It begins during the introductory drink. ''I missed a thesis,'' says Frits Migchelbrink. ''At the very least, the question could have been raised whether NOM has not outlived itself.''
The idea is for the five directors who have managed NOM over the past 50 years to engage in a conversation with each other based on ten pre-supplied statements. If, after two and a half hours, one thing becomes clear: the directors follow their own head and thus no propositions. And in part, they did the same in their time at NOM. To clarify his remark, Migchelbrink tells the story of a stairlift in the house.
There were good reasons to purchase that elevator, but the means of transportation is barely used and now costs money because of a maintenance subscription. And so you start thinking about buying it. This parable could also have applied to NOM, Migchelbrink wants to say.
NOM's focus must change.
Frits Migchelbrink
He suspects that the social focus will increasingly shift from prosperity to well-being in the coming years. ''Do you need NOM for that?'' he wonders. It could well be, but then the focus would have to change NOM. ''For the most part, we are still concerned with the economy. I think that will soon be just one of the factors that needs attention.'' Migchelbrink's vision - he, like the others, still talks in the we form when it comes to NOM - is far removed from how NOM started in 1974. That was right after the oil crisis, the Netherlands was going through a deep recession.
The shipbuilding, potato flour and strawboard industries - the artery of the Northern Netherlands - were on the drip. A radical industrial restructuring process was needed. With the money that was available, NOM was forced by "The Hague" to invest in the ultramodern Okto cardboard factory and the Magnesia magnesium factory (now Nedmag). With varying degrees of success. Okto cost 650,000 guilders per employee (about 3 tons of euros) and went bankrupt within four years. Big dramas.
Northern rivalry in acquisitions
And exactly what Ir. Bosma predicted as NOM's first chief executive officer happened: rivalry between the northern provinces when it comes to acquisitions. ''Whatever NOM does,'' he said, ''there will always be factions saying NOM is doing it wrong.''
Ruud Bouwman, at the time the financial right hand of Henk Wisman, the very first NOM director, remembers it well: ''We once started because there was a lack of venture capital in the Northern Netherlands.'' So there was hardly any investment in those days, risks were avoided; 'The Hague' came with money and oekazes. That is different now. Bouwman: ,,Until recently, there was a lot of venture capital in the world. So you have to ask yourself whether you still have added value.''
NOM at the time had image of chunk bank.
Ruud Bouwman
A discussion follows. In any case, NOM needs the returns on investment to carry out its tasks. And big bangs are still being made that way. You can't earn anything with nickels, says one person, to which another responds that in the Northern Netherlands you often talk about SMEs (and thus about nickels). Expansion and innovation simply require risk capital, they say. At the start of NOM only losses were recorded for years.
Ruud Bouwman does not think back to that time with warm feelings. ''We started in a deep recession and that completely scarred us in the first ten years,'' he remembers. He rejoices that NOM now has a very different image. ''Because back then NOM was a bank for ailing companies, it was a chunk bank. Healthy companies didn't want to be associated with us. That was disastrous. It frustrated development.''
Fortunately, that picture has totally tilted, Bouwman contends. Mwah, says Boonstra, it still comes up sometimes. Migchelbrink: ''Old images, that takes years ... Even if it's over drinks, you still get to hear it.'' Jansen: ,,If people want to banter, it's kind of fun to start talking about the chunk bank.'' Unions in those days were the influencers of today,
with also influencing decision-making within political parties (PvdA and CDA). ''Fortunately yes,'' says Arie van der Hek, ''Trade unions were on our Supervisory Board, in which employers were also represented. It made communicating NOM policy easier, without NOM losing autonomy.''
NOM made a lot of money from Aramid and Silenka
But let us not suggest that unions forced us to look at less well-run companies, Bouwman warns: "Everyone pushed us in that direction: unions, employers, provinces, Economic Affairs. And that cost lots of money. Arie van der Hek came at a different time. The crisis was over then.
Van der Hek: ,,I must honestly say that in my time NOM earned well from the sale of those participations.'' And he mentions two large projects, Aramid and Silenka. ,,There was gigantic earnings by NOM, nice products too.'' There was enormous pressure from the minister.'' Arie van der Hek adds: ,,In the days of Wisman and Bouwman, a lot of money was deposited with NOM. That changed in my time because the participation company had to fend for itself based on the principle of revolving funds.''
The 65 million guilders in Aramid was state aid.
Ruud Bouwman
Ruud Bouwman does not go along with this: ,,Economic Affairs was able to put 65 million guilders into Aramid through a roundabout way. That was convenient for them. But it was typically a state project, more or less state support. The scope, the size knocked everything out of balance at NOM.'' Migchelbrink agrees with Bouwman, but Van der Hek is adamant: ''I don't share your opinion, there was balance. We had created a portfolio with more volume and more diversification.
Akzo was going to divest fibers at some point and then we had to sell our share in Aramid to Teijin of Japan. We made a lot of money on it.
We had a good relationship with the business community in those days.'' And he continued: ''It's always a question of whether the Japanese continued with it after that. I don't know what they did with it. I fear the worst.'' Migchelbrink says Teijin has grown tremendously. Van der Hek: ''Well, fortunately.''
This article is part of a series of articles following a meeting between former NOM directors and current director Dina Boonstra. They look back on 50 years of NOM and philosophize about the future.