UPDATE - The conclusions of the Romanian Competition Council in the market enquiry regarding the payments by card should be released this week

UPDATE - The report can be read at the internet address http://www.consiliulconcurentei.ro/uploads/docs/items/id8327/raport_privind_piata_serviciilor_de_plati_prin_carduri-neconfidential.pdf. (Romanian only, for the time being)
_________________________________________________________________________________

The Romanian Competition Council is expected to release this week the conclusions of a most awaited enquiry - that in respect of the market for payment services by card - having as prominent players VISA, MasterCard and the banks.  The enquiry has been launched in February 2011 and sought to clarify, mainly, a) how the commissions and fees for the issuance and acceptance of cards are set, b) the structure and the concentration of the payment cards systems and c) which are the rules adopted by the payment systems and the acquiring banks and their likely impact on the consumers and the traders.  Romania is not a leader but rather a follower in what looks as a very hot topic for the market players and the compettion authorities in Europe and elswhere.

In deed, the issues surrounding the payment systems managed by VISA and MasterCard are high on the agenda of the European Commission, with a focus on the Multilateral Interchange Fees (or "MIF"), which are the fees paid by the bank which issued the card to the bank through which payment is accepted (in principle, the bank of the merchant).  There are two problems in respect of the MIFs - the fact that they are set collectively by the members of VISA and MasterCard and their level, which was considered by the European Commission as being too high.  In a decision issued in 2007 and addressed to MasterCard the European Commission decided to prohibit, all together, the use of MIFs by MasterCard and the banks which are part of this payment system (the General Court upheld the Commission decision in May 2012).  In a similar investigation, VISA preferred to propose commitments and to make its MIF's cheaper and more transparent.  Some Member States decided to open separate investigations in respect of the MIFs applied in the domestic transactions and several resulted in finding of an infringement and in the application of fines.  

The most recent developments in this area include the opening of a new investigation regarding certain practices and rules of MasterCard, essentially in respect of payments made by cardholders from non Member Countries, in the European Economic Area or the "honor all cards" rule, and the acceptance by the European Commission of a new set of commitments made by VISA, which consist essentially in capping the MIF at 0,3% of the transaction.

Currently, the Commission is conducting a market study in 10 Member Countries (Romania is not included in the study), commissioned to Deloitte Consulting, in order to assess the costs of the merchants in processing payments by card or by cash. 

The competition issues surrounding the payment systems have a long history and although the investigations started over time by the European Commission paid off (the fees are today much lower than two decades ago, which brought effective benefits to the consumers as long as the number of the transactions increased considerably in this period), the saga does not seem to be over yet. The "hot potato" remains the interchange fees and it would be interesting to see what the Romanian Competition Council will say in this respect.  

A first opportunity to discuss the report of the Romanian Competition Council "whilst is hot" may be the conference Mediafax talks about Banking, which will take place this Thursday, 31 May 2013 at Radisson Blue.

Știrea anului în audiovizual - Orange Romania va intra pe piața retransmisiei de programe audiovizuale

Orange Romania a cerut CNA aprobarea sa retransmita programe de televiziune prin satelit - Media & Publicitate - HotNews.ro.

Aceasta va reprezenta una din cele mai importante mișcări în piața retransmisiei de programe audio-TV din ultimii 5 ani, de când Romtelecom a intrat puternic pe această piață, în principal prin tehnologia DTH (Direct-to-Home).  

Este interesantă intenția Orange de diversificare a serviciilor oferite în România prin intrarea pe o piață deja saturată, în condițiile în care cel târziu în iunie 2015 este de așteptat să intre în funcțiune și emisia digitală terestră a programelor radio-TV.  Orange va trebui să vină cu oferte atractive pentru consumatori, un exemplu în acest sens fiind oferirea de pachete de programe personalizate conform preferințelor fiecărui consumator, în locul sistemului predominant folosit de operatorii actuali - ”a la carte”.  În calitatea sa de furnizor de servicii de comunicații mobile, Orange va putea să ofere și servicii de tip ”multi-play” - telefonie, internet, televiziune.  Este posibil ca tocmai existența unei preferințe a consumatorilor români pentru pachete de servicii de tip  ”multi-play” să fi determinat includerea în gama de servicii oferite de Orange a distribuției de programe TV (Consiliul Concurenței a lansat în luna martie o investigație sectorială, de cunoaștere a pieței, cu privire la pachetele de servicii de tip ”multi-play”, încercând să determine dacă existența unor astfel de pachete de programe este determinantă pentru consumator și care este, deci, puterea de piață a operatorilor care oferă servicii de tip ”multi-play”). 
În orice caz, intrarea Orange va reprezenta, cel mai probabil, o provocare serioasă pentru liderii pieței de retransmisie a programelor audiovizuale - RCS&RDS, UPC și Romtelecom.

