Uncle Sam should firmly nix GM empire-building

May 12, 2010

Ed Whitacre just can’t help himself. The executive who rebuilt AT&T from the “Ma Bell” breakup now appears determined to do the same at General Motors. The carmaker he leads — which is 61 percent owned by the U.S. government — is considering a return to the finance business, possibly by acquiring its old GMAC unit. Such recidivism is troubling on so many levels.

The worry that Whitacre would return to his empire-building ways was the primary knock against his suitability for the job in January. In his previous gig, Whitacre cobbled together a national telecoms juggernaut out of SBC, one of the regional Bell operating companies created by the government-mandated diaspora of the old AT&T.

Yet GM’s challenge was not to recreate its past footprint a la AT&T, but to slim it down, focusing on a more limited offering of higher-quality automobiles. While GM has jettisoned or pledged to shutter some of its smaller distractions — including Saab, Pontiac, Hummer and Saturn — it ended up retaining its biggest, Europe’s Opel.

That decision might have been defensible based on the remuneration GM would have received, the automotive technology it would have transferred and the prospect that it could turn this leg of its core car business around. But that would not be the case for a return to banking, even one focused on financing car purchases.

For one, it’s a clear case of mission drift. GM has yet to repay the government for its $50 billion conversion of loans into a majority stake in the company. GM executives might argue that a return to auto financing would make GM’s equity more appealing, thus facilitating a more robust initial public offering of the company.

That’s just not true. GM’s priority — and one that public shareholders would reward — is to return to a level of sustainable profitability in its primary business of manufacturing decent cars. And even after wiping out $90 billion of debts and other obligations, GM failed to make a profit in the second half of 2009.

The only other plausible argument would be that without a captive financing arm, GM is at a disadvantage by being unable to offer cheap loans to consumers who can’t afford its cars. Yet that’s precisely the kind of poor credit judgment that led GM to divert its attention from quality and GMAC to make dud loans and mortgages that culminated in a $17 billion taxpayer rescue.

If Whitacre wants to rebuild an empire, he’s chosen the wrong job.

Comments

Are you kidding. Ed Whitacre was bred in a monopolistic environment. The local exchange carriers monopoly over local access has encumbered the growth and strangled innovation in this country. You can say that the go go days of the 90′s internet boom created the seeds for the 2001 stock crash but this country did accelerate innovation in telecommunications during that time. If this country could only figure out how to create innovation without a stock feeding frenzy.

Posted by csodak | Report as abusive
 

Having “rebuilt” AT&T is not a positive accomplishment. AT&T is in the business of monopolizing public resources, running them at Third-World quality levels and predatorily over-billing their so-so services back to the public at Ritz-Carlton prices. The world would be better off without AT&T.

GM meanwhile abdicated the business of making cars that actually meant anything decades ago. GM’s subsequent business model revolves around selling people not cars but car-related financial obligations – not cheaply, but over-expensively. If it can no longer do that, it is dead in the water. Which is where it belongs anyway, sooner the better.

Though both of them have been abundantly rewarded from the public purse, neither of these companies would have a snowball’s chance in a free market environment, nor was ever worth rescuing.

Posted by HBC | Report as abusive
 

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/