Tag Archives: Globalfoundries

The million-dollar greeting card

9 Replies

Okay, here’s my promised post about the Vermont Enterprise Incentive Fund.

It’s garbage. It stinks. It’s an insult to everyone, liberal or conservative, who believes in good government.

It needs to die. Or at the very least, it needs a complete overhaul. Strong words, but I can back ’em up.

The Enterprise Fund, for those just joining us, is a program of state grants for businesses moving to, or making significant investments in, Vermont. It is meant to be used in “unforeseen or extraordinary circumstances.” Those are Governor Peter Shumlin’s own words, quoted from his own press release.

The Fund was most recently deployed last Friday with a $1 million grant to GlobalFoundries, in support of a $72 million investment in its Essex Junction facility. In a number of ways, this grant seems at odds with the Fund’s stated purpose. Let’s start with this: GlobalFoundries announced the investment in October. By November, it had already invested $55 million of the money.

So, absent a time machine, how could an investment made in October be contingent on a state grant approved three months later?

Even if you ignore that anomaly, if the investment is already well underway, how in the world can you classify it as “unforeseen or extraordinary”?

Well, you can’t. In the words of State Auditor Doug Hoffer, this grant was “basically a thank-you note.”

A million-dollar thank-you note. Next time, maybe just go to Capitol Stationers. They have a very nice selection.

Continue reading →

Is there a fight brewing over the Enterprise Fund?

5 Replies

Earlier today, VTDigger broke the news that the state Emergency Board (four top lawmakers plus the Governor) had met on very (VERY) short notice to approve two state grants from the Enterprise Fund: $1 million to GlobalFoundries and $200,000 to BHS Composites. And I commented that this is the kind of thing that makes some see the Governor as a slippery dealmaker.

Well, here’s something you didn’t know. TheVPO has learned, as they say, that 50 state lawmakers wrote a letter to the Emergency Board asking it to postpone action on the grants.

The plea fell mostly on deaf ears, as the Board approved the grant on a 3-1 vote.

One of the letter’s signatories was Rep. Chris Pearson (P-Burlington). Via email, he explained the reasoning:

It was my hope that we could consider using the money to help fill the [FY 2017] budget gap or, more urgently, the [FY 2016] budget adjustment challenge.

The letter was written before the EB’s agenda had been publicly warned — which happened only yesterday afternoon. Pearson adds:

Now that it’s clear the money was for Global Foundries it’s puzzling how a company that was given $1.4 billion to take over the plant could find $1 million much of a game changer.

You and me both, but more on that in a moment. First, the political ramifications of this letter.

Continue reading →

This is the kind of thing that makes people mistrust the Governor

2 Replies

Yesterday, State of the State Address: Governor Shumlin introduces a variety of people whose stories illustrate the impact of his policies. They include two executives from GlobalFoundries and two from BHS Composites. The latter was a surprise entry; Shumlin sprang the news that BHS had decided to open a facility in the Northeast Kingdom, creating an estimated 70 jobs.

Today, the state’s Emergency Board met on very short notice to approve state grants to both companies: $1 million for GF and $200,000 for BHS. VTDigger has the deets:

The Emergency Board, which includes the four chairs of the Legislature’s money committees and Gov. Peter Shumlin as the chair, voted at a largely hush-hush meeting that started at 8:30 a.m.

The Shumlin administration did not formally announce the morning meeting until Thursday afternoon, following his State of the State address.

The information in the meeting’s agenda packet, which was printed on Dec. 29, was considered confidential.

Hm. The agenda packet was printed eleven days ago, and the meeting wasn’t warned until yesterday afternoon — less than 24 hours beforehand.

Okay, so the administration sat on the news so the Governor could make a splash. Great. But if Shumlin ever wonders why he has a reputation as a slippery dealmaker, well, here it is.

