An Insight into Cloud Computing
It strikes us that managing IT Service delivery maturity is a bit like the ‘Clouds’ before the major storm.
Everyone is rushing around battening down the hatches, because the frameworks and tools are so rigid and require protecting; rather than having ‘modular’ solutions available that are both flexible enough to withstand the battering of the storm; yet can be re-instated very quickly and efficiently, should the storm have managed to ‘flatten’ the landscape.
We will begin to explore some of the Cloud Computing economic and philosophical issues in a series of new articles to follow.
theMarketSoul ©2011
Corporate Culture
This question posed in a discussion forum made us pause and think:
“Bosses think their firms are caring and “values-driven.” Their minions disagree. I think it’s hard from top-down, policy-driven firms to switch to values-driven because even the values are enforced top-down and bosses who have never listened carefully to their employees don’t suddenly start to do so – thus, they never know if their values have caught on or not. What do you think?”
Firstly we need to define Values – We will use it in this post in its economic sense, such as Economic Value Added, meaning that both value creation, return and risk evaluation is as such is ‘built into the value based system’.
Most corporate managers / leaders would probably understand values in terms of two different contexts:
- Values as guiding principles, morals, a ‘code to live by’, etc., shaping behaviours and norms
- Value in terms of the standard Du Pont analysis – Return on Investment (ROI) calculation methodology.
The third (and probably not last) way of viewing the values question is the economic value added approach, capturing:
- Economic Profit (including risk)
- Guiding principles and behaviours – the bottom up doing the right thing all the time view
Turning to values as a guiding principle, these are the ‘feel-good’ words and phrases we stick on corporate office walls, the intra- and internet “connecting” people inside and outside the organisation to the “emotional-side” and binding them together.
This is the way we believe the Value question has been posed.
Here we have the problem of the ‘generals in the tents’ versus the ‘generals in the trenches’ scenario.
The generals in the tents believe what their eyes and ears are telling tell. “People look and sound happy, so they MUST be happy”.
The generals in the trenches believe what they ‘feel’ and experience everyday in their leadership roles amongst the ‘troops’ and employees they serve with are the real true values of the organisation.
This is where a disconnect manifests itself. The two types do not see eye to eye or understand each other. Charts, reports, statements, observations, facts separate the general in the tents from the raw emotions, feelings, qualitative experiences and ‘Values’ of the general in the trenches.
When they meet to talk, the language and behaviours each other uses and displays are different. They don’t understand each other and each side leaves the conversation with a sense of an ‘unaccomplished mission’ and frustration.
To conclude and draw this ‘Values’ post together:
Right from the off, there is potentially a misunderstanding as to what is exactly meant by Values. The corporate leadership may think, warm ‘fuzziness’ or hard numbers and return on investment, yet the employees and middle management layer think, squeeze some more, but keep on smiling, here they go talking about values again and all I want is some certainty and job security…
Finally, there has to be the recognition that culture and culture in organisations is not easy. (We are not even talking cultural change here yet).
If it was, then it would obviously not be a problem. There are many more factors and dynamics at play, so hopefully your question sets off an interesting discussion.
theMarketSoul ©2011
House of Commons
We will be at the House of Commons on Thursday 29 September 2011 to attend with CIMA the “Members in practice 25 year celebration”
The economics of Gap (Interim) or Freelance Management
We thought it about time to write an opinion piece on the dynamics (economics) around the Interim Management market, delivered from a UK perspective.
This is a purely thought piece and opinion, not support by empirical research, but grounded in economic theory and an observation of the ‘state of the current market’.
The inspiration for this is an article we published last year entitled “Increased Friction Costs“. For background on the meaning and usage of Friction Costs, please refer to the definitions used in the original article.
Let’s face facts. Interim Management was borne out of the margins of Friction Costs. Filling the gap that naturally exists where ‘full employment’ is just never possible. Highly skilled and mobile individuals. However, this is also exactly where the rub sits. IM was borne on the ‘margins’ of the bell curve and not in the middle of that curve. Whether it is natural friction or crisis friction that drives it, the fundamental principle of IM is scarcity, flexibility and mobility. Items that typically cannot be addressed in rigid Labour Market framework and market conditions.
So what has changed?
