It is remarkable to see the accolades being heaped on retiring Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. Who would have believed this would be the case eight years ago.
Even the Financial Times has as its lead editorial “Brazil Dazzles Global Finance” (See http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9de004be-ca68-11df-a860-00144feab49a.html). “Brazilian finance will be felt increasingly in international centers.” Brazil’s development bank, with a balance sheet larger than the World Bank, has chosen London as its main foreign office.
Brazil is a player. Statements like this cannot be put in a future tense any more like “Brazil wants to be a player in the world.”
And, the Brazilian Finance Minister Guido Mantega gained global headlines this morning with his comments about “a trade war and an exchange rate war.” Brazil has one of the stronger currencies in the world right now. The value of the dollar has fallen by about 25% relative to the
Brazilian real since the beginning of last year.
Brazil is now listened to around the world.
This is just one more indication of how the world has changed.
Every day, we, particularly in the United States, must remember that things are different now. Although the United States is still a very powerful nation, quite a few other countries have increased significantly in power so that the relative position of the United States is not the same as it once was.
And, there are other hints. JPMorgan Chase has reorganized so that it can become more of an international force. Economically, it cannot just rely on its position in the slow growing United States economy anymore.
We also see the changes in leadership in the United States. For example, the bank that formerly was the largest bank in the United States has someone born in India as its CEO, Vikram Pandit, who was brought into this position to save Citigroup and turn it around.
And what about the biggest, most aggressive investment bank (now a bank holding company) in the United States, Goldman Sachs. There are rumors that a Canadian by birth, someone who has been Goldman’s Asian chief, Michael Evans, is playing a larger part in the management of the company and might even be a successor to Lloyd Blankfein, the current chief executive. Also, Mr. Evans does not have a back ground in Goldman’s trading unit, a place many other Goldman Sachs’ leaders have come from.
The world is open. People and products and services are flowing more easily from country to country.
We still see individuals that resist this fact.
It is hard to believe that this growing global integration can be ignored by investors, governments, and financial institutions, manufacturing concerns, and others who want to perform well in these times.
Well done Mr. Lula!
Showing posts with label Vikram Pandit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Vikram Pandit. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Monday, March 23, 2009
A Lesson from AIG for the Bank Bailout Plan
One of the reasons given for the awarding of bonuses at AIG was the need to keep people around that had “expertise.” That is, if we lose the “experts” we are really in trouble!
This, to me, is one of the greatest fallacies in the corporate world.
It is a fallacy for two very important reasons. The first fallacy is that people are irreplaceable. The second fallacy is that the people that performed badly in the past can get you out of the mess they got you into.
In my experience, no one is irreplaceable and the minute that you begin to believe that either you or the people in charge are irreplaceable you are setting yourself up for big problems. We do not need Rick Wagoner of General Motors nor do we need Vikram Pandit of Citigroup. They are not indispensable in any recovery or turnaround of the companies that they are a part of. Neither are the traders, or the quants, or other executives that got these companies where they are.
We are sold a “bill of goods” about how important these people are to the organization, yet it is remarkably surprising that when they are gone things don’t fall apart. In most cases the situation improves and the company performs at a higher level. It just seems as if in a complex and difficult situation that putting “someone new” in authority is the more dangerous path.
Time-after-time we see that replacing these people is not dangerous. In fact, it turns out to be the best thing that could happen.
Obviously, the incumbents want you to believe that they are indispensable. They will do everything that they need to do to convince you of their importance to future success. And, this includes groveling to the government to assure that they will be kept in place when and if the government bails out their organization or takes it over. Rick Wagoner is sure acting different these days when he is desperate to retain his position at General Motors that he did when he arrogantly arrived in Washington, D. C. on his first trip to the “big” city to appear at Congressional hearings.
Let me add here, however, that this is one of the worst things that the government does when it bails out a company. Because government doesn’t know any better, it often buys into the argument that the current leadership should stay on after the bailout because it has the experience and knows the company better than anyone else does. Government assistance tends to entrench existing management. After all, since the government has worked with this management team to create the bailout in which they are now companions rather than adversaries. That is, they are in bed together.