Continue reading →

Here we go again

1 Reply

When IBM paid GlobalFoundries $1.5 billion to take its chip-making operations off its hands, including the Essex Junction facility, Vermont breathed a sigh of relief. All the drama, all the domestic cutbacks by IBM, the rumors, the questions… we could put all that to bed.

Right?

Not so much.

Multiple media reports say a state-owned Chinese chip manufacturer has been sniffing around. The Albany Times Union:

Anxious to grow its semiconductor industry and secure a stable supply of microchips for its high-tech economy, the Chinese government is reportedly looking into buying GlobalFoundries…

Mubadala Development Co., the Abu Dhabi government investment fund that owns GlobalFoundries, may be under increasing pressure to consider any offers for its chip-making unit as the plunge of global oil prices has put enormous pressure on the oil-rich emirate’s finances.

Hoo boy. Out of the frying pan.

Makes me wonder two things. First, was GF’s “purchase” of the IBM operation merely a cash grab? A large-scale industrial version of “Flip This House”? Second, all of GF’s assurances to Vermont officials are worth exactly the paper they were written on. Assuming they were ever written down in the first place.

If the GF transaction turned Essex Junction into a pawn in a global game, a Chinese takeover would turn Essex Junction into a zit on a mega-corporation’s ass. I mean, if you think the Chinese wouldn’t close Essex Junction in a heartbeat if they could save a nickel by moving the whole shebang to Shanghai, I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in.

And it’d have nothing to do with Vermont. In the face of Chinese strategic considerations, our policies and “business climate” are insignificant. That wouldn’t stop Republicans and business types from slamming the Democrats, but it’d be pure substance-free political posturing.

This is far from a done deal. The Times Union says that even if a sale is agreed to, it’s certain to face opposition in Washington. Specifically, powerful New York Sen. Chuck Schumer “has vowed to block the sale of any U.S. technology companies to state-owned companies in China until the government opens up its markets to U.S. firms and stops stealing U.S. intellectual property.”

Which raises an interesting philosophical point. Since IBM dumped its chip business onto GlobalFoundries, is it a “U.S. technology company” anymore?

Well, that wouldn’t keep the politicians from making their hay with some juicy election-year China-bashing. They might even succeed in blocking a sale, or sufficiently fouling the waters that China decides it’s not worth the trouble.

But here’s the larger point. Even if China doesn’t buy, this certainly shines a new and unflattering light on GlobalFoundries as a “partner” to Vermont. To paraphrase the Psalmist, “Put not your trust in global corporations…”

The nice and the necessary

Leave a reply

Congrats to the House Republican Caucus, which finally came up with something like a budget plan, on the very day the House Appropriations Committee passed a budget. Three observations to begin:

— The committee vote was 11-0. Even so, the Republicans were lambasting the budget even before the vote was taken. Are the committee’s Republican members hypocrites, or is it harder to be a simple-minded partisan when the rubber hits the road and you’re in a small room with your Democratic colleagues, than when you’re facing the camera with fellow Republicans?

— The Republicans clearly didn’t take the budget-writing process very seriously, since they waited until Approps had finished its work before offering a single specific cut. Even worse, during the process Republicans frequently objected to cuts proposed by Democrats — again, without suggesting alternatives.

— The Republicans’ budget plan is unworkable on its face. Its major initiative is a call for zero growth, but that’s (a) impossible because some programs are growing, like it or not (Lake Champlain cleanup, for instance), and (b) an abdication of the Legislature’s responsibility to draw up a budget. The responsible course, as Approps chair Mitzi Johnson has pointed out, is to fulfill the legislature’s duty and make the hard choices. Across-the-board slashing is the coward’s way out.

The GOP caucus did identify some cuts they’d like to make — finally. Most of them are short-sighted as well as mean-spirited:

The cuts [House Minority Leader Don] Turner put on the table Monday include eliminating grants to substance abuse recovery centers, scrapping a childcare subsidy for poor mothers, cutting funding for state colleges by 1 percent, and taking $5 million from a fund that would otherwise provide college aid to Vermont students.