Retransmiterea de programe radio-TV prin intermediul platformelor de satelit - DTH - nu este supusă, în prezent, obligației de preluare a anumitor programe TV, prevăzută de art.82 din Legea audiovizualului - ”must-carry”.  Cu privire la această diferență de regim, Consiliul Concurenței a declanșat, la finalul anului 2012, o investigație privind posibila încălcare a art.9 din Legea concurenței de către Consiliul Național al Audiovizualului, prin crearea unui regim discriminatoriu, în favoarea operatorilor DTH, care sunt concurenți direcți ai rețelelor CATV, clasice.  

”There can be no liberty unless there is economic liberty.” - Margaret Thatcher

The Lady was, definitely, not for turning and although she is no longer with us, her life and leadership show the way ahead of the current crisis. She tought many lessons on economy, leadership and freedom, which countries fighting and tired of a crisis which does not seem to come to and end, would need.  Margaret Thatcher was not a genius, but a person with good sense and much determination, still rare qualities among leaders today.  She cured the sickness, not the effects - a state spending too much.  

You will see below an example of an extraordinary lucid and pragmatic thinking, from  Lady Thatcher, of course - a rational approach which would be still very much valid in the current economic crisis. The following paragraphs are from the self-biography - ”The Downing Street Years”, Harper Press, 2011:

”The <wets> (under this name, Lady Thatcher designated those wanted to do more compromises, n.a) arguments came in different ways of varying sophistication, though their central message was always the same: spend and borrow more. They used to argue that we need extra public spendingon employment and industrial schemes, over and above what we had planned and were effectively forced to spend simply because of the recession. But this did not escape from the fact that extra public spending - whatever it was spent on - had to come from somewhere. And 'somewhere' meant either taxes levied on private individuals and industry; or borrowing, pushing up interest rates; or printing money, setting off inflation. There ws also a feeling , which I equally knew I had to resist, that the refunds which I had secured from the European Community budget should be used to finance extra spending. But why should it be assumed that public spending was better than private spending?".

So, current leaders and other decision-making people should read more of the examples given by Margaret Thatcher - these are practical examples of success, not theories (!) - than paying so much attention to Mr.Roubini or any sophisticated analysts focusing either on the effects or a wrong medication for the crisis.  

The Romanian State against the market economy and the economic freedom

UPDATE 2
The Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Hoyt Yee, on 8 September 2014, in Bucharest: ”Using emergency government ordinances, which avoid the public consultation, creates uncertainity and scares-off the investors”. Mr.Hoyt gives, as an example, EGO 25/2013. 

UPDATE 1 
The President of Romania refused to enact and decided today, 16 July 2013, to send the bill aproving EGO 25/2013 back to the Parliament for further reconsideration. The main arguments invoked by the President refers to the same infringement of the economic freedom of the TV stations and of their clients and the breach of the principle of the free competition.

”The most terrifying words in the English language are: I am from the government and I am here to help.” - Ronald Reagan

Yesterday, 12 April 2013, when everybody was preparing for a sunny week-end, it eventually happened.  The attack by the all-mighty State on a set of purely private economic relations, announced at the end of November 2012, finally took place.  At the sunset, when nobody expected it, the public authority of the state, crossed the border separating it from the market economy and walk with its boots over the freedom to enter into a contract and to the principle of the free market itself. 

The assault was not done through any physical violence but on through an apparently benign publication of the Government Emergency Ordinance 25/10 April 2013 (GEO 25/2013) in the Official Gazette of Romania, which aims to regulate the sale of TV advertising space and practically forbids the wholesale of the advertising time on TV and the intermediation by the media agencies.  The Romanian Competition Council issued in December 2012 a negative opinion (aviz) regarding the prohibitions and restrictions imposed of the sale of TV advertising space and I commented on this blog, at the beginning of 2013 about the precedent proposal.  The regulation announced in November 2012 was, eventually, not published, and hence, did not come into force. I thought that the government understood that the problems in the advertising industry cannot and should not be solved in such a brutal way.  I admit now that I was over-optimistic and the publication of the GEO 25/2013 in the Official Gazette on Friday, 12 April 2013 abruptly ends my optimism.  

