Santander Shares Surge, Reigniting Value vs. Tech Debate

From €1.50 to €3.75: Santander Silences Critics and Reopens the Value War

A bank many considered dead is now trading at more than double its lows. According to forum posts, Santander moved from around €1.50—when bankruptcy rumors peaked—to near €3.75, implying over 100% returns in a couple of years. The figure alone explains nothing. What ignites the conversation is who won: those who bought without checking quarterly reports, the very people accused of not knowing how to invest.

The trigger for the exchange is circular blame: forum experts dismissed the stock, while "uncle" investors held on and now boast about gains. The response was immediate: those who entered before the bottom suffered 70% losses in prior years, according to another user. The debate isn't about Santander. It's about whether one lucky bet makes someone an investor or just a person with selective memory.

From €1.50 to €3.75: Behind Santander's Rally

The sequence is easy to tell but hard to digest. When Santander hit €1.50, consensus assumed it wouldn't recover. Today it trades near €3.75. This >100% move peine in two years, turning profiles labeled reckless by the investment community into winners.

The problem is the timeframe. Before this rise, the same celebrants had accumulated 70% drops. Buying cheap and watching prices fall another 70% isn't a strategy; it's psychological endurance. The touted return measures from the low, not entry. That's where the illusion begins.

Some argue the bank remains a complex business model with hard-to-audit accounts and international diversification that doesn't increase transparency. The counterargument is purely empirical: price went up, holders got paid. Merit debates fade when the chart dictates.

The 100% Return Other Markets Also Offered

Santander didn't invent anything. In the same period, other assets offered comparable or higher returns. MicroStrategy is cited, capable of doubling in a month what the bank took twenty-three to achieve. The difference, they argue, isn't percentage but stomach: entering requires volatility tolerance few possess.

The comparison serves more than deflection. If 100% is accessible via various assets, the question shifts from how much you earn to how much you endure. The Spanish bank offered slow growth with dividends; the tech asset, a rollercoaster. Both are returns. Only one lets you sleep.

The IBEX doesn't play in that league. A recurring argument is that Spanish companies have grown far below US tech giants for decades. Buying Santander isn't betting on excellence; it's betting on normalization of a punished sector. And that pays off eventually.

Unmeasured Bias Against Spanish Assets

At the core is a recurrent accusation: local assets are despised while foreign ones are praised. Santander, BBVA, Iberdrola, Inditex, or El Corte Inglés carry the label of "permanent bankruptcy" while any US asset is lauded without scrutiny. Criticism extends to media and public discourse, not just investors.

The counterargument is equally old: it's not bias, it's diversification. Holding Santander, BBVA, Repsol, Inditex, and others isn't rejecting Spain; it's spreading risk. The debate sours when someone recalls Spanish banks needed capital increases and bailouts, suggesting distrust stems from bills, not complexes.

Inditex is the exception proving the rule. Even IBEX critics save the textile giant and its founder. The company isn't debated; the rest is. There, the discussion stops being financial and becomes identity-based.

Calculations Separating Investors from Gamblers

Specific figures reveal diverse portfolios. Some hold Santander at an average €2.30 planning to sell soon; others bought BBVA and exited before €7 thinking they'd squeezed it dry; some keep Repsol at €5.90 average with no intent to sell; others hold Inditex since €20.80, waiting for €32. Four decisions, four outcomes, one uncertainty.

Entry price dismantles many returns. A 61% gain in BBVA since 2016 isn't comparable to 100% in two years for Santander. Different horizons, risks, and market moments. Full calculations with averages and dates paint a less epic picture than the headline suggests.

Another factor rarely discounted is fees. Broker debates—custody, trading, spread—arise strongly: some use low-cost platforms, others still pay maintenance euphemisms. In double-digit operations, cost matters. In hundred-percent moves, it decides.

IBEX Euphoria and Dilution Risks

The most repeated warning is classic: when euphoria hits, banks raise capital. This caution isn't new nor always true, but explains why some prefer US markets. Distrust isn't in the business, but shareholder management: scrip dividends, capital increases, dilution.

Santander distributed cash and scrip dividends and executed splits. Each alters entry price and real return. The touted 100% may shrink after dilution adjustments. Few calculate this aloud.

Meanwhile, the IBEX continues. Banks lead gains while industrial laggards trail. The lingering question is whether the rally has legs or if it's another mirage. As always, the answer comes with the chart. Then, no one remembers who was right.

---

The honest prediction is also uncomfortable: Santander will depend on interest rates and market confidence, not buyers' merits. If the cycle turns, the 100% shrinks and bankruptcy forecasts return. Then, as now, the debate won't be analysis. It'll be who boasts loudest.