Matthew Lynn (whose opinions are his own), writing in Bloomberg.com, claims that European stock exchanges don’t need American owners.

“Amid all the excitement, it would be easy to overlook a simple yet pertinent question. Will any of these mergers actually create stronger companies? ”

Good question, Matthew, now give it some wellie.

“The answer is almost certainly no. Europe’s capital markets are doing just fine the way they are. Indeed, merging either Euronext with the NYSE, or combining the London Stock Exchange with Nasdaq would produce weaker businesses, at least in Europe.”

Isn’t that the point? A weaker European market makes for a stronger one in the U.S?

“In a global economy, a global stock market sounds like a good idea. Anything that managed to combine European and U.S. capital markets would be a formidable beast. ‘Considerable synergies from consolidation still exist,’ Credit Suisse Group said in a note to investors last week.”

Despite the combined numbers and the possible “synergies” (does that include Sarbanes-Oxley regulation?), London and Paris should hang on to their empires, Lynn suggests.

He gives five reasons for this, the first being:

“One, the case for a global or trans-Atlantic exchange has yet to be made. Investors are already able to put their money anywhere in the world. Europeans can invest in U.S. companies at the push of a button, and vice versa. Anyone who isn’t comfortable trading shares on a foreign exchange should stay out of the international market. So it is hard to see what advantages there are to combining exchanges under a single corporate banner.”

Real sense at last. Shareholders should wake up to their responsibilities as well as the potential short-term gains.

“There is no need for the Europeans to get caught up in what is essentially a U.S. contest — particularly since they are likely to end up as collateral damage…. Euronext and London Stock Exchange are potentially great companies — but only if they stay independent.”

Read the whole of Matthew Lynn’s article.