In line with the rules for an efficient attack, the adoption and publication of GEO 25/2013 came without a warning – nobody new and, although the text of the ordinance appears to be different from the one adopted (also quietly) in November 2012, there was no information that the draft of such a GEO was on the agenda of the government on its meeting on 10 April 2013 (the date of this ordinance).  But this is a “blitzkrieg” type attack, hence the “emergency” of the ordinance and the total lack of transparency. 

I cannot give any appreciation as to the nature and the extent of the problems which might affect currently the advertising industry and the relations between this industry and the broadcasters.  It is odd that the new regulations intend to set rules only for the TV (?!) advertising due to the fact that the televisions are indeed an important communication channel, but they are part of the larger advertising market.  What about radio or the written press ?
I generally belive that intermediaries, in any industry, are not a must and they should justify their role.  On the other hand, even if the problems of the industry would be true, the right solutions are not those envisaged by GEO 25/2013. In this context, it is about private business and private agreements, hence if the problems exist, these are also private and the state must abstain from doing anything more than creating the framework for solving the problems (through the justice system) or sanctioning the villains, if they exist.  Any interference from the state, except those mentioned, cannot be conceived in the context of a free market economy and this is a clear breach of the economic freedom.  Business people, unlike consumers, do not need protection and their private disputes cannot be settled through a direct state intervention. 
The state is only a referee in the game of the private interests and cannot decide to alter the rules of the game in favour of one of the players, neither can decide to stop the game.

I would like to summarize what is wrong with this GEO, in the form it has been published:

• TV stations are, virtually, forbidden to pay intermediaries for the sale of their advertising time to their clients, even if they want to do so and it is beneficial to them (!). (the GEO is not formally forbidding making use of intermediaries but the interdiction to make any payment for the activities they perform, will have a similar effect).
• The media buying agencies cannot act as wholesalers either, purchasing volumes of advertising minutes from the TV stations and, then, reselling them to final clients.  

The first affected by these provisions could be the purchasers of advertising space (manufacturers and distributors wanting to promote their products).  They will have to handle their TV campaigns on their own, by entering in direct commercial relations with each TV station and negotiating with every station.  The Romanian broadcasting market has a large number of TV stations, but with regard to the revenues obtained is dominated by a few large broadcasters, so that organizing a well-focused campaign will prove to be a difficult – and more costly. It must be taken into account that the producers/distributors prefer to spread their commercial messages through several TV stations and, in addition, to run the same campaign on other communication channels - internet, radio, outdoor billboards.  In economic terms, the transaction costs of the clients of the televisions will most likely increase.  In order to respond to this complexity, the clients might concentrate their campaigns on a few TV stations - the market leaders, which are a kind of "must have" for any significant campaign.  As a consequence, the revenues of the major TV stations will be even larger, on the expense of the majority of the (smaller) televisions.  In the eventuality of more and more campaign being directed towards the large TV stations, the negotiating power of the later will increase even further.  Of course, the purchasers of advertising space will be able to hire the services of an intermediary but this one will need, in its turn to go round and discuss with all the TV stations, for each of its clients, so, its tariffs will be higher than today.  In any of these scenarios, the purchasers of advertising space will be have higher costs than in the present and the difference costs will be either absorbed by the producers/distributors or, they will be (more likely) transferred to the consumers.  At the end of the day, a few large televisions shall be better-off, on the expense of the purchasers of advertising and of the consumers. 

Although GEO 25/2013 claims to want to protect the all the TV stations, the great majority of them will be affected.  The TV stations are all in direct competition and they all have the same advertising time available for sale, as this time is capped through regulations issued by the audio-visual regulator.  If an intermediary will no longer be used for promoting the sale of the advertising time most TV stations might be affected. They will have to handle directly a few hundreds significant corporate advertisers, with the increase in the transaction costs mentioned before. They will have to hire specialized staff and create special departments and, besides, these smaller TV stations would incur the risk of not selling their advertising space timely and at the best prices.  Eliminating the intermediaries might, thus, help the TV stations keep more of the advertising budgets for themselves but their cash-flow might suffer - and the cash-flow matters!  