Well, that scarcity has become mainstream. Evidence for this is the IIM survey results, listing at least 600 ‘claimed’ Interim Service Providers in the REC Directory. Or, maybe the definitions have become blurred. Plenty of anecdotal evidence for this exists on and in discussions in this forum.
Too many Interim Service Providers (ISPs) and too many would be Interim Managers (IMs) have flocked to the margins of the bell curve and confused the message, for both would be clients, ISPs and IM themselves.
Calls for the EIM (Executive Interim Management) label are attempts to create another differentiator. Accreditation itself is another differentiator and this is something the IIM supports and is seeking to grow, particularly with the Agency Workers Regulations in mind.
Basically, in order to add value, we need to realise that there is a ‘natural market’ for IMs, but at the moment that natural market is flooded with confused messages, symbols, participants, etc.
Any comments and opposing views are welcomed.
theMarketSoul ©1999 – 2011
Crafting the Cynical Generation?
…continuing our conversation in the Economics of Taxation series (part 2)
A European Generation ‘E’ enquiry – (‘E’ for employment)
Referring to our previous article entitled ‘The Economics of Taxation’, today we elaborate and flesh out the basic ideas around taxation.
The basic idea is that any form of taxation becomes a drain on productive resources and at some point counter productive in attempts at balancing the government budget. For a fuller explanation of the effects of tax rate rises see the Laffer Curve analysis and the Cato Institute’s Dan Mitchell explain the Centre for Freedom and Prosperity’s view on Fiscal policy.
Source: Wikipedia – Laffer Curve
Two specific points are made by Dan Mitchell in his explanation, which bears thinking about:
- We don’t necessarily want to be at the point on the curve where government revenue is maximised, due to other factors such as the disincentives of maximising tax declaration by tax payers or the cost of collecting that revenue in the first place (sub-optimisation effects)
- Growth (in the economy) incentives fall well short on the upward side of the Laffer curve. In plain English this means that economic growth is maximised somewhere where people have the incentive to retain as much of their hard earned income and that point is somewhere well before we reach the Government Revenue maximising point. (The second Laffer Curve graph above captures this point in a more visual and understandable format). At point D on the curve economic growth will be maximised and note how it still falls well short of the Government Revenue maximising point B.
The behavioural question that fascinates us at theMarketSoul ©1999 – 2011 is how come citizens in Europe are able to tolerate so much more of an overall higher tax rate burden than our cousins across the pond in the United States?
theMarketSoul ©2011
US Treasuries – An FX or a market call?
So it has finally happened. After threatening for months that a credit rating down grade was probable for the USA, Standard & Poor’s finally took the ‘big step’ on Friday 5 August, after the major markets closed.
Image via Wikipedia
So what next?
In our article ‘US Treasuries – Are the markets really that bothered?‘ published on 30 July 2011, we argued that the markets were not really bothered, as both 5 & 7 year T-Bill currently delivered a negative Real Return to investors.
Everyone is dreading the opening bells in stock capital and forex market on Monday, yet we believe the fundamental question for this week will be:
Is this an FX or market call?
What we meanby this question is:
Will the markets and market participants see the down grade as an opportunity to play an FX gain game; or has the game fundamentally shifted and will the capital markets react by demanding a higher nominal or at least Real Return on US Treasury bills?
All pointers at the moment did not indicate a problem, but time will tell on whether a fundamental shift in attitude has occurred. Remember a credit rating is only a qualitative indicator, not a quantitative one, so on a technical call a few FX traders and investors might make a profit or two; but we are all waiting to see if the entire game has changed, or not.
Other factors that might come into play soon would be QE3 and attitude hardening by major T-Bill investors.
How the US Treasury and administration now react will be crucial.
Who are we going to trust to make this big call?
Image via Wikipedia
theMarketSoul © 2011
Pleae refer to our disclaimer page
Related articles
- Macro Ideas – Is dollar-yen headed to 80-82? Guest Post by Matein Khalid (greatlakesforex.wordpress.com)
- Proformative Hosts FX Risk Management Events featuring Western Union, FiREapps and Treasury Strategies (prweb.com)
- Forex Trading 2012 – Highly Intelligent Robot Announced with FX Managed Accounts (prweb.com)
- Goldman Lists What To Expect In FX For The Remainder Of The Year (zerohedge.com)
- InvestTechFX offers FX Traders Competitive Spreads in Response to China’s Increased Stake in Europe (prweb.com)
Economics of Taxation
There are in essence only two ways of taxing citizens:
- A Tax on Stock (Wealth)
- A Tax on Flows (Income or consumption)
taxes (Photo credit: 401K)
Within these two tax methodologies are hidden the minutiae of the tax regime system, but at a fundamental level, any tax raising authority has to look at these two options / methodologies available to them.