Republicans also say spending reductions on items such as the renter rebate, financial assistance for health insurance and the Vermont Women’s Commission are preferable to increasing revenues that would otherwise be needed to fund levels recommended for those programs in Gov. Peter Shumlin’s budget.

Okay, let’s make it harder for addicts to get clean, harder for poor mothers to hold down a job, make higher education less affordable, and make health insurance less accessible. All those cuts would save money in the short term, but cause even more expensive social damage in the long term. The Democrats are trying to walk a fine line, and craft a budget that’s not fiscally irresponsible while still helping to make Vermont a better place to live.

Which brings me to something that Senate Minority Leader Joe Benning said last Friday on The Mark Johnson Show. I don’t have the exact quote, but the gist was, “There are things that are necessary, and things that are ‘nice.’ At a time like this, we cannot do the things that are ‘nice.'”

That sounds good and responsible, but the devil is in the definitions.

Do you think low-income heating assistance is nice or necessary?

How about broadening access to health care? A social obligation, or an extra?

Let’s talk substance abuse treatment, at a time when Vermont is in the throes of an addiction epidemic. Necessary or nice?

The good Senator apparently believes all these things fall into the “nice” category. Many of us don’t agree.

Okay, now let’s look at some items that aren’t on the Republican cut list — and weren’t on the Democrats’ either, for that matter. Necessary or nice — you make the call!

— The state giving $2.5 million to GlobalFoundries, a move that will do nothing to keep the company in the state. On a worldwide corporate scale, that’s nothing. It amounts to a burnt offering meant to propitiate the corporate gods. And it takes a big leap of faith to think it’ll have any effect whatsoever. Necessary?

— The state continuing to let unclaimed bottle deposits go to bottling companies. That’s a $2 million item, I’ve been told. Is that a necessary giveaway? Hell, I wouldn’t even class that one as “nice.” “Noxious” is closer to the mark.

— When ski resorts purchase major equipment, they don’t have to pay sales tax. That’s another $2 million a year. Is that necessary, in any definition of the word?

— For that matter, we’re letting the ski industry make a fortune thanks in large part to bargain-basement leases of public lands. The industry is understandably loath to reopen the leases, but there are ways to get it done. Instead, we’re letting them ride. Necessary? Hell no. Nice? Only for the resort owners.

— Vermont is one of only a handful of states that exempts dietary supplements from the sales tax. Nice or necessary?

In addition, the state gives quite a bit of money in small grants to private and corporate groups. Here’s a few examples:

— The Vermont Technology Alliance gets a $52,250 grant. Why?

— The Vermont Captive Insurance Association gets $50,000 to pay for “promotional assistance.” I realize the industry is a strong positive for Vermont, but the grant is certainly not necessary.

— The Vermont Ski Areas Association gets $28,500. This is the same group that refuses to reopen the leases. Why are we rewarding their intransigence?

That’s just a few I happen to know about. I’m sure there’s lots more. Are grants to industry “necessary” or “nice”? If we’re asking the poor and downtrodden to take major hits to the social safety net, couldn’t we ask our industries to accept at least a haircut?

And if we want to promote business in Vermont, why not take back all these penny-ante grants, put part of the money into a coordinated statewide campaign (like the one proposed by Lt. Gov. Phil Scott’s economic-development crew) and bank the rest?

Also, the state Senate is considering a bill that would make Vermont’s economic development incentives easier to access. Supporters, such as Republican Sen. Kevin Mullin, posit the bill as an investment in Vermont’s future. 

Which is fine. But so is increasing access to higher education, providing child care for working mothers, and helping addicts get clean. Those social programs aren’t just “giveaways,” they are investments in a safer, healthier, more productive Vermont.