What is wrong about the new legislation, is that up to know no TV station could be forced to use intermediaries and was always free to sell its advertising space either through intermediaries or directly.  Models to improve the transparency and the control over the money received from the clients, such as the "three parties agreement" used since 2011 by the largest broadcasting group – Pro TV could be voluntarily agreed by the market players.  So, where from came this need to intervene so brutally in the freedom of the business people and in the free functioning of the market ??  Why the legislator had to intervene so abruptly and prohibit a broadcaster to enter, by its own will and only if this corresponds to its commercial interest, into a sale-purchase agreement or an agency agreement with a media agency, for the sale of its product (the advertising time) ?  

In addition, it struck me that GEO 25/2013 does not provide any specific term for the entry into force of the new restrictions, meaning that these will have to be applied with immediate effect and the agreements previously signed and still in corse will also have to be terminated immediately, without any transition period, against the will of their signatories - manu militari.  Thus, in the absence of any transition norms, GEO 25/2013 may bring about another dangerous interference, with the binding force of an agreement - pacta sunt servanda - which represent the cornerstone of the civil law system.

The Romanian Constitution states, in article 45 that “The free access of a person to an economic activity, the free initiative and its exercise within the limits set forth by the law are guaranteed” – the limits mentioned here are those regarding the prohibition of cartels, abuses of dominance or the unfair competition.  Besides, according to article.135, para.1 of the Constitution “The economy of Romania is a market economy, based on the free initiative and competition”.

What remains of all these provisions and legal principles after such a legislative intervention ? 

Like democracy, the free market economy is not negotiable and the number of limitations and exceptions is strictly limited. Market economy cannot be modeled to take the shape and fit of any of the particular interests functioning inside it but it is supposed to provide a framework for the coexistence and the equilibrium of all the legitimate interests.  Moreover, democracy and the free market economy seem to be interconnected - there are a few exemples of countries with market economies but not a democratic political system but there is no example of a single democracy existing in the absence of a free market economy.

The most worrying thing regarding this issuance of such legal norms is that, once the Rubicon has been crossed, nobody should feel safe - the government may target, later on, other areas of the private business where tensions and disputes exist – and there are plenty of them.  At the end of the day, the very functioning of a free market economy in Romania may be jeopardized, so that the whole business community – and not just those affected directly by GEO 25/2013 – should pay attention and have a firm stance against such regulations. 

The care is necessary since GEO 25/2013 is not the only measure adopted by the government in the recent period, which enters into an open conflict with the principles of the free market economy, to the benefit of few and, most likely, to the detriment of most – see the case of the Government Decision commented here (Romanian only), adopted a week before, on 3 April 2013, which protects only some selected, state-owned (!), energy producers by guaranteeing them access to the power grid, in fact a way to guarantee them a minimum volume of sales. 

The promoters of GEO 25/2013 should have learned from the exemple of the Law 321/2009, better known in the market as the "Code of good practices between the producers and retailers of food products".  The law, a result of the efforts of the producers of foodstuff products to alleviate their problems, in the face of the growing negotiating power of the large supermarkets chains, imposed, among other things, maximum payment terms for the products sold to the retailers, ranging from 12 to maximum 35 days, and compulsory delay penalties for any payment beyond the legal deadlines.  After only one year, in 2010, upon request from both the Competition Council and the same producers that the law aimed at protecting, the provisions regarding the payments terms and the delay penalties have been repealed by Law 247/2010 and replaced by good sense provisions which state that such contractual terms will be the result of the negotiations among the signatories.  The tormented evolution of Law 321/2009 may serve as a good example of how not to regulate and why the public administration should not arbitrate between private interests, in the absence of any effects on aspects of public interests and without due consideration to the side effects of such measures.

Despre aspecte actuale ale retailului din Romania / Current issues of the Romanian retail trade

http://www.revista-piata.ro/Consiliul_Concurentei_urmeaza_sa_analizeze_gradul_de_concentrare_a_retailerilor_la_nivel_de_localitati-id9018.html

The Guidelines on the Petitioning Activities have been published

The guidelines on the petitioning activities have been published on the website of the Romanian Competition Council - see http://www.consiliulconcurentei.ro/uploads/docs/items/id8255/indrumari-bune_practici_in_activitatea_de_petitionare.pdf. 