Now step back second and consider the tax take flows from these two options:
With Incomes and consumption generally on the wane, where else can the taxing authority turn for sustaining or growing their net tax take? Only on the stock of capital assets held by its citizens, so expect a sustained, possibly nuanced, yet blatant attack on your net wealth over the coming few years.
Image via Wikipedia
Another salvo was launched again from the Business Secretary, Vince Cable, yesterday and we expect a sustained rhetoric and action in the next budget cycle. Today, the main stream press are reporting rumour of lower the 50% rate to 45%, to encourage an inflow of entrepreneurial and highly skilled management talent, reversing the recent drain or threat of ‘brain drain’ from taxpayers in this tax rate band.
Tax (Photo credit: 401K)
theMarketSoul ©2011
Related articles
The US Treasury Yield Curves – Are the markets really that bothered?
Image via Wikipedia
As a general introduction today we will look at two US Treasury Yield curves. The first Yield curve in the Curve graphic 1 below is the 3 Month bills compared to the 10 Year bills over the last 5 years.
In this table it is clear that the current 10 Year rate of 2.82% as of 29 July 2011, is still well below the 5 year average rate. The trend of the 3 Month bills, especially over the last few months has drifted aimlessly between 0.15% on 28 February 2011 and currently at 0.10% on 29 July 2011. There is in fact no noticeable concern in the Bond / Capital market over the potential technical US Treasury default on 2 August 2011.
The second curve below in Curve graphic 2 illustrates this fact of the 3 Month bills trend since 28 February 2011 to 29 July 2011. As can be observed, in the last few days a very slight spike has been observed, yet the rate at 0.10% is still below the 0.15% rate of 28 February 2011.
Yield Curve 2
In real monetary terms it is costing 5 Year Treasury bill holders (0.72%) (Yes a negative return of 0.72% currently to buy 5 Year Treasuries. (See US Treasury web site)
It will be interesting to observe and track the trends over the coming days, especially as we kick off August and Debt Ceiling D-Day in the US congress and Senate.
theMarketSoul ©2011
Source Material: US Treasury web site: http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/Pages/default.aspx
Related articles
- The U.S. Treasury Wants You to Buy This (fool.com)
- The Fed’s Undistinguished Macro Discussions Circa Jan 2006 (wallstreetpit.com)
- Bill Gross Explains Why “We Are Witnessing The Death Of Abundance” And Why Gold Is Becoming The Default “Store Of Value” (zerohedge.com)
- Guest Post: Treasury Bears And Extinction Events (zerohedge.com)
- Another Debt Ceiling Debacle Before The Election? (outsidethebeltway.com)
- Bond Report: Treasurys stay down after 10-year auction (marketwatch.com)
- Daily Reads: Operation Twist Is Twisted, Gross A Treasury Bull? (learnbonds.com)
- PIMCO’s Bill Gross’ New Bet On Treasuries: Roll Down The Yield Curve (forbes.com)
A Storm in a ‘Tea’ cup
Never resist the temptation to start a discussion with a pun.
In our previous article we highlighted the ‘battle royal’ on Capitol Hill to get a proposal agreed to address the possibility of a US Treasury default, whether actual or technical on or after 2 August 2011.
So the Republicans could not muster together enough support on Thursday to ensure safe passage of the bill to the Senate, where it looks likely to be overturned or severely amended in any case.
There is obviously a lot of back room dealing going on over this and analysts in Europe (taking their beading eyes off the Greek and now Italian and Spanish dominoes) have started to pay attention to the goings on across the pond. We heard one commentator mention the fact that the USA’ reputation has already been affected by this, irrespective of the fact that a default occurs or not.
So there you go. The fringe minority floating in the ‘Tea’ cup with a lack of the ability to look over the brim of that particular cup, might in fact achieve their overall objective of raising their own profiles, albeit at the expense of the nation’s reputation and standing as a pillar of the international capital market.
