Posts Tagged ‘EC’

Why hasn’t Juncker resigned?

June 27, 2016

Why hasn’t  Jean-Claude Juncker resigned?

The European Commission, Council of Ministers and the European Parliament are answerable and accountable, theoretically to all the EU members but in practice to nobody.

MEPs are accountable in the sense that they are voted in every 5 years. But in many countries that use party list systems of voting, candidates are simply put on a list by their party and the voters have no or a limited say on who is going to be elected. 

In most countries it is very difficult to present a new list alongside the lists of the traditional parties represented in the national parliaments. Voters have a formal choice but not necessarily a real possibility to have their own views being represented by an MP or MEP.   ……..

MEPs receive €4,299 per month in a general expenses allowance. MEPs do not need to deliver any proof as to how their money has been spent.

Commissioners need to be accountable to the European Parliament. They are obliged to answer questions from MEPs both orally and in writing. Many MEPs do not feel that they receive satisfactory answers. Many believe that the Commissioners are hiding too much; ………. You should also have the right to know how the different Commissioners vote on the different topics put on their table, but at present one has no idea.

During 2004-14, under the mandate of Commission President Barroso, the Commissioners did not vote among themselves at all. Discussions took place behind closed doors on proposals for new EU laws. The Commission President often reads a text prepared by his official services. There is usually no real political debate. The President concludes. Most decisions are taken in the name of the Commission outside the Commission meeting room ……..

The Commission now publishes agendas and minutes of their decisions. However nowhere can it be seen how they actually came to those decisions. They do not provide access to documents relating to their discussions or preparations. EU Commissioners give information about the amounts spent on representation. Yet this does not happen for individual spending, unlike what journalists can receive or request in most countries from their national ministers. …… Commissioners may hire special advisors. These names are now published – but the information does not include the salaries paid for the special advice they may receive from political friends or others. 

Commissioners are proposed by the prime ministers or presidents of the member states. Often a prime minister or president proposes a candidate who could no longer be elected as an MP or appointed as a minister in his or her own country. When former Prime Minister Tony Blair appointed Peter Mandelson as an EU Commissioner he had already been twice rejected as a minister by the British Parliament at Westminster. 

Prime Ministers may sometimes propose the names of national politicians they want to get rid of. There is no election procedure safeguarding voters so that they may have the best candidate from their country. 

There is some EU accountability in some of the national parliaments. In Denmark the European Affairs committee has met in public every Friday since October 2006 and  it can  give negotiating mandates to Danish ministers before the latter can approve something in the  EU Council of Ministers.  

There is no other  EU country where ministers need to have a negotiating mandate for such votes at EU level. In most countries the national MPs are rather badly informed about EU law proposals and have no real influence. Even in Denmark it is normally the civil servants in the ministries who decide and implement the Danish position in the 275 Council working groups. 

They are assisted by 35 special committees composed of representatives from business organisations and NGOs in an tightly woven corporative system. 

The ordinary members of parliament, the media and citizens are sidelined in the important preparatory phase where most EU decisions are prepared and then adopted.

The President of the European Commission – a former PM of Luxembourg – is the living face of the privileged, protected, arrogant, unaccountable bureaucracy that is Brussels. The EC – more than anybody – else is the reason for the deep and widespread dissatisfaction in Europe with the way in which the EU operates and where it is headed.

It is time for Jean-Claude Juncker to resign. And that means that the leaders of the core countries need to tell him to go.


 

Advertisements

12% job losses to be expected post approval of GE – Alstom deal

September 4, 2015

Everything points to GE getting approval next week from the European Commission (deadline 11th September) for its acquisition of Alstom’s Power and Grid businesses – subject to some of the remedies proposed by GE to meet EC concerns about competition. The specific nature of the remedies have not been made public but rumours indicate that these comprise divestment of a service company and a facility in Switzerland to Ansaldo along with some IP, (see previous posts).