The Romanian Competition Council approved, in January, its first guidelines regarding the application of the competition rules issued after the amendments to the Competition Law made in 2011 introduced expressly the possibility to use this instrument for enhancing competition compliance and helping the undertakings assesing their market behavior.  The Romanian Competition Council issued such guidelines before, since 2008, on an occasional basis.
Please note that, according to the Romanian Competition Law, the guidelines do not represent binding legal norms but they highligt the previous case-law and the approach of the Romanian Competition Council in respect of a certain behavior or practice.  The guidelines correspond to the best practices notices issued by the European Commission, which means also they do not impose any specific conduct on the undertakings but allow these to have a better self-assesment of their actions in the market and ensure compliance with the competition rules.

The new guidelines  cover the activities performed jointly by several undertakings or associations of the undertakings (such as business associations) in order to defend the interests of the respective undertakings in front of the public authorities. 

In Romania, article 51 of the Romanian Constitution provides the right of any individuals or legal persons to petition the public authorities, according to their interests.  The article 51 provides specifically, in its second paragraph that ” Legally established organizations have the right to address petitions exclusively in the name of the entities they represent”.  

Based on the provisions from the Constitution, on the European Commission Guidelines on the applicability of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to horizontal co-operation agreements and on the case-law of the Romanian Competition Council (RCC admitted as defenses legitimate petitioning activities in two cases brought before it in 2011 and 2012), the communication which was approved offers the following main guidelines:

§  The conformity of the petitioning activity with the competition rules shall be evaluated based on i) the purpose followed by the participating undertakings and ii) the extent to which an exchange of commercial information was permitted during the petitioning, taking into account the nature of the information exchanged.

§  Regarding the purpose, the undertakings should not be involved in petitioning actions aimed at raising the costs of the competitors (and, eventually, the costs borne by the consumers) or in raising or reinforcing entry barriers into the market.

§  Whenever several undertakings organize a collective protest against the decisions taken by a public authority, such protests should be made in such a way as to avoid affecting other undertakings or the consumers. Such actions should be limited and proportionate with the action or the measure which ignited the protest and its consequences on the respective undertakings and the market. 

In order to evaluate the legitimacy of a collective protest by several undertakings or business associations, the Romanian Competition Council will apply its own test – the extent to which the action or measure which is the object of the protest may be, prima facie, contrary to article 9 of the Romanian Competition Law (which forbids actions by public authorities which limit, impede or distort the competition, such as creating limits to the freedom of trade or discriminating conditions for the undertakings). 

The underlying ideas of these first guidelines of the Romanian Competition Council is that the undertakings should be allowed to act jointly in order to defend their common interests, similarly to the right to collective protests recognized to the employees but, on the other hand, such rights must not be used in a way which would go counter the competition rules and which might affect the consumers.  

Oltchim, o obsesie națională

Oltchim este cu siguranță o mare întreprindere dar, mai mult de atât, este o adevărată obsesie națională. Nu este, din păcate, și o mândrie națională.  Mass-media, mediul public și chiar multe discuții private au fost acaparate în ultimul an de dezbateri furtunoase - dar  destul de sterile - cu privire la viitorul acestei mari companii care trebuie să fie - nu-i așa ? - luminos, că doar este o mare companie de stat. Oltchim este pe toate buzele, a făcut obiectul disputelor electorale și chiar al unei încercări eșuate de privatizare cu accente de melodramă și pare să concentreze la maxim, încă, energiile și gândurile decidenților și analiștilor. Până când și de ce oare ?

Nu aș fi ridicat această întrebare dacă nu vedeam cum în grupul larg al comentatorilor pe acest subiect nu intră și o publicație economică serioasă și respectabilă cum este Ziarul Financiar printr-un editorial semnat de dl. Sorin Pâslaru.

Astfel, în numărul de astăzi, 26 februarie 2013, al publicației, dl.Pâslaru preia și dezvoltă ideile dlui Petru Ianc, fost director în Ministerul Economiei (între noi fie vorba, unul dintre cei care ar fi trebuit să ghideze, în trecut, compania de stat Oltchim spre prosperitate), idei aparent ”revoluționare”, menite să rezolve aproape miraculos frământata soartă a combinatului vâlcean.

