ILVA: when the solution is worse than the evil.
I am following the attempts to 'save ILVA' by the provincial lawyer that the Vatican imposed as prime minister, in agreement with the Freemasonry, in the century a certain Count. I have to say one thing: if it wasn't true, it would be a comedy film.
The point is simple: if Arcelor Mittal DECIDED to disinvest (or not to invest) those 4.2 billion on Taranto, the decision is taken. If a multinational company plans the next year / two years / the duration of the overall investment in Taranto, and removes 4.2 billion euros from the balance, it has taken them off. He won't change his mind. The process that serves to make a 4.2 billion decision involves all corporate governance, including shareholders.
And if ALL the actors involved in the decision to NOT invest 4.2 billion euros agree in NOT investing, the decision is taken. After that, it will be decided how the right people will be hired and how to decide HOW to do the strategy. But if the decision is made, it's taken. You can put your heart at rest.
If the decision is NOT made, then it is only a bluff, and the best thing is to talk about the After-Arcelor. Are you leaving? Well, bye. Now excuse us, we have to think about later. Good luck for the back to home.
On the contrary, the Italian political class still believes in one of the paradigms that make it so unreliable, or "infinite portraiture". And to make matters worse, they are doing it reasoning as if Arcelor were a condominium neighbor.
The first genius I see around is the "But I'll take you to Trubunale" approach. Now, I'm trying to figure out what the strategy is behind this. Are we saying that a court ruling could force an investor who does NOT want (more) to invest to invest four billion euros? Seriously?
I mean, let's admit that the court in Milan says "hey, you signed a contract, now you have to buy ILVA". Ok. Even with clauses such as maintaining the occupational level, or rehabilitating the plant, do they really believe that anything maintains an occupational level AND makes a plant less polluting, is it necessarily an industrial plan?
What would prevent Arcelor from taking the most "juicy" customers, and leave Taranto to do less and less qualifying jobs, reducing investments in innovation to mere anti-pollution measures, and that's it? Nothing. The acquisition clauses force Arcelor to remain (for a certain number of years) within certain occupational levels, and to reclaim some plants, but the fact that ILVA must remain productive and technologically updated is taken for granted.
Another point is: ok, and if the court in Milan gets angry, what does it do? We are not talking about an international court, or an international commercial court. Not even a European court, which could ultimately trouble the French partner of ArcelorMittal. We are talking about the court of Milan. What are they doing to him? Do they send the Carabinieri to India? Do they seize assets that ArcelorMittal does NOT own in Italy? The only facility they could seize in Italy is in Piombino, and it's microscopic.
What kind of effective power does the Milan court have on a multinational? Do you think there could be escalation? Deluded. During the merger between Arcelor and Mittal, the French government opposed, or seemed to oppose. Immediately the Indian government reiterated that if the French government blocked the merger, India would immediately unleash a trade war with France. And the French backtracked. Do you really think that this can work for Italy? (by the way, remember the Maros'?).
The point is very simple: if they want to go away, the best way to discover the cards is to start planning the "after". An "after" in which Taranto produces steel and Arcelor does not sell a nail in Italy: if a government wants to hinder a foreign competitor, it can unleash all the most demented bureaucracy against importers.
But the worst thing is: what kind of message is being given to other foreign entrepreneurs who want to arrive in Italy, as happened with NTV?
Well, you're saying this:
- once you have touched an Italian company you have married her.
- the judiciary is controlled by the government, to the point that criminal and civil investigations will be launched by the government itself.
- any agreement with the government can be undermined by any party, by a former magistrate governor of the region, by local magistrates.
- no matter what happens on the market, once you have touched an Italian company you can no longer reschedule anything, since the company is yours BUT also of the government, BUT also of politics, BUT also of magistrates.
now, you understand that from the point of view of an entrepreneur this Byzantinism is absolutely delusional. Yes, Italy can have all the reasons in the world, but at the end of the day someone has the money and someone else doesn't. If you want someone to throw money at you, you just have to do what he asks. Because that's the point here.
This saga is damaging EVERY future investment in Italy, without guaranteeing any return in the ILVA affair. It is the result of an ignorant provincialism, of a premier who moves with a multinational company as if he were citing the neighbor for damages. A small provincial lawyer.
The ECB is currently printing money. A consortium of bankers and CDPs could ask the ECB for money and then loan them to an industry. The interests would be practically zero. So there is no strict need for ArcelorMittal's money: 4 billion is not a huge amount for the ECB.
The real problem is that an "Italian consortium", or a possible national-industrial group that takes over ILVA, would automatically find itself in the same hands that are managing the affair today. In the hands of provincial amateurs who have no qualms about playing with a strategic company to win the next municipal or regional elections, not even national ones.
And so let's go back to the problem: the management of the ILVA affair is not catastrophic only because it will obtain only what ArcelorMittal has already decided to obtain (and no other result is possible), but because it seems to answer the question “But yes can he still do a great industry in Italy?
And the answer is the wrong one.