Around 65,000 Alstom employees would be transferred (though I am assuming that the JV’s being set-up (Grid, Renewable Power and Nuclear) are just a step along the way to complete divestment. Alstom can exit the Grid and Renewable Power businesses (50% minus one share) by September 2019 for an exit price not less than the acquisition price +3% per year. Alstom has windows for exit from the Nuclear JV (20% minus one share) “for 3 months after the 5th and 6th anniversaries of the joint venture” with an “exit price not to be lower than acquisition price +2% per year”. I assume that Alstom has a put option and that GE is obliged to buy – provided of course that no hidden liabilities show up in the businesses as happened when Alstom acquired ABB’s power generation business in 2000.

Alstom GE JVs (EGM Dec 2014)

Alstom GE JVs (EGM Dec 2014)

Alstom EGM presentation 2014-12-18

Alstom employees breakdown March 2014

Alstom employees breakdown March 2014

That there will be job losses among the 65,000 so transferred is inevitable. The logical conclusion would be that jobs in high-cost countries – except where they are also where the market is – would be most at risk. But as I saw through my years at ABB and Alstom, logic does not always apply. Both ABB and Alstom were (and probably still are) very Eurocentric. Quite often I saw under-utilisation in Europe being taken as the “cost to be avoided” rather than the minimising of total cost. Then, fully loaded jobs in low-cost countries were removed or transferred to Europe to increase loading in European facilities – but which only helped to increase total costs. Also, it was always so much cheaper (redundancy payments) to get rid of jobs in India or China or Indonesia than in France or Germany. So I do expect that similar “political preferences” will still apply for European jobs, though GE should be less inclined to fool themselves over the false economy of maintaining high-cost jobs for saving the “avoided cost” of under-utilisation. (A qualified, engineering job in Europe costs – or saves – at least twice as much as one in India or China after including for wages and all support facilities). On the other hand, GE now has to fulfill some political expectations from the French government and the European Commission. So jobs in France are protected and possibly also in Italy as well, but Eastern Europe and even some developing countries may well take a hit. Switzerland is quite exposed, both for cost and lack of political clout in the EU.

However, GE is also under pressure to implement its cost cutting program and the delay in the EC approval only adds to the pressure to make quick cuts.

ReutersGeneral Electric Co is expected to win regulatory approval next week for its purchase of the power equipment business of France’s Alstom, allowing the U.S. industrial conglomerate to finally carry out a major cost-cutting program 16 months after first announcing the deal. ……… 

In May, GE told investors it expects $3 billion in cost reductions over the next five years as it combines its operations with those of Alstom, more than double the previous target when the deal was first announced in April 2014.

GE has also projected the deal would add 15 to 20 cents per share to earnings in 2018, or nearly 10 percent of GE’s overall profit expected that year by Wall Street, according to Thomson Reuters.  

To hit those goals, GE will consolidate manufacturing operations, cut duplicated overheads, and make savings on purchasing expenses, according to GE presentations on the deal. But to gain the blessing of the French government last year, GE committed to add 1,000 jobs in the country, possibly handcuffing the conglomerate’s ability to reap savings from Alstom’s home base.

My (entirely speculative) reasoning suggests that GE must reduce this 65,000 employees from Alstom by around 12% quickly – say over 12 – 18 months. GE should certainly be able to reduce headcount globally by around 8,000. That will give a saving of only around €500 million annually (€800 million if all the job cuts were in Europe) and further rationalisation will still be needed if GE is to meet its target of $3 billion cost reduction in 5 years. (A $3 billion annual cost reduction is massive. If it was all to be found only by job reductions it would mean around 30,000 jobs).

Over 1,200 of these jobs could go as a consequence of the “remedies” proposed by GE and the consequent divestments to Ansaldo. Around 1,000 of these jobs in Switzerland will likely transfer to Ansaldo and then perhaps around 600 will disappear completely. I note that around 3,000 of the 65,000 jobs transferred are for shared and common services (IT, support facilities, legal and the like). I would be quite surprised if GE could not find sufficient synergies with their existing staff in these areas, and cut at least 1,500 of these jobs. Between 6 and 7,000 of the jobs transferred would be in the US where GE is already very well represented. Again, I would be quite surprised if GE could not find at least 1,000 jobs in the US which were effectively duplicates. Some duplicate manufacturing facilities would also need to be rationalised (Poland? China? Italy?).