Zice domnul Ianc că Oltchim este, de fapt, o companie europeană și, ca atare, ar trebui, nici mai mult nici mai puțin, să fie luată în grijă directă de către însăși onorabila Uniune Europeană. Uniunea ar trebui ”să sprijine companii cheie de a căror menţinere pe piaţă depinde dezvoltarea economică a UE.” prin intermediul unui ”Fond de Redresare industrială” (?!!), similar Fondului European pentru Stabilitate, care se raportează la sistemul bancar.  Pentru a nu persista în eroare, așa cum se întâmplă în articol, precizez că actualul Mecanism European de Stabilitate (ESM) sau antecesorul acestuia - European Finanical Stability Facility (EFSF) - nu au salvat nicio bancă ci sunt concepute ca mecanism de salvare în caz de urgență a unor state.  Până acum orice sprijin către instituțiile financiare se făcea prin intermediul statelor membre ale Uniunii Europene și doar recente au avut loc discuții în sensul unei intervenții directe a ESM.  
Mergând mai departe, zice articolul menționat că nu numai Oltchim ar trebui să intre sub pulpana ocrotitoare a Comisiei Europene ci și companiile din grupul Mechel, de exemplu (cum, că acestea sunt în proprietate privată ?). Mai mult, fondul de redresare industrială ar putea să se ocupe și de privatizarea Poștei Române sau a CFR Marfă.  

Cu alte cuvinte, obsesia națională să sufere un upgrade, la nivel de obsesie europeană. Sau, cum spune dl.Pâslaru la final (nu îmi dau seama dacă este opinia Domniei sale sau îl citează pe dl.Ianc), ”oalele se vor sparge nu numai în capul administraţiei de la Bucureşti, dar şi în acela al comisarilor de la Bruxelles. Vrând-nevrând”. Că doar UE are experiență în domeniu prin BERD și prin Banca Europeană de Investiții, zice articolul. Care experiență ? A propos, BERD nu aparține Uniunii Europene, ci unui grup mult mai larg de state iar BEI, care  este  într-adevăr a UE, acordă împrumuturi, pe proiecte, nu salvează întreprinderi în dificultate.

”Soluțiile” avansate de dl.Ianc denotă necunoașterea evidentă a mecanismelor de funcționare și a competențelor Uniunii Europene, de exemplu în ceea ce privește ajutorul de stat și ceea ce poate face Uniunea Europeană, în baza tratatelor constitutive. Astfel, deși invocă salvarea unor bănci prin intervenție publică, ca precedent în justificarea ideilor sale, aceasta s-a făcut prin resursele financiare ale unor state membre – Marea Britanie, Germania, Olanda s.a – nu ale Uniunii Europene care nu a avut decât, eventual, rolul de a aproba, prin Comisia Europeană schemele de ajutor de stat aferente.

Mai mult, ceea ce spune dl.Ianc denotă o neînțelegere fundamentală a funcționării economiei de piață, a rolului unei întreprinderi și a ceea ce înseamnă privatizarea.  Aceasta din urmă, ar fi, în opinia dlui. Ianc, marcat, probabil, de experiența unor privatizări din trecut, doar un mod de a ceda controlul unor ”monopoluri de stat” unor firme de stat din alte țări membre ale UE.  Domnia sa ignoră faptul că, de la 1 ianuarie 2013, Poșta Română nu mai are monopol pe niciun serviciu. CFR Marfă nu mai este de mult monopolist. Oltchim nu este nici el monopolist, cel puțin din perspectiva importului facil de produse similare cu ale sale.  În egală măsură este ignorat faptul că la privatizare se pot prezenta mari companii private din țări ale Uniunii Europene sau din alte zone.

Oltchim este cu siguranță o societate mare și destul de importantă pentru economia românească. Dar viitorul său este întunecat și extrem de nesigur, nu fiindcă nu ar fi avut piață ci deoarece a fost prost și neglijent administrată și spoliată cu orice ocazie posibilă.  Nu a ajuns acolo unde este din ghinion sau datorită unor forțe economice adverse mult prea puternice, ci din rațiuni pur interne.  Oltchim este un colos dar este unul cu picioare de lut.  Până la urmă, marele combinat din Vâlcea nu este reprezentativ pentru economia românească prezentă și este foarte greu de crezut ca poate reprezenta viitorul. Asta în condițiile în care industria manufacturieră se mută din ce în ce mai mult din Uniunea Europeană către zone cu costuri mai reduse, în primul rând ale forței de muncă, aflate la est sau sud de România.  În acest context un colos poate rezista doar dacă este extrem de eficient sau extrem de inovativ, investind constant si masiv în cercetare. Sau amândouă.  Este Oltchim în vreuna dintre aceste situații. Nu este.  Și atunci ce poate face Uniunea Europeană, în locul nostru ? Să injecteze banii Uniunii – mai puțini și necesari pentru activități mai importante – în susținerea artificială în viață a unor companii ineficiente din România sau din altă țară membră ?

Dincolo de faptul că are capitalul deținut în majoritate de stat, Oltchim este o companie ca oricare alta. Adică este supusă rigorilor economiei de piață și nu este așezată pe vreun piedestal decât în ochii nostalgicilor campionilor naționali creați înainte de 1989 și ținuți în viață după 1990, fără a li se cere să fie eficienți și cu adevărat campioni în industriile în care operau (pentru contra-exemple, a se vedea coloși din Cehia sau Polonia care au devenit forțe regionale). 

Mi se pare incorect faptul că atâția plâng soarta ”nedreaptă” a Oltchim, în vreme ce mai nimeni în spațiul public nu deplânge soarta miilor de întreprinderi mici, mijlocii și mari care suferă și ele efectele crizei economice (în unele cazuri și ale propriei ineficiențe). De ce acestea ar fi mai puțin importante ? Dacă o societate de talia Oltchim, dar privată, ar fi fost în situația acesteia, am fi asistat la același iureș și la aceleași lamentări.  Retragerea Nokia din România, cauzată de problemele unui colos privat în plină prăbușire nu a provocat nici pe departe aceleași dezbateri.  A creat mai degrabă un fel de furie împotriva unui evenimet ale cărei cauze nu se aflau în România și care nu mai era nici măcar în puterea de decizie a firmei Nokia.  De altfel, ceea ce s-a întâmplat la Jucu ar fi trebuit să fie un semnal puternic că într-o economie de piață trebuie să fii mereu eficient și competitiv și că, în asența performanței și a bunei administrări, căderea poate veni rapid iar uneori ea nu mai poate fi oprită.

Este trist că ne agățăm în continuare de vechi simboluri ale economiei naționale, în loc să tragem linie, să întreprindem ceva și să creem noi forțe economice, în sistem privat și adaptate unei concurențe acerbe, la nivelul pieței interne a Uniunii Europene și la nivel mondial.  

Nu putem construi viitorul economiei românești cu fața întoarsă spre trecut, plini de nostalgii și fără a da atenție firmelor private care au potențialul de a prelua ștafeta și de a se dezvolta.  

Falimentul, fără a fi un prilej de bucurie, nu este sfârșitul unei lumi cât mai degrabă începutul unei lumi noi, o ocazie de o lua de la capăt. Din punctul de vedere al economiei în ansamblu, falimentul înseamnă stoparea folosirii ineficiente a resurselor (bani, materii prime, forță de muncă etc) și alocarea acestora unor activități noi care pot genera profit.

Chiar și în cazul concret al Oltchim, probabil că anumite activități pot continua, în mod profitabil dar încercarea de a salva întregul colos nu are mari șanse.  Decidenții ar trebui să acționeze pragmatic, cu gândul la oamenii de acolo și la ce se mai poate face, în mod realist, nu în încercarea de a îngheța timpul și de a păstra Oltchim așa cum era.  Aici este obsesia și aceasta este de nerealizat, cel puțin în condiții normale de piață și de rentabilitate.

Trebuie sa trecem mai departe, să învățăm lecția și să evităm să mai avem Oltchim-uri în viitor (din păcate, mai există companii care îi pot împărtăși soarta în prezent).

PS: dacă în cazul Oltchim ar fi fost posibilități de relansare, la cârma sa ar fi fost numit, în procedura de insolvență (o oază de respiro pentru combinat) un manager iscusit, cu experiență în salvarea și punerea pe picioare a unor întreprinderi private, nu un lichidator.  Semnalul dat nu este chiar încurajator pentru viitor atunci când, în loc de doctor, este chemat preotul...