Keith Sherin, CEO of GE Capital, faced a decision on which hinged billions of dollars and the fate of one of America's most storied companies. On his desk sat two secret analyses: Project Beacon, a proposal to spin off most of GE Capital to GE shareholders, and Project Hubble, a proposal to sell off GE Capital in parts. A third document sketched out the implications should GE "stay the course" on its present strategy: a continued, massive build-up of regulatory and compliance personnel to meet GE Capital's obligations as a "SIFI"-systemically important financial institution-in the wake of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act. No path forward was clear. A divestiture, either through a spin-off or sell-off, would reduce GE's size and financial connectedness and address market unease about GE's position as the seventh-largest U.S. financial institution. It would also unlock substantial value not currently reflected in the stock. Each faced major obstacles and execution risks, however. In particular, no one knew the precise cut-off for a SIFI designation or the time required to shed the designation. If the process took too long, or generated unexpected costs, a divestiture might destroy more value than it would create. Retaining GE Capital was risky, too, of course. Which set of risks was the right one to propose that the GE board accept?
Corporations, Financial Regulation, Decision Making, Risk, Strategy
Geographic: Norwalk, Connecticut
Event Year Begin: 2015
To obtain accessible versions of our products for use by those with disabilities, please contact the HLS Case Studies Program at firstname.lastname@example.org or +1-617-496-1316.
Note: It can take up to three business days after you create an account to verify educator access. Verification will be confirmed via email.
Please note that each purchase of this product entitles the purchaser to one download and use. If you need multiple copies, please purchase the number of copies you need. For more information, see Copying Your Case Study.