Unfortunately, they are investments on behalf of Vermont’s voiceless. LIHEAP recipients and working mothers and addicts and prison inmates can’t hire lobbyists or mount a PR campaign. So we too often fail to invest in them, while we’re more than happy to invest in corporations that might or might not use the money productively — but in either case, it’s definitely in the “nice” category, not the “necessary.”

So you see, Senator Benning, I agree with you. I just have different definitions of “necessary” and “nice.”

Talk about a waste of money…

2 Replies

Governor Shumlin appears to have his knickers in a knot over Vermont Information Technology Leaders’ decision to buy ad time during the Super Bowl.

Bear in mind we’re not talking about a Budweiser-level national buy; VITL bought one spot on channel 5 at a cost of $13,000. A waste of money? Arguably, perhaps; but VITL is trying to raise its public profile, and that 13K was part of a $195,000 marketing campaign.

Shumlin told the Vermont Press Bureau’s Neal Goswami that he was “disappointed” by VITL’s move. Well, he put it more grandly: “Many Vermonters joined me in being disappointed that state and federal funds were being used for an advertising buy during the Super Bowl.”

Yeah, “many Vermonters.” Why, just the other day I heard the folks at Coffee Corner’s front table griping about that waste of $13,000.

Not.

And then Shumlin got to the real meat of his objection.

“This should highlight the need for the Green Mountain Care Board to regulate VITL’s expenditures,” Shumlin said Sunday.

Aha, the penny drops. VITL is currently an independent nonprofit organization that “helps health care providers adopt and use IT systems.” Shumlin wants GMCB to have authority over VITL spending. And now he’s publicly scolding VITL for its horrifically wasteful use of… ahem… $13,000.

Smells like a power play to me.

Now, I’d love to have an extra 13 large. It’s nothing to sniff at. But as part of a sizable organization’s marketing campaign? Certainly not worth the Governor’s attention. Let’s say, hypothetically, that GMCB already had the authority. Would it be micromanaging VITL’s budget to that extent? I don’t think so.

Besides, if you want to talk about wasting money, let’s look at the taxpayers’ $2.5 million donation to GlobalFoundries, as ordered by our provident Governor.

GlobalFoundries, you may recall, “bought” IBM’s computer chip operations, including the facility in Essex Junction, for a whopping negative $1.5 billion. Last month, Shumlin announced he intends to hand over $2.5 million in state incentives to GlobalFoundries. That’ll clean out the Vermont Enterprise Fund, which was created last year at Shumlin’s behest. It’s supposed to help encourage large employers to remain or relocate in Vermont, and spending it is a gubernatorial prerogative.

As VTDigger’s Carolyn Shapiro reported, it’s unclear “how the money will be used and what conditions, if any, GlobalFoundries will have to meet.”

If any. Snort.

The Governor said the money “will help the state build a relationship” with its new corporate occupant.

Think of it as a $2.5 million corsage for a prom date.

Because when you’re talking about a giant corporation that does business in billions, $2.5 million is nothing but a gesture. Will it do anything to keep GlobalFoundries in Vermont or get them to expand? No. Corporate decisions will be made with global concerns in mind. On that scale, $2.5 million is a rounding error.

The Governor might as well have taken that money, in bags of small bills, to GlobalFoundries’ front gate and set fire to it, in hopes that the sweet, sweet smoke would appease the corporate gods.

The fundamental problem is, Vermont can’t move the numbers significantly enough to affect decisions at that level. We will always be at the mercy of large employers, and we’ll be playing with a short stack against bigger states (and countries) that can offer much bigger incentives. We’d be better off taking that $2.5 million and investing it in something that might actually make a difference — say, in a revolving loan fund for startup businesses.

Or here’s an idea: A revolving loan fund for students pursuing two-year degrees in technology fields. Why, just the other day one of IBM’s top executives said that GlobalFoundries “is struggling to fill positions because they can’t find enough workers with a two-year technical degree.”