This is a good reason why government needs to let the shareholders or the bankruptcy courts handle most of these situations. If a management change is needed, there needs to be a practiced means of proceeding toward an orderly transition of power rather than have government insert its heavy hand into the process. Even if government appoints new executive leadership, the choice is usually a person who is an “expert” with “experience” in that firm, which, again, limits the possibilities that the firm will move ahead into the future rather than stay mired in the past.
My experience with the second fallacy also leads me to believe that the “experienced” people should be removed. During the savings and loan crisis, I don’t know how many times I heard the executives of failing thrift institutions seeking money in an IPO tell potential investors, “Yes, we were the ones that managed the organization that brought it to the edge of failure, but, we have learned from this experience! You should give us $100 million in our IPO.”
What have these executives learned?
They have learned how to fail, that’s what they have learned!
There was an interesting article in the business section of the Sunday New York Times which discussed investing in start up companies. I remember myself, because I have worked in that space, that one of the old “truths” of investing in young entrepreneurs is that you should look at people who have failed in earlier business attempts and it even was a “badge of honor” to have failed many times. Recent research does not support this conclusion. On average, those that have failed starting businesses tend to continue to fail. This attitude relating to failure was advice given to venture capitalists or angel investors that are looking desperately to place money. The situation arose during “booms” when there was too much money chasing too few deals. Nothing replaces the success of an entrepreneur as a guide to potential future success.
Still one has to be careful here. Two cases come to mind. First, Nassim Nicholas Taleb in his book “Fooled by Randomness” discusses traders that succeed fantastically because they are in the right spot at the right time. Through no skill of their own do they achieve success, and, because they now think that they are geniuses, go on and lose most if not all of what they gained in their one success. Obviously, these people are not geniuses and should not be treated as such. What you want is people that continue to succeed and succeed in ways that are not just lucky successes.
Second, in an “up” market, almost everyone can succeed, sometimes spectacularly. This can happen in overheated housing markets, in firms that are of the dot.com variety, and in growing and running financial institutions. Credit bubbles help. The sad thing about this is that the people that have just benefited from the “bubble” and not from their “skill” are not found out until the “bubble” bursts. Then the true reason for the success of these individuals becomes obvious.
Furthermore, if a chief executive or a management operated in an environment that was “hot” and where increased risk taking and adding additional leverage were the skills needed in order to succeed they are not the chief executive or management to operate within an environment that is “cool” and where reducing risk and de-leveraging are the tools required. Speed racers are not needed on streets where the speed limit is 25 miles per hour.
It should be clear that the people that get you into a mess are not the people you should count on to get you out of the mess. But, again, the government usually does not see this except in cases of fraud or other types of criminal behavior. Therefore, the government will often stick with those people that are experienced in failure.
These comments can be applied to any approach the government takes to resolving issues in the private sector, whether it be in terms of dealing with the toxic assets of financial institutions or bailing out failed managements in the auto industry. The government must be realistic in what it can do. A bank bailout plan that just brings in private investors to relieve institutions of bad debts while leaving bank managements in place is not going to give the financial sector and the economy what it needs.
Yes, something needs to be done about the bad assets banks have on their books. Losses have to be absorbed by the banks and their owners, themselves, or the government must absorb the losses. The insolvent banks, and auto companies, need to be closed or put into bankruptcy. The world needs to move on and the bad decisions of the past must be accounted for. Someone must pay—sometime. Unfortunately, when government gets involved, the solutions to things often only get postponed or delayed. That is not what the financial markets or the economy needs at this time.
And, this includes Cerberus and Chrysler Corp. Cerberus made a wrong deal at the wrong time. They need to move on.
This, to me, is one of the greatest fallacies in the corporate world.
It is a fallacy for two very important reasons. The first fallacy is that people are irreplaceable. The second fallacy is that the people that performed badly in the past can get you out of the mess they got you into.
In my experience, no one is irreplaceable and the minute that you begin to believe that either you or the people in charge are irreplaceable you are setting yourself up for big problems. We do not need Rick Wagoner of General Motors nor do we need Vikram Pandit of Citigroup. They are not indispensable in any recovery or turnaround of the companies that they are a part of. Neither are the traders, or the quants, or other executives that got these companies where they are.
We are sold a “bill of goods” about how important these people are to the organization, yet it is remarkably surprising that when they are gone things don’t fall apart. In most cases the situation improves and the company performs at a higher level. It just seems as if in a complex and difficult situation that putting “someone new” in authority is the more dangerous path.
