Connect with us

Published

on

It is rare for a decision by the UK’s competition regulator to make waves globally.

The Competition & Markets Authority (CMA) has traditionally not been as significant a force in preventing corporate deals as the European Commission or the US Federal Trade Commission.

So the CMA’s decision to block Microsoft’s $75bn takeover of the games publisher Activision Blizzard is one of its most far-reaching decisions in years.

It is also huge for a sector – video gaming – that is of more importance to the UK and to the global economy than is widely appreciated.

This was the biggest acquisition in Microsoft‘s history – and the CMA’s intervention may yet scupper the deal.

It has sent Activision shares down more than 11% in pre-market trading.

The decision has come as a surprise for a couple of reasons. The first is that the CMA has not blocked the decision due to concerns over the competition in the supply of games consoles.

More from Business

Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare II releases this month
Image:
Microsoft had pledged to make Call of Duty available on other platforms for at least a decade to satisfy regulators’ early concerns

This was of particular importance in the UK. Elsewhere around the world, in particular the US, playing games on large PCs is commonplace.

The UK, by contrast, is not a nation of PC players but one of console players. This reflects the fact that UK housing is smaller, typically, than in the US and so British gamers are more likely to play on consoles that can easily be fitted under a TV set and take up less space.

Consoles like Microsoft’s Xbox and Sony’s PlayStation are therefore a more important factor in the UK gaming market than in the US one.

The concern was that armed with Activision’s big money-spinning titles, chiefly Call of Duty, World of Warcraft and Overwatch, Microsoft would have had plenty of scope to hurt PlayStation sales were it to make games exclusive only to the Xbox.

It was seen as particularly significant for the CMA in view of the fact that in the UK, more gamers own a PlayStation 5 than own an Xbox series X or its cheaper sister product, the Xbox series S.

But the CMA said last month it had provisionally concluded that the merger would not result in a substantial lessening of competition in console gaming services “because the cost to Microsoft of withholding Call of Duty from PlayStation would outweigh any gains from taking such action”.

Accordingly, as this was the main area in which the CMA was expected to have competition concerns, it is surprising that the regulator has decided to block the takeover.

The other big surprise is that the ground on which the CMA wants to block the proposed deal is that it would potentially reduce competition in the cloud gaming sector.

This is because the cloud is at present a relatively small part of the way in which video games are played currently.

But it is already a field in which Microsoft has established a lead over Sony and that may well be of concern to the CMA – particularly given Microsoft’s wider market dominance in cloud services (another market the CMA is investigating separately) and given the work Microsoft is doing to deliver many of the services available through Gamepass, its subscription service, through the cloud.

The CMA has clearly made this decision with an eye to the future.

The CMA’s intervention may not be enough to kill this deal.

Microsoft and Activision may find a way of offering remedies to satisfy it, but the size and the complexity of the global gaming market would probably make it too complicated for Microsoft and Activision to unpick it in a way that the UK remained excluded from a tie-up elsewhere around the world.

But there are also competition hurdles elsewhere, particularly the US, where the FTC has said it will sue to block the deal.

And, in other jurisdictions, concerns over competition in consoles may well be a factor. Microsoft has insisted throughout that it has no intention of making Activision’s games exclusive to Xbox, Gamepass and to PCs.

But other watchdogs may choose to consider an interview given last month by Harvey Smith, the director of a game called Redfall, which is published by Bethesda Softworks, a company bought by Microsoft in 2021. The development of Redfall was interrupted by the pandemic, during which, Microsoft bought Bethesda.

Mr Smith told the US video game and entertainment website IGN that, originally, Redfall was to be released on all platforms but that there was a “huge change” once Microsoft bought Bethesda.

He told IGN that, even though work had been started to make a PlayStation version of Redfall, Microsoft had cancelled that work in order to make it exclusive to Xbox.

He said: “We were acquired by Microsoft and it was a capital C change. They came in and said, ‘No PlayStation 5, we’re focusing on Xbox, PC and Game Pass’.”

That interview has already been flagged by Sony in some of its representations to competition watchdogs.

In this June 14, 2018 file photo people stand on a line next to the PlayStation booth at the Los Angeles Convention Center Pic: AP
Image:
The CMA’s ruling will be music to Sony’s ears. Pic: AP

More from Sky News:
New CBI boss ‘profoundly sorry’ to women let down by business group

A key point to bear in mind is that Microsoft is doing well enough – last night’s quarterly results showed a business firing on all cylinders – for it not to need Activision.

That may not be true for the latter which, shortly before the takeover was announced, was beset by allegations of sexual assault and mistreatment of women at the company in recent years.

That may explain the vituperative response of Bobby Kotick, Activision’s chief executive, to today’s decision. Mr Kotick, who stands to make millions from a sale of the company, has previously accused the CMA of being “co-opted by FTC ideology”.

Robert Kotick, chairman and CEO, Activision, Inc. takes part in a panel session titled "Intellectual Property and the Future of the Entertainment Industry at the 2005 Milken Institute Global Conference in Beverly Hills, California April 20, 2005. The Milken Institute is an independent economic think tank, which works to improve the lives and economic conditions of diverse populations in the United States and around the world. REUTERS/Fred Prouser FSP
Image:
Bobby Kotick has reacted angrily to the CMA’s decision

He has, though, been careful to praise Rishi Sunak, telling the Financial Times in February this year that the PM was “smart” and understands business, adding: “If I look at our hiring plans, we’re more likely to find the next 3,000 to 5,000 people that we need in the UK than almost any other country.”

That was very much at odds with his assertion today that “the UK is clearly closed for business”.

Some will dismiss that as a man lashing out in disappointment.

Others will view it as a threat.

Continue Reading

Business

Bank chiefs to Reeves: Ditch ring-fencing to boost UK economy

Published

on

By

Bank chiefs to Reeves: Ditch ring-fencing to boost UK economy

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

“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”.

Continue Reading

Business

Post Office to unveil £1.75bn banking deal with big British lenders

Published

on

By

Post Office to unveil £1.75bn banking deal with big British lenders

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.

Money latest: ’14 million Britons on course for parking fine this 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

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.

Read more from Sky News:
Water regulation slammed by spending watchdog
Rate cut speculation lights up as economic outlook darkens

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.

Continue Reading

Business

Trump trade war: How UK figures show his tariff argument doesn’t add up

Published

on

By

Trump trade war: How UK figures show his tariff argument doesn't add up

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.

Money latest: ’14 million Britons on course for parking fine this year’

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

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

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

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.

Read more: Could Trump tariffs tip the world into recession?

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

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.

Read more from Sky News:
Water regulation slammed by spending watchdog
Rate cut speculation lights up as economic outlook darkens

“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.

Continue Reading

Trending