You want to keep them in Vermont and simultaneously grow opportunities for Vermonters? Access to education is much more relevant to GlobalFoundries than a burnt offering at their front gate.

Just spitballing. My point is that there have got to be better, more effective, business-friendly ways to spend that $2.5 million. And that’s a lot bigger waste than VITL’s $13,000 Super Bowl ad.

Gee, Phil, are you running for something?

Leave a reply

Bit of a dick move by professional Nice Guy, Lt. Gov. Phil Scott today. After IBM announced it was dumping its semiconductor business to GlobalFoundries, Governor Shumlin held a quick news conference.

Behind you, Peter!

Behind you, Peter!

And there, over Shumlin’s right shoulder, was Phil Scott, well within camera range.

I thought it was a little odd that the Governor would give him the spotlight, seeing as how he endorsed Dean Corren and all. Well, that endorsement was a long time ago, and the Governor hasn’t visibly done anything to expand on it. No joint appearances, no further kind words. No criticism of top Democrats like, say, John Campbell, who’ve gone out of their way to back Scott.

Well, how did Nice Guy repay the favor?

By subtly, but clearly, criticizing Shumlin Administration policy. VTDigger:

Lt. Gov. Phil Scott said Monday morning at the news conference that the sale clears the slate to change the way Vermont does business with large companies.

He stopped short of saying that the state could have done anything to prevent IBM’s exit, but he took the opportunity to say it can do more to work with GlobalFoundries.

“We need to establish policies that make the business climate more conductive to growth for large employers such as IBM,” Scott said.

Mighty white of him to stop short of blaming Shumlin for IBM’s departure. After all, he could have rolled out that old “Shumlin called an IBM lobbyist a liar eight years ago” canard. Instead, he slipped the knife, ever so slowly and ever so politely, into Shumlin’s back. After all, “make the business climate more conducive to growth” is a favored Republican dog whistle. And, as we all know, Vermont’s business climate had nothing whatsoever to do with IBM’s departure.

Next time, put Phil in the back of the room. Or leave him out in the car with the doors locked and the windows cracked. Wouldn’t want him to overheat.

The new boss can’t be as bad as the old boss, right? …Right?

1 Reply

Memory Lane, kids! On November 12, 2012, I wrote a piece on Green Mountain Daily entitled:

Expect IBM to leave Vermont within three years. No matter what we do.

And today comes the news that IBM is “selling” its semiconductor business, including its plant in Essex Junction, for negative $1.5 billion. Yep, it’s paying GlobalFoundries to take the business off its hands. IBM is, indeed, leaving Vermont.

Allow me a little tiny bit of gloating here. Mmmmm, ahhhh.

Okay, enough. Get on with it.

That GMD post was inspired by the work of technology journalist Robert X. Cringely, who’d reported that IBM was in an all-out blitz to shed domestic workforce and slash itself into profitability. My point was that if IBM left Vermont, it’d be because of global corporate strategy. Not because we didn’t build the Circ Highway or our electric rates were too high or then-Senate leader Peter Shumlin once called an IBM lobbyist a “liar.” (Which, Republicans, just stop. It happened years ago. And if a lobbyist and his employer takes lasting umbrage at an offhand comment during the heat of legislative debate, well, they’re just way too damn sensitive.)

So here we are, less than two years later, and IBM is on its way out.

My prediction was right on the facts — but wrong on the implication, that IBM’s Essex plant was a goner. Fortunately, GlobalFoundries sees potential in the plant and/or its skilled workforce. In the short run this is very good news, because the way things were going at IBM, it’s a relief not to have thousands of good jobs and the Chittenden County economy dependent on Big Blue.

However…

While GlobalFoundries is saying all the right things — it plans “to provide jobs for ‘substantially all’ IBM employees at both Essex Junction and East Fishkill who are part of the transferred business,” it assured Governor Shumlin that it “plans to continue employment, investment, and operations in Vermont,” and it told the Burlington Free Press that it is committed to Essex for the “foreseeable future” — this deal should not significantly reduce the concerns over the Essex plant’s future.