It is only my speculation but I could see the initial 8,000 jobs to be reduced consisting of (as an example),

  1. 1,000 in Switzerland divested to Ansaldo
  2. 200 in other locations (service business) divested to Ansaldo
  3. 1,500 reduction in central and shared services
  4. 1,000 jobs rationalisation in the US
  5. 1,000 manufacturing and engineering jobs in duplicated facilities
  6. plus a 5% personnel reduction across the board

There will be much pain in the short-term. I have been through the process myself on more than 6 occasions (downsizing or acquiring or being acquired), and it is the handling of people which is by far the biggest challenge. While it will be of benefit to both Alstom and GE in the long-term (to their investors, their continuing employees and to their customers), that is not much comfort to those who lose their jobs.

EC conditions for GE’s acquisition of Alstom will probably sacrifice Swiss jobs

August 14, 2015

UPDATE! 14th August

Reuters reports “exclusively” – and no doubt from anonymous EU bureaucrats as their sources – that the EC is set to approve the GE/ Alstom deal. The EC decision will be announced by 11th September. The report suggests that GE was prepared to accept the divestment of PSM and of a “facility” in Switzerland. That probably consists of some or all of the gas turbine R & D operations at Baden/Birr. The precise scope of the GE concessions are not yet revealed.

The French government, is probably not too perturbed by what happens to Swiss jobs or to PSM jobs in the US. And the price to be paid by Ansaldo probably compensates for most of the reduction that Alstom has accepted in the price to be paid by GE. In fact Alstom, the French government and Bouygues are all probably quite relieved to now see their way clear to financial closure.

Alstom management will also be quite glad to get rid of the difficult task of controlling “fortress” Baden. Whether GE for part, and the Italians or the Chinese for the rest, are up to that task is another matter.


Ansaldo (with Shanghai Electric) has emerged as the unlikely saviour of the gas turbine R & D tradition at Baden/Birr in Switzerland. But whether under GE ownership or in some hive-off to Ansaldo, it is only logical that many jobs in Switzerland would shift either to France or to Italy. One estimate puts the job losses to be expected in Baden to be around 600. I would expect the number to be very much larger. As far as the European Commision is concerned they may be making the calculation that more jobs will shift to Italy with Ansaldo ownership than would have shifted to France under GE ownership.

Job losses in Switzerland, of course, will not weigh very heavy with the EC in any case, and especially not if they were to shift to France or Italy. The EC may be calculating that Ansaldo could manage and run an R & D facility at Baden. I am not very optimistic about Ansaldo’s ability to be a technology owner. Shanghai Electric is more credible for that. My personal opinion is that Ansaldo has not the management strength or the R & D traditions to be able to manage an R&D program in Switzerland. (I note that even after a wholesale influx of French personnel, Alstom had its difficulties to manage Baden). On the other hand, any jobs which shift from the long and rich R & D traditions of Baden to Genoa will effectively be R & D which comes to an end. If the focus of development of an “Ansaldo” sequential combustion engine shifts to Italy, I would go so far as to forecast that it will never happen.

If this focus shifts to Shanghai instead, it will take a very long time but the development will eventually happen. With Shanghai Electric providing the “deep pockets” for Ansaldo, I suspect that jobs shifting to Italy will only be as a stop along the way to China.

HandelsZeitung:

Alstom Switzerland: 600 jobs in the balance

General Electric wants the energy division of Alstom.This could have a major impact on the Swiss workforce. Unions say that up to ten percent of the people have to go.

……. According to reports, GE will therefore sell its gas turbine business – the heart of Alstom Switzerland. The buyer would be the publicly listed energy company Ansaldo, a subsidiary of the Italian industrial group Finmeccanica. “Ansaldo is expected to shift the business to Genoa,” says a trade unionist. 

