Too Big to Fail Automakers or Banks: Pick your Poison

Never trust a big butt and a smile.  "There’s a big difference between a too-big-to-fail bank and a too-big-to-fail automaker: leverage. GM’s failure would have devastating repercussions in terms of midwestern unemployment, which is why the US government bailed it out. But it wouldn’t threaten the international financial architecture in the way that the failure of RBS would. So the world’s taxpayers have more interest in shrinking RBS than they do in shrinking GM."

By Felix Salmon -- I’m back, relaxed, after the longest amount of time I’ve spent off-blog in three years. Trying to get back up to speed this morning, I noticed an interesting twist in the annals of bailed-out too-big-to-fail companies: RBS is being forced to sell some core assets, like its auto-insurance operations, which give stability to its earnings. At the same time, GM has managed to unsell Opel, an equally-core asset which had been going to Canada’s Magma Magna.

I like both of these developments. There’s a big difference between a too-big-to-fail bank and a too-big-to-fail automaker: leverage. GM’s failure would have devastating repercussions in terms of midwestern unemployment, which is why the US government bailed it out. But it wouldn’t threaten the international financial architecture in the way that the failure of RBS would. So the world’s taxpayers have more interest in shrinking RBS than they do in shrinking GM.

Opel is GM’s best hope for the future, in that it’s very good at making small, fuel-efficient cars. Selling it makes much less sense than trying to import that technology into the US. If GM’s management can work out a way in which keeping Opel costs less than selling it, that’s a great result for the company.

Keep Reading - Click Here>>