After all, it’s not like GlobalFoundries has a lot invested in Essex. It agreed to accept a boatload of money, plus the IBM chip business. And when you combine the GF and IBM capabilities, you’ve got two manufacturing plants in the Hudson River Valley — one of which is a brand-new $8 billion facility — and one up here in Essex. If there’s any consolidation in GF’s future, I’d have to guess it’ll lean to the south.

Aside from the fact that reassurances like these are routine, and worth approximately the toilet paper they’re written on, there are some obvious caveats in today’s crop.

GlobalFoundries says it “plans” to provide jobs for “substantially all” IBM employees at Essex “who are part of the transferred business.” That’s a lot of weasel words in a single sentence. “Plans” can change. “Substantially all” is a matter of definition. And how many in the Essex workforce are NOT “part of the transferred business”? Will they be cut by IBM? If given the opportunity to remain at IBM, will they have to relocate? After all, IBM won’t have a presence in Vermont anymore.

Governor Shumlin is meeting with GlobalFoundries officials later today. Color me cynical, but I’d expect GF to put the screws to the Governor. The corporation will provide generic promises and make very specific demands. And the Governor is in a weak bargaining position: he knows that the Essex plant means a lot more to Vermont than it does to its new owner.

"I have returned from GlobalFoundries with peace for our time."

“I have returned from GlobalFoundries with jobs for our time.”

He might even come out of the meeting with a piece of paper in hand, proclaiming a new deal that’s good for Vermont and for GlobalFoundries.

Not that I could blame him. We’re over a barrel with the Essex plant. Its closure would be a huge blow to our economy. In the short term, the IBM/GF deal is good for the state — if only because I’d hate to continue depending on the good graces of IBM. But a lot of uncertainty remains, and the moral of the story continues to be “don’t put all your eggs in one basket.”

I grew up in Michigan, a state that grew and prospered with the domestic auto industry. The Big Three had its roots in Detroit. It did a lot of good for Detroit. But when the global winds shifted, the automakers had to shift with the times, and Detroit was left to hang. The takeaway: it’s not healthy to be too dependent on one business or market sector. Sooner or later, it’s gonna bite you in the butt.

IBM’s departure is a stark reminder: Vermont’s economy should be as diversified as possible. Eventually the winds are going to shift again, and we need to be ready.

Essex Junction’s negative equity

Leave a reply

Oh, here’s some good news on IBM’s facility in Essex, courtesy of Bloomberg. 

IBM was willing to pay Globalfoundries Inc. to take on IBM’s money-losing chip-manufacturing operations, according to a person familiar with the process.

IBM was offering about $1 billion to persuade Globalfoundries to take the unit, said the person, who asked not to be identified because the negotiations were private. Globalfoundries wanted to be paid about $2 billion, enough to offset the division’s losses, the person said.

Okay, first we’ll posit that IBM’s chip division includes other plants besides Essex, so we can’t blame that plant alone for IBM’s negative equity. But it is a stark reminder that Essex and IBM’s other chip operations are basically dead weight. And now that Globafoundries has withdrawn from the bidding, IBM is desperate to unload the division:

IBM’s willingness to pay underscores the urgency for Chief Executive Officer Ginni Rometty to get less profitable businesses off the books.

Rometty’s top priority is to reverse recent losses, and hit very ambitious earnings targets by 2015. Er, that’s five months from now.

To stay competitive in manufacturing, IBM may have to invest billions of dollars to keep its plants up to date with newer chip technology. IBM’s East Fishkill location cost $2.5 billion to build.

