and jobs should tariffs remain.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:25
Chancellor’s trade deal red lines explained
American car exports to the UK by contrast are worth just £1bn, which may explain why the chancellor may be willing to lower the current tariff of 10% to 2.5%.
For UK medicines and pharmaceutical producers meanwhile, the US was a more than £6bn market in 2024. Currently exempt from tariffs, while Mr Trump and his advisors think about how to treat an industry he has long-criticised for high prices, it remains vulnerable.
More on Tariffs
Related Topics:
The second point is that the US is even more important for the services industry. British exports of consultancy, PR, financial and other professional services to America were worth £131bn last year.
That’s more than double the total value of the goods traded in the same direction, but mercifully services are much harder to hammer with the blunt tool of tariffs, though not immune from regulation and other “non-tariff barriers”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:13
How US ports are coping with tariffs
The third point is that, had Donald Trump stuck to his initial rationale for tariffs, UK exporters should not be facing a penny of extra cost for doing business with the US.
The president says he slapped blanket tariffs on every nation bar Russia to “rebalance” the US economy and reverse goods trade ‘deficits’ – in which the US imports more than it exports to a given country.
That heavily contested argument might apply to Mexico, Canada, China and many other manufacturing nations, but it does not meaningfully apply to Britain.
Figures from the Office for National Statistics show the US ran a small goods trade deficit with the UK in 2024 of £2.2bn, importing £59.3bn of goods against exports of £57.1bn.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:00
IMF downgrades UK growth forecast
Add in services trade, in which the UK exports more than double what it imports from the US, and the UK’s surplus – and thus the US ‘deficit’ – swells to nearly £78bn.
That might be a problem were it not for the US’ own accounts of the goods and services trade with Britain, which it says actually show a $15bn (£11.8bn) surplus with the UK.
You might think that they cannot both be right, but the ONS disagrees. The disparity is caused by the way the US Bureau of Economic Analysis accounts for services, as well as a range of statistical assumptions.
“The presence of trade asymmetries does not indicate that either country is inaccurate in their estimation,” the ONS said.
That might be encouraging had Mr Trump not ignored his own arguments and landed the UK, like everyone else in the world, with a blanket 10% tariff on all goods.
Trade agreements are notoriously complex, protracted affairs, which helps explain why after nine years of trying the UK still has not got one with the US, and the Brexit deal it did with the EU against a self-imposed deadline has been proved highly disadvantageous.