………… On 11 September, the Commission will announce a decision. “The closing of the deal in the second half of 2015 remains our goal,” said GE spokesman Bernd Eitel. 

For the EC, sacrificing Swiss jobs ostensibly for the benefit of any EU country is probably positive. But what about sacrificing Swiss jobs and an R & D tradition for the benefit of Shanghai?

Disclaimer: I should note that I own a few shares in GE and in Alstom but not enough to influence even my own opinions. I own no shares in “Baden” but I have a huge respect and admiration for the R & D work done at Baden as BBC and then as ABB and even later under Alstom ownership. Baden has been less impressive as a role-model for good management practice.

Could Ansaldo/ Shanghai Electric be the inheritors of Alstom’s sequential combustion gas turbine technology

July 30, 2015

There are reports that GE may have offered to sell off some of Alstom’s sequential combustion gas turbine technology to Ansaldo /Shanghai Electric:

PowerTechnology:

US-based General Electric (GE) has confirmed it is prepared to sell parts of Alstom’s gas turbine assets to Italian Ansaldo Energia in order to gain European Union approval for the proposed $17bn acquisition of Alstom’s power business.

Sources have been quoted by Bloomberg as saying that GE informed the EU that it is willing to divest some of Alstom’s sale and servicing activities to the Italian firm, along with certain intellectual property.

Alstom has also agreed to lower the prices of its energy assets to support GE’s efforts to win anti-trust clearance from the European authorities.

Even with Shanghai Electric’s deep pockets I don’t see that Ansaldo could come out with a sequential combustion engine in less than 5 years and perhaps not for a decade. Ansaldo does not have a tradition of breakthrough innovation and neither does Shanghai Electric. The current Ansaldo engines could not be easily modified to cater for sequential combustion. They would have to come out with a completely new machine. More importantly they would need new compressors for the higher pressure ratio that sequential combustion demands. And I don’t see either Ansaldo or Shanghai Electric developing – or even having the capability to develop –  a brand new compressor anytime soon.

However if the EC’s requirements are seen as helping the Chinese (via Ansaldo) gaining a clear foothold in Europe, the EC will not be very popular in France or even with Siemens. In fact this is the argument being used by the French government to urge the EC to approve the deal quickly.

In any event GE’s “remedies” must contain two elements I think

  1. a “sale” of some IP or of that IP being made open source – and this might well involve the sale of some IP to Ansaldo /Shanghai Electric,
  2. a divestment of some of Alstom’s service business and this could be either by a divestment of a small part (not more than 10 installed engines in my estimation) of the service business for Alstom’s GT26 (probably not GT24) fleet, or by a complete or partial divestment of Alstom’s service business for non-Alstom machines.

It is conceivable that Alstom (not GE) has agreed to exclude their subsidiary PSM from the GE deal and then to sell this unit to a 3rd party. But a buyer other than Ansaldo could probably pay much more for this unit which offers an entry into the US marketplace. I am not sure that GE would be party to allowing the Chinese into the US market place to service “GE Frame 6B, 7E/EA, 9E and 7FA machines, the Siemens/Westinghouse 501F (SGT6-5000F) engine and the Mitsubishi 501F engine.”

Whatever actually transpires, the heavy duty gas turbine playing field is seeing upheavals of a kind not seen since ABB divested to Alstom in 2000. With a GT market cycle of 7-8 years, that was two market cycles ago. The next 2 decades (3 market cycles) will probably be dominated by an era of relatively low gas prices. A gas glut and a gas turbine boom could well see the market grow such that entry barriers are reduced and we may see some new players being able to break in.

Previous posts on Alstom/GE deal

Alstom and GE trim the scope of their deal by €300 million to ensure EC approval

July 29, 2015

The “remedies ” that GE has proposed to the European Commission to meet the EC’s concerns about their acquisition of Alstom’s power and grid businesses have not been disclosed. Now it has been announced that the Alstom Board has approved a reduction of €300 million in the sale price to GE. Since I suspect that GE’s proposed “remedies” are in two main areas (technology and service business), it would seem that the €300 million is made up of Alstom retaining some “balance sheet items” and some profitable business that will not, now, be transferred to GE.