Time-after-time we see that replacing these people is not dangerous. In fact, it turns out to be the best thing that could happen.
Obviously, the incumbents want you to believe that they are indispensable. They will do everything that they need to do to convince you of their importance to future success. And, this includes groveling to the government to assure that they will be kept in place when and if the government bails out their organization or takes it over. Rick Wagoner is sure acting different these days when he is desperate to retain his position at General Motors that he did when he arrogantly arrived in Washington, D. C. on his first trip to the “big” city to appear at Congressional hearings.
Let me add here, however, that this is one of the worst things that the government does when it bails out a company. Because government doesn’t know any better, it often buys into the argument that the current leadership should stay on after the bailout because it has the experience and knows the company better than anyone else does. Government assistance tends to entrench existing management. After all, since the government has worked with this management team to create the bailout in which they are now companions rather than adversaries. That is, they are in bed together.
This is a good reason why government needs to let the shareholders or the bankruptcy courts handle most of these situations. If a management change is needed, there needs to be a practiced means of proceeding toward an orderly transition of power rather than have government insert its heavy hand into the process. Even if government appoints new executive leadership, the choice is usually a person who is an “expert” with “experience” in that firm, which, again, limits the possibilities that the firm will move ahead into the future rather than stay mired in the past.
My experience with the second fallacy also leads me to believe that the “experienced” people should be removed. During the savings and loan crisis, I don’t know how many times I heard the executives of failing thrift institutions seeking money in an IPO tell potential investors, “Yes, we were the ones that managed the organization that brought it to the edge of failure, but, we have learned from this experience! You should give us $100 million in our IPO.”
What have these executives learned?
They have learned how to fail, that’s what they have learned!
There was an interesting article in the business section of the Sunday New York Times which discussed investing in start up companies. I remember myself, because I have worked in that space, that one of the old “truths” of investing in young entrepreneurs is that you should look at people who have failed in earlier business attempts and it even was a “badge of honor” to have failed many times. Recent research does not support this conclusion. On average, those that have failed starting businesses tend to continue to fail. This attitude relating to failure was advice given to venture capitalists or angel investors that are looking desperately to place money. The situation arose during “booms” when there was too much money chasing too few deals. Nothing replaces the success of an entrepreneur as a guide to potential future success.
Still one has to be careful here. Two cases come to mind. First, Nassim Nicholas Taleb in his book “Fooled by Randomness” discusses traders that succeed fantastically because they are in the right spot at the right time. Through no skill of their own do they achieve success, and, because they now think that they are geniuses, go on and lose most if not all of what they gained in their one success. Obviously, these people are not geniuses and should not be treated as such. What you want is people that continue to succeed and succeed in ways that are not just lucky successes.
Second, in an “up” market, almost everyone can succeed, sometimes spectacularly. This can happen in overheated housing markets, in firms that are of the dot.com variety, and in growing and running financial institutions. Credit bubbles help. The sad thing about this is that the people that have just benefited from the “bubble” and not from their “skill” are not found out until the “bubble” bursts. Then the true reason for the success of these individuals becomes obvious.
Furthermore, if a chief executive or a management operated in an environment that was “hot” and where increased risk taking and adding additional leverage were the skills needed in order to succeed they are not the chief executive or management to operate within an environment that is “cool” and where reducing risk and de-leveraging are the tools required. Speed racers are not needed on streets where the speed limit is 25 miles per hour.
It should be clear that the people that get you into a mess are not the people you should count on to get you out of the mess. But, again, the government usually does not see this except in cases of fraud or other types of criminal behavior. Therefore, the government will often stick with those people that are experienced in failure.
These comments can be applied to any approach the government takes to resolving issues in the private sector, whether it be in terms of dealing with the toxic assets of financial institutions or bailing out failed managements in the auto industry. The government must be realistic in what it can do. A bank bailout plan that just brings in private investors to relieve institutions of bad debts while leaving bank managements in place is not going to give the financial sector and the economy what it needs.
Yes, something needs to be done about the bad assets banks have on their books. Losses have to be absorbed by the banks and their owners, themselves, or the government must absorb the losses. The insolvent banks, and auto companies, need to be closed or put into bankruptcy. The world needs to move on and the bad decisions of the past must be accounted for. Someone must pay—sometime. Unfortunately, when government gets involved, the solutions to things often only get postponed or delayed. That is not what the financial markets or the economy needs at this time.
