Several reasons for the state to sell Telia leaders

However, even before the negotiations on this purchase were initiated, the government should have sold Telia's portfolio of state-owned enterprises. The state has not had a successful relationship for decades. First, the governments of Sweden and Norway wanted their respective telecommunications companies to merge. The contradictions between the representatives of the two countries were profound. The Norwegian CEO of the proposed joint venture disputed the location of the various offices of the company, and the annoyance was so strong that he was kicking in the back ("he had not look like a journalist ").

propagation of the fusion.

The line of action of the Swedish Social Democratic Government has become a list of Telia shares. The public has subscribed stocks of at least 8,500 Swedish kroner, Industry Minister Björn Rosengren enthusiastically announced the investment and has long destroyed the word "folk share".

Telia then joined his Finnish counterpart Sonera and the following years: Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Nepal, Georgia, Tajikistan etc. The corruption scandal in Uzbekistan has received both the president and the board of Telia.

The company received a new president of Marie Ehrling and Johan Dennelind became CEO. The East port has been sold and capital gains have boosted the company's cash register

The question is how much this money should be used. Dividend, as announced by the government. Or acquisitions, like what is now discussed with Bonnier. And Tuesday, it was clear that Telia was buying the Norwegian activities of TDC

The Bonnier affair rounds show clearly what a disadvantage there is to having the state as the owner. For Telia, it is quite right to seek more content to achieve vertical integration and strengthen its offer.

However, the fact that the state is the main owner with 37% of the shares can steal the case. And if that is the case, it happens with the worst variant of corporate governance – that the board makes decisions that are not the best for the company because of the fact. an irrelevant review of the location of the owner. For many years, the state has no representative on the board of directors; He was recruited for professional reasons.

In the early 1900s, the Minister of Culture, Marita Ulvskog (S), argued for a "Bonnier Law," a law designed to restrict the concentration of homeowners in the media market. And now, when Bonnier wants to sell the company in which TV4 is included, media concentration is government.

It is not appropriate for the state to obtain this dominant position, nor for Telia to be forced to refrain from an agreement perceived as logical. The conclusion must be that the state is eliminating its possessions in Telia.

Unfortunately, Social Democrats insisted a great deal on limiting the list of public enterprises for sale. It began in 2011 when the Red-Green parties merged with the Swedish Democrats to create a majority to stop the sale of state-owned shares Telia and SBAB. There were also no new property solutions in Vattenfall and Postnord

. The Minister of Industry, Mikael Damberg, motivated his line to Di a few years ago: "Telia is a huge and important company that invests heavily in mobile telephony and especially in the digitization of all of Sweden. 19659008] Why should this mean that the company should have the state as the main owner is still unclear.The circumstance that may be crucial concerns the important infrastructure for the armed forces, but it must be possible to distinguish between an important infrastructure in terms of preparation and civilization.

Björn Rosengren, who has acquired many ideas since he moved from politics to business, has wrote Saturday to Di Debatt that politicians should do as colleagues in Denmark.Dividing the dominant telecommunications company into two, so that the infrastructure ends and the production of content This is an interesting suggestion.

But the story of Telia is responsible for the saying. State property hindered the development of the company