Alstom shareholders will be looking at the numbers. Alstom has 309,419,350 shares with a nominal value of €7 each, giving a paid up share-capital of €2.165 billion. The current market cap is €8.22 billion with a share price of €26.6. The original deal with GE was for a sale price of €12.35 billion (€39.9 per share). This has now been reduced by just under €1 per share. Since the deal was originally announced Alstom agreed to pay a fine of €695.4 million ($772 million) to the US to settle past bribery charges. GE had also agreed to pay Alstom an additional €400 million for further, unspecified, commercial arrangements. Since the announcement of the deal therefore the Alstom shareholders have taken a net hit of €595 million (-695+400-300) or €1.9 per share. Estimates of what could finally be received by the shareholders varies between €3.2 and € 3.7 billion ( c. €10-12 per share).

Just as a number crunching exercise I assume that the €300 million reduction is made up of – say – €150 million of balance sheet items (assets to be retained by Alstom) and €150 million is for ongoing business (with a profit potential of about €15 million per year) which will remain in Alstom’s hands. If some of the assets to be retained are IP then their “value” will probably have to be written off by Alstom (as “goodwill”?). Whether Alstom can sell such IP to any other buyer (Shanghai/Ansaldo?, Doosan?) is doubtful but could be a little bonus for shareholders if it does transpire. If some real assets are retained, then presumably they could still generate some profit for Alstom. It occurs to me that a “smart” way out for GE could be with Alstom retaining PSM (Power Systems Mfg., LLC.) a wholly owned subsidiary. This unit is Alstom’s “pirate” company for performing service on non-Alstom machines. This might kill 2 birds with one stone. In 2000 Alstom lost its GE licence and acquired ABB’s gas turbine business. PSM was formed in 2000(?) and acquired by Alstom in 2007. As a “pirate” it is involved with the service of  GE Frame 6B, 7E/EA, 9E and 7FA machines, the Siemens/Westinghouse 501F (SGT6-5000F) engine and the Mitsubishi 501F engine. The loss of competition in the service business is one of the particular areas of concern for the EC. Moreover, GE does not really need PSM. It could well be that Alstom retaining PSM may provide the necessary concession regarding competition in the service business and the entire business may well have a value as an ongoing business of €150-200 million.

Such a solution would mean a much smaller hit for the Alstom shareholders since Alstom could probably continue with the this very self-contained business especially since it is not concerned with the Alstom range of Heavy Duty Gas Turbines. The profitability of this continuing business should not be much impaired by remaining in Alstom ownership. PSM should be “saleable” and could be quite attractive to an aspiring player.

Of course this is speculation, but perhaps Alstom shareholders need not be too despondent over the latest Alstom concession of €300 million. If most of that is due to the retention of PSM then the value of that ongoing and profitable business will not be lost.

Previous posts on the GE/ Alstom deal.

GE makes its pitch for Alstom acquisition to the EC this week

July 1, 2015

The European Commission must make its decision by early August regarding GE’s proposed acquisition of Alstom’s energy and grid business. The EC’s concerns have held this deal up for the best part of a year. I estimate that financial closure for this deal is now no longer possible at least till the end of 2015. The EC sent GE its “statement of objections” in the middle of June. This week (tomorrow) GE will be attending “hearings” at the EC at its own request. The hearings are to be “oral” and the meetings are “closed-door”.

It seems to me that this is more of a negotiation rather than a “formal” hearing. Clearly GE will be exploring how far it needs to go in its final, written submissions which will be needed before the EC can make any formal adjudication in August. I suspect that GE might be considering “creative” alternatives for making IP from Alstom, which it judges it does not – and will not – need, available to other “serious” players. One difficulty is that a lot of IP has value in creating a barrier for others, rather than being usable in its own right. I also suspect that GE is looking to ensure that the revenue stream from the service of Alstom’s fleet of operating gas turbines is not impaired by being forced to give up part of that business. And to do that GE may be considering ways and means of assuring the EC that the pricing of such service business will be “reasonable” and not predatory.