And, this includes Cerberus and Chrysler Corp. Cerberus made a wrong deal at the wrong time. They need to move on.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Banks and Asset Write Offs
Banks are using this time to take substantial write offs against their assets. The time is right for them to do this and the investment community expects them to. It would be imprudent for any institution to NOT take substantial write offs now. But, I am only arguing that the write offs should be realistic.
It should not be the case that managements try and ‘over shoot’ their losses so as to show favorable results in the future. The managements of financial institutions must work to regain the trust of their customers and investors and this can only be achieved if the managements show that they understand and can control their balance sheets. To me, it is just another sign of bad management to try and manipulate earnings now so that these institutions can re-coop these faux-values in the future. How dumb do they think we are?
Yesterday, Citigroup, Inc. reported its fourth RED quarter, writing down another $4.4 billion in assets. This brings their total writedowns to about $45 billion! Merrill Lynch & Co. wrote down $9.5 billion bringing its total writedowns to over $50 billion! The day before J. P. Morgan Chase & Co. reported write downs of $3.6 billion as well as a $640 million after-tax loss related to its acquisition of Washington Mutual. Wells Fargo set aside $2.5 billion for future loan losses and the Bank of New York Mellon Corp. increased its credit loss provisions by 20%.
This is the time in the financial cycle when organizations must come up with a firm estimate of the asset base they have to work with. They must reduce their reliance on financial leverage as much as they prudently can. They must reduce their interest rate risk by immunizing their balance sheets as much as possible. They must reduce their reliance on accounting ‘gimmicks’. They must improve their reporting and communicating processes so as to achieve as much openness and transparency with their customers and investors as they can.
To me, these are nothing more than good management practices (See my post of October 14, “Good Management Never Goes Out of Style.”). They tend to go out of use as an economy heats up and are forgotten the most right before a financial system starts to contract. Thus, management must take time and effort to get their act back in order once the contraction begins. Businesses NEVER just “tend to business” during these times because they must focus on getting back to basics and this can almost totally distract a management during this period.
Furthermore, in my estimation, financial institutions have another task at this time. To me their business model has to change somewhat to reflect the advance of Information Technology and the uses of information and data that have resulted from these advancements (See my post of October 16, “The Special Case of Financial Institution.”). It is going to be interesting to see how banks and other financial institutions adjust to these changes and create workable models of sustainable competitive advantage without just relying on financial engineering to generate earnings. Trading models and arbitrage models are unstable in the longer run and cannot help build institutions that are going to excel and last.
The financial industry is going to be a very interesting one to watch in the next few years and there are going to be some real opportunities in which to invest. It may be a little early to “pick a horse” right now…although we seem to be coming through the financial collapse we still have the economic contraction to go through and this will cause other strains and stresses on our banking and financial system. And, it seems as if most analysts are predicting that this adjustment will be relatively long and deep.
There will arise some financial organizations that will really be good buys. The question will be about how to pick them. I have expressed some ideas over this past week and I will just repeat what I think is going to be the most important factors to concentrate on. First, don’t just look at the person at the top. J. P. Morgan’s Jamie Dimon and Citi’s Vikram Pandit are getting a lot of the press right now. They, and a couple of other chief executives, are ‘showing well.’ The important thing to me, however, is the quality of the teams the chief executives are building around them. This may be difficult to discern, but a ‘good’ top executive is one who is proud of his or her team and allows them to be known and to shine. Stay away from the chief executive (and his or her company) which is the only one allowed to be in the spotlight.
Second, check out where the organization is going. The idea of focus is crucial here. Is the organization doing a good job of defining its business and the fundamentals that underlay this business? As mentioned, organizations get in trouble when they cannot define their businesses well and rely on financial engineering or ‘gimmicks’ to produce results. This is going to be somewhat tricky as financial institutions ‘re-tool’ their business model to fit modern information technology and the new regulations and regulatory institutions that will inhabit the environment. Look less to trading and arbitrage to carry the day and more to the development of products and services that build on the evolving technology and establish customer relationships.
