“If the problem is liquidity, the Anglo-Dutch parent company should intervene” – In an editorial published on Corriere della Sera, the Bocconi teacher said that “whatever solution you choose, i jobs“Guaranteed by FCA and its related companies” go defended“As well as” those of the FCA suppliers, many of which have not been paid for months “. And that “the agreement between FCA and Peugeot which provides for theirs fusion, go in the right direction and go concluded“, Because” there are too many companies that produce “old” cars (petrol or diesel) “. Then explain in detail why the loan from 6.3 billion with Sace guarantee asked by FCA taking advantage of the Liquidity Decree is not the right tool. If the problem of FCA Italy “is a temporary liquidity problem“, Giavazzi notes,” the best solution is not a guaranteed loan. The state guarantee helps Banca Intesa, which in this way exposes itself to the State, not to an enterprise with a shaky rating. But getting into debt would further worsen FCA’s balance sheet“. In that case, therefore, “the best solution is chand the Anglo-Dutch company which owns 100% of FCA Italia and who has abundant liquidity grant you temporary funding. ”
“If you need capital, the state comes in: so if you recover, you will earn” – But for Giavazzi it is “unfortunately more probable” the case in which FCA Italy “has a problem of solvency, that is, have need capital, not liquidity. Here a loan would be useless. A rule similar to that envisaged for smaller companies by the relaunch decree could instead be applied. That is, the state should not help the company by guaranteeing the debt, but entering the capital as a shareholder“. This road would be according to the most expensive economist: “maybe 2 or 3 billion euros“, Against the 400 million present value of the guarantee requested (10% probability that the guaranteed portion of the loan will not be repaid). But “if FCA Italy bounces back, all the shareholders would earn, even the state. That is, the incentives of the company and the state would coincide. ”
The presence of the state in the capital would also “allow for to verify, more incisively and confidently than generic clauses associated with the guarantee, that the company uses the new capital to transform itself. ” Since today, before the merger, the French state has the 12% of the capital of Peugeot and after the merger it will drop to around 6%, “the presence of the Italian state would guarantee symmetry“. In any case it should be “time-limited entry: the merger agreement already provides for one gradual exit of the French state by the shareholder “.
“Independent experts with specific mandates enter the board” – This, Giavazzi says, “is what” should “be done and which some states do. Remember the intervention of Obama when in 2009 he nominated Steven Rattner head of the Presidential Task Force on the automotive industry. When one thinks of Italy, on the other hand, i classmates of politicians appointed by them on the boards of directors of important companies such as Leonardo“. The solution? “The watertight bulkheads, as in the case of central banks. That is, the delegation to independent experts with a specific mandate indicated by the law to supervise the companies of which the State is a temporary shareholder “.