Personally I think that many of the EC’s fears are imaginary or theoretical. They are quite insignificant compared to some of the predatory pricing and price-fixing that is evident in other industries. But then my own opinion is that it is better not to have a competitor in the market place rather than for a “sick” or reluctant competitor to be forced to continue. That only encourages distortion of the market place to the ultimate detriment of OEM’s and customers and eventually consumers. Moreover, R & D for advanced gas turbine technology will, I think, be served best by the deal going through.

According to Reuters, General Electric, the EC, other EU agencies, and parties opposing the deal will take part in a closed door hearing this Thursday, July 2.

Reuters:

Senior officials from the EU competition authority, their counterparts from EU agencies and rivals are expected to attend the closed-door hearing.

“We have requested an oral hearing,” GE spokesman Jim Healy said. He said the hearing would be on July 2.

French Economy Minister Emmanuel Macron has said the deal should be viewed in a global perspective and take into account Chinese rivals following the EU regulator’s decision to exclude the Chinese market from its scrutiny of GE’s market power.

The Commission is concerned the takeover would leave just two gas turbine companies in Europe, with GE competing only with Germany’s Siemens.

The EC has not announced who the objectors are but I expect that Ansaldo Energia (40% owned by Shanghai Electric) and Siemens are among those opposing. I can well see that Ansaldo/Shanghai would be looking to be able to access some of Alstom’s IP to help them to bridge the not inconsiderable technology gap they must overcome to even have a chance of becoming a major player in the Heavy Duty Gas Turbine market. Siemens, I am sure, would object as a matter of principle even if they will actually benefit from the deal. I am not sure if Mitsubishi-Hitachi has a presence large enough to have any locus standi as an objector in Europe. The Siemens/Wood Group JV (Turbo Care) which focuses on the service of non-Siemens gas turbines is likely to be a principle objector but in this case it is essentially a “pirate” and, hopefully, will not be given too much credence.

Patrick Kron, CEO of Alstom is very bullish – but then, of course, he can hardly be anything else.

Bidnessetc: Alstom SA chief executive Patrick Kron remains bullish that General Electric Company will successfully acquire its energy unit and will also have the European Union (EU) regulatory authorities’ approval. Mr. Kron’s statement came as General Electric has requested the EU antitrust authorities to conduct a hearing with the aim to get their approval.

The EU has been holding back General Electric’s request to acquire Alstom’s energy unit for the last few months, as it is investigating the effects of the acquisition on the European market. However, Mr. Kron said in an interview to a newspaper yesterday: “I hope that we are now in the final leg and I am confident … My position is very clear. I do not see why Plan A would not work out.”

French Minister warns EC not to hold up GE acquisition of Alstom

May 30, 2015

Previous posts on the GE acquisition of Alstom are here.


The GE 9HA gas turbine (nicknamed Harriet after a Galapagos giant tortoise) is being built at their Belfort factory and is surely a giant. At 400 MW it will be the largest gas turbine ever built and will give a combined cycle of, nominally, 600 MW output from a single GT/ST block. This will be the first “H” class Frame 9 machine (Frame 9 is for 50Hz and Frame 7 is for 60 Hz) and it is reported that just scaling up the 7HA engine to the 9HA has cost GE about $1 billion in R & D.  Two such 9HA GT’s with a single steam turbine in a 2+1 configuration would give a 1000 MW power block. The 9HA weighs in at about 400 tonnes. Strong, powerful stuff.

GE 9HA

The GE 9HA turbine, aka Harriet. (GE)

This is the same facility which was part of Alstom while Alstom was a GE licencee and before it was separated from the rest of the site when Alstom acquired ABB’s power generation business. This particular engine is for a gas turbine combined cycle plant for EdeF’s Bouchain North plant. Alstom still has a large part of the Belfort site but Alstom’s power part of the site will go to GE if the acquisition of Alstom’s power and grid businesses now gets approval for the EC. The portion of the site dedicated to transport will remain with Alstom. The steam turbine business at Belfort for nuclear turbines will be in a GE/Alstom JV (project name Arabelle) but I expect that Alstom will (must) exit in due course, though the French government will not allow the nuclear power part to be entirely out of their control. If the deal goes through the French government will have 20% of what is left of Alstom (mainly transport plus their share of the 2 JV’s with GE) and Bouygues will have their (albeit partial) exit.