Finally, observe how the management team brings innovation to the marketplace. Financial institutions are dealing more and more with Information Goods and consequently must learn how to adapt and innovate within a constantly changing world. In order to do this well, managements must learn from the Information Technology industry. The managements of financial institutions must realize, however, that information is inexpensive, tends to be ubiquitous, and cannot be controlled. How these managements handle this reality is ultimately going to determine who the winners are in the future.
It should not be the case that managements try and ‘over shoot’ their losses so as to show favorable results in the future. The managements of financial institutions must work to regain the trust of their customers and investors and this can only be achieved if the managements show that they understand and can control their balance sheets. To me, it is just another sign of bad management to try and manipulate earnings now so that these institutions can re-coop these faux-values in the future. How dumb do they think we are?
Yesterday, Citigroup, Inc. reported its fourth RED quarter, writing down another $4.4 billion in assets. This brings their total writedowns to about $45 billion! Merrill Lynch & Co. wrote down $9.5 billion bringing its total writedowns to over $50 billion! The day before J. P. Morgan Chase & Co. reported write downs of $3.6 billion as well as a $640 million after-tax loss related to its acquisition of Washington Mutual. Wells Fargo set aside $2.5 billion for future loan losses and the Bank of New York Mellon Corp. increased its credit loss provisions by 20%.
This is the time in the financial cycle when organizations must come up with a firm estimate of the asset base they have to work with. They must reduce their reliance on financial leverage as much as they prudently can. They must reduce their interest rate risk by immunizing their balance sheets as much as possible. They must reduce their reliance on accounting ‘gimmicks’. They must improve their reporting and communicating processes so as to achieve as much openness and transparency with their customers and investors as they can.
To me, these are nothing more than good management practices (See my post of October 14, “Good Management Never Goes Out of Style.”). They tend to go out of use as an economy heats up and are forgotten the most right before a financial system starts to contract. Thus, management must take time and effort to get their act back in order once the contraction begins. Businesses NEVER just “tend to business” during these times because they must focus on getting back to basics and this can almost totally distract a management during this period.
Furthermore, in my estimation, financial institutions have another task at this time. To me their business model has to change somewhat to reflect the advance of Information Technology and the uses of information and data that have resulted from these advancements (See my post of October 16, “The Special Case of Financial Institution.”). It is going to be interesting to see how banks and other financial institutions adjust to these changes and create workable models of sustainable competitive advantage without just relying on financial engineering to generate earnings. Trading models and arbitrage models are unstable in the longer run and cannot help build institutions that are going to excel and last.
The financial industry is going to be a very interesting one to watch in the next few years and there are going to be some real opportunities in which to invest. It may be a little early to “pick a horse” right now…although we seem to be coming through the financial collapse we still have the economic contraction to go through and this will cause other strains and stresses on our banking and financial system. And, it seems as if most analysts are predicting that this adjustment will be relatively long and deep.
There will arise some financial organizations that will really be good buys. The question will be about how to pick them. I have expressed some ideas over this past week and I will just repeat what I think is going to be the most important factors to concentrate on. First, don’t just look at the person at the top. J. P. Morgan’s Jamie Dimon and Citi’s Vikram Pandit are getting a lot of the press right now. They, and a couple of other chief executives, are ‘showing well.’ The important thing to me, however, is the quality of the teams the chief executives are building around them. This may be difficult to discern, but a ‘good’ top executive is one who is proud of his or her team and allows them to be known and to shine. Stay away from the chief executive (and his or her company) which is the only one allowed to be in the spotlight.
Second, check out where the organization is going. The idea of focus is crucial here. Is the organization doing a good job of defining its business and the fundamentals that underlay this business? As mentioned, organizations get in trouble when they cannot define their businesses well and rely on financial engineering or ‘gimmicks’ to produce results. This is going to be somewhat tricky as financial institutions ‘re-tool’ their business model to fit modern information technology and the new regulations and regulatory institutions that will inhabit the environment. Look less to trading and arbitrage to carry the day and more to the development of products and services that build on the evolving technology and establish customer relationships.
Finally, observe how the management team brings innovation to the marketplace. Financial institutions are dealing more and more with Information Goods and consequently must learn how to adapt and innovate within a constantly changing world. In order to do this well, managements must learn from the Information Technology industry. The managements of financial institutions must realize, however, that information is inexpensive, tends to be ubiquitous, and cannot be controlled. How these managements handle this reality is ultimately going to determine who the winners are in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