We’re talkin’ billions of losses and/or risky investments in a market that IBM has basically lost to Intel. When you compare that awful reality to Vermont’s potential offer of a few million bucks in incentives, you see the scope of the problem and the almost complete inability of li’l ol’ Vermont to make a difference. Somehow I don’t think resurrecting the Circumferential Highway or another cut in electricity rates will save this sinking ship. Nor would the more business-friendly “tone” that Scott Milne keeps promising. And it’s hard to see what the Shumlin Administration, or any other administration, could possibly do in the face of such dismal market realities.

This was predictable, and should not be mistaken for good news

Leave a reply

In a classic late-Friday newsdump, “sources” have slipped word to Bloomberg News that an impasse has been reached in IBM’s negotiations to sell its chip manufacturing arm to Globalfoundries Inc. “Globalfoundries… made an offer that was rejected by IBM as too low,” says Bloomberg, which called the failure of the talks “a setback for IBM Chief Executive Officer Ginni Rometty.”

She’s been in a race to meet 2015 earnings goals at all costs — most notably, by cutting the workforce and shedding any units that can’t generate profits. The strategery being, I guess, “if we keep shrinking and shrinking, we’ll grow.”

Like diving into a black hole and coming out the other side, eh?

I can believe Globalfoundries was lowballing IBM, since the word all along was that GF was not interested in IBM’s physical plants (including Essex Junction), just its engineers and intellectual property. If GF didn’t want the big costly plants, of course it would undervalue the package.

And besides, if GF wants the engineers and the brains, it sure doesn’t need to buy ’em from IBM. It can just go ahead and recruit, which is exactly what it’s been doing. Paul “The Huntsman” Heintz:

Globalfoundries… has announced in recent weeks that it has hired several top employees from IBM’s Essex Junction and East Fishkill, N.Y., plants. The company has also placed employment ads in papers serving those regions — including the Burlington Free Press.

Any IBMers who want to continue their careers must realize that GF is a better bet than IBM. It means moving, which isn’t for everyone; but GF should be able to entice quite a few people. After all, IBM has become a spectacularly awful place to work — with the constant threat of layoffs and the ever-tightening pressure to produce, produce, produce.

Now, I’m sure there’s some “intellectual property” under IBM’s control that GF would like to have. But naturally it wouldn’t offer anywhere near the amount of money IBM wants. It doesn’t need to buy the IBM assets; it just needs to pilfer the brainpower. Which it should be able to do easily, since its “competition” is the doom chamber of IBM employment.

And as usual, IBM is leaving state and local officials completely in the dark. Get a load of this convoluted statement from Commerce Secretary Pat Moulton about the Bloomberg report:

“I don’t know what that means — whether that’s good news or bad news, but I have not heard anything officially or unofficially,” she said. “Obviously having a company remain here and remain viable is important, so it was hard to know what a Globalfoundries deal — if there was one on the table — would have meant.”

I call that a cotton-candy statement: a teaspoon of substance whipped into a furious froth of nothing. It’s also a measure of the value IBM places on its relationships in Vermont: zero. IBM’s been keeping us completely in the dark for years.

If Globalfoundries was truly uninterested in IBM’s physical plant, a purchase agreement would have been bad news for Vermont. But the collapse of the deal shouldn’t be taken as a good sign. IBM will be even more desperate to spin off the unit. Or simply wind it down. And would any other potential purchaser be interested in an Essex plant that GF “had placed little or no value on… because [it is] too old”?

Two and a half years ago on Green Mountain Daily, I wrote that we should be prepared for IBM’s exit from Vermont within three years. And that it wouldn’t be Governor Shumlin’s fault, at all; it’s a result of IBM’s short-sighted, profit-chasing binge of outsourcing, downsizing, and stock repurchasing. IBM’s domestic workforce has shrunk dramatically in the past decade, and is continuing to do so. Essex is a rubber ducky in the IBM bathtub, the plug has been pulled, and we’re all spinning the drain.

My three-year prophecy is likely to miss, but my larger point remains: don’t expect IBM to stick around much longer. And don’t blame Governor Shumlin when it leaves.