Most other countries have already approved the acquisition including India, South Africa and Brazil. It has not been much of an issue in the US where Alstom’s business is small compared to GE’s. The long draw-out EC process sticks out.

Yesterday the French Economy Minister, Emmanuel Macron, visited Belfort and his highly publicised visit to both the GE and the Alstom parts of the site was a very visible “blessing” from the French government for the deal. He took the opportunity to warn the EC and Margrethe Vestager, the European commissioner for competition, not to hinder the deal since this would only help the Chinese competitors. I note that Patrick Kron, Alstom’s CEO, was conspicuous by his absence. His €4 million termination deal with Alstom (once the GE deal goes through) has been heavily criticised by the French socialist government. Mind you these same leftists had also talked about “treachery” when the deal was first announced. The French press has also criticised Vestager for being too finicky. Needless to say the EC is not amused.

PoliticoEmmanuel Macron warned that blocking the deal would only bolster Chinese rivals and cost jobs in Belfort, where GE and Alstom are the largest private employers. He has met with Margrethe Vestager, the European commissioner for competition, on two occasions in recent months.

The Commission put the brakes on the deal in late February, announcing an in-depth investigation into the combined market power of the two companies. The Commission said it was concerned about preserving competition in Europe for heavy-duty gas turbines. As the clocked ticked down in May to the Commission’s deadline for GE to submit more information and data, GE’s Chief Executive Jeff Immelt signaled he was ready to bargain, potentially selling some of the intellectual property.

The Commission reset the clock and must now decide by August 21.

Macron assured factory workers and told local newspaper L’Est Républicain, “We think that competition policy is important and we support the Commission’s role in this domain. But we ask it to really look at the right market: that market is global, and the competitors are Chinese. And it is above all them that would benefit from the Commission blocking the rapprochement between GE and Alstom!”

Macron’s intervention is unlikely to please European Commission officials. Seldom do national governments take a public stance on mergers being reviewed by the EU competition authority, which does not take into account a deal’s effect on employment. …… Immelt has drawn a red line around Alstom’s business that services gas turbines. That lucrative segment underpins the economic rationale.

As I have posted earlier, GE will walk away from the deal if the EC demands conditions which impairs the service revenue from Alstom’s existing gas turbine fleet. From my experience it is this revenue which probably enables the deal and impairment here could be fatal.

The EC will need to be very precise in demanding concessions from GE while ensuring that the deal does go through. Divesting parts of the HDGT business to unknown (and probably non-existent) buyers is probably a lose-lose solution. I expect that GE’s walk-away point will be reached if earnings from the service of Alstom’s fleet of gas turbines is removed from the mix. In fact any conditions set by the EC which dilute future revenues could prove fatal for the deal going through. Assurances about keeping R & D located in Europe and assurances about jobs and even about R & D budgets could be absorbed by a robust business plan. But no business plan can survive if something as fundamental as the revenue stream is adversely affected. And it is the volume of that revenue stream – and not just the margin from those revenues – which is crucial.

Macron does have a point though. If EC conditions are so onerous that GE walks away from the deal, Alstom will most likely have to find another (or several) buyers who will not pay anything like as much as GE have offered. If the EC insists that GE must sell Alstom’s sequential combustion business or the technology, any buyer would need to have a high enough technological base and very deep pockets – and that may be an impossible ask. Alstom clearly has no heart left to continue the business by itself. And then Shanghai Electric (leveraging its 40% ownership of Ansaldo) has some interesting possibilities of becoming one of the Big 4 in the gas turbine world (the others being GE, Siemens and Mitsubishi).


%d bloggers like this: