Go to the Globe and Mail homepage

Jump to main navigationJump to main content

Report on Business

Economy Lab

Delving into the forces that shape our living standards
Best Business Blog, EPPY awards, 2011 and 2012

Entry archive:

Economy Lab has moved

Only Globe Unlimited members will now have access to a wide range of insightful commentary
and analysis on the economy and markets previously offered on this page.


Globe Unlimited subscribers will be able to read these columns,
written by some of Canada’s most deeply respected economists,
such as Christopher Ragan, Sheryl King, Andrew Jackson, and Clement Gignac,
as part of our ROB INSIGHT section.


All of our readers will still be able to browse the Economy Lab archives and read our
broader coverage of economic data and news by accessing their 10 free articles a month.


Learn more about Globe Unlimited and how to subscribe.

A photo taken on Aug. 5 shows a new Rona outlet in Edmonton. (Canadian Press)
A photo taken on Aug. 5 shows a new Rona outlet in Edmonton. (Canadian Press)

MIKE MOFFATT

If Rona went bankrupt, should Quebec save it? Add to ...

In a recent column, Andre Pratte supports Quebec government involvement in a proposed Lowe’s-Rona merger and takes issue with those who would lampoon the idea that a store selling “hammers, two-by-fours and barbecues” is a strategic asset. Mr. Pratte makes two arguments on why Quebec should intervene on this deal.

More Related to this Story

The first argument is that the deal is a bad for shareholders and would destroy, rather than create, value. A merged firm would not perform as well as an independent Rona, we are told, since “Lowe’s is particularly ill-suited to integrate and manage such an original company.”

Furthermore, customers themselves may avoid the new store, as suggested by the title of the piece, “Would you shop at American Tire?”.

It may well be true that this merger is not in the interest of shareholders. But shareholders have a vote – they can vote against this merger or they can vote for the merger as they believe it is good for the future of the company. Is there any reason why the government should be protecting shareholders against themselves? Why on earth should we think the government of Quebec knows more about what is in the shareholders interests than the shareholders do?

The second argument is that a merger would do damage to Quebec, as Rona plays “a unique role in Quebec’s economy because of its history and strong local roots.” But exactly how far is Mr. Pratte willing to push this argument? If the continued existence of Rona as a Quebec company is vital to Quebec’s interests, then the government must also protect Rona from going out of business. Given, as Mr. Pratte points out, that Rona’s share value has fallen more than 50 per cent over the past five years, this is more than a hypothetical situation. This is a very dangerous road to travel down; hasn’t the idea that some organizations are too big to fail gotten us in enough trouble over the past decade?

Neither argument holds up to scrutiny. Government interfering in this merger may be good politics, but it's lousy economics.

Mike Moffatt is an Assistant Professor in the Business, Economics and Public Policy (BEPP) group at the Richard Ivey School of Business – Western University

Follow Economy Lab on Twitter

In the know

Most popular videos »

Highlights

More from The Globe and Mail

Most popular