Look, we are not choosing sides here, because at the heart of the matter is the fundamental principles of civil society versus the public sphere debate raging and continuing to rage in the USA.
In our next article we will highlight some of the basic differences in opinion and views on the size and influence of government in the USA versus Europe, via the Rahn curve analysis.
Until then, it is tick, tock; tick, tock whilst we await the vote and subsequent consequences and fall-out from the US debt ceiling debate.
theMarketSoul ©2011
united states currency seal - IMG_7366_web (Photo credit: kevindean)
Related articles
- RAHN: Obama has no Plan B – Washington Times (gds44.wordpress.com)
- In Blast From The Past, Debt Ceiling Could Be Investors’ Biggest Worry (blogs.wsj.com)
- Senate rejects attempt to prevent debt ceiling hike (cnn.com)
- Another Debt Ceiling Debacle Before The Election? (outsidethebeltway.com)
The Boardroom Incubator – The Idea explained
This discussion is a little bit of background behind the concept of ‘The Boardroom Incubator’.
We currently work mostly around Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, England. The university and some of the colleges in Cambridge have start-up incubation hubs in and around the city. These incubation hubs are spin-offs from ideas and innovation created in the laboratories of the university. Some work and some don’t.
The idea behind ‘The Boardroom Incubator’ came to me after attending an Inspired Group presentation on 14 July 2011. During the session the presenter, Mark Doyle, mentioned some training and development they were doing for women to encourage listed organisations in the UK to redress the imbalance of woman representation on FTSE250 Board of Directors. They were addressing some of the issues, but it struck me that more could be done. This is the basic idea and spark that led me to create group.
Let’s do it now, for ourselves, before the government interferes and legislates quotas and targets into the corporate governance frameworks of UK plc.
theMarketSoul ©2011
Link to the LinkedIn ‘The Boardroom Incubator‘
BASiQx promotion
We are running a promotional campaign for our newly launched BasiQx ©2010 – 2011 Accounting, Taxation and Compliance Services product aimed at Small and Micro Enterprises in the UK.
Please visit BASiQx (It’s Basics)
theMarketSoul ©2011
Collaborative nano and micro business ventures
“Don’t waste a good crisis” – not entirely sure who first uttered these immortal words, although a Google search on initial analysis seems to attribute it (or some very similar words) to Rahm Emmanuel, the current Chief of Staff of the White House, part of the Barack Obama administration. The actual phrase might be attributed to an economist called Paul Romer.
However, irrespective of who uttered the words initially, it is true that borne out of crisis the spirit of innovation always seem to rise like a new Phoenix bringing both hope and opportunity with it.
That is the great gift that the ‘study of scarcity’ that is economics provides us with.
We have the chance to think creatively about new platforms of collaboration and how Charles Handy‘s ‘Shamrock Organisation’ will eventually play out.
At the moment we are conducting a research study into how nano and micro businesses might find new routes to market and sustain themselves during these strained economic times as part of the extension of the outsource provider to the Shamrock Organisation. We will be trying to uncover some of the factors that lead to collaboration and other forms of formal and informal business structures that promote and underpin this form of collaboration.
Please watch this space for updates in the very near future.
theMarketSoul ©2010
Risk-Based Change Management
Introduction
Cost cutting has been a priority in the private sector, ever since the financial credit quake started in 2008, yet the words currently are ‘austerity measures’ and budget cuts in the public sector.
Most of the cost cutting in organisations has been along the tactical and operational lines and we believe that in the ‘age of austerity’ we are within, revisiting cost cutting from a more strategic perspective would add significant value to both the private and public sector organisation alike.
A Zero Based Approach
Within most organisations budgeting and budget setting is an incremental affair. It is very much focused on a business as usual mentality and the status quo is rarely questioned or scrutinised with any level of depth and rigour, as long as the financial plan delivers the numbers senior managers anticipate and the investor community expects.
Yet this is exactly the kind of ‘tyranny of the status quo’ that has destroyed a significant proportion of value in organisations over the past two years.
A zero based approach addresses some of the short comings associated with incremental budgeting and financial planning. It is by no means a perfect replacement for incremental budgeting, it cannot address all the strategic issues and it is fraught with its own pitfalls, yet we assert that a focus on some recent lessons learnt in organisations that have implemented cost cutting via a zero based approach can add value to our clients budgeting and financial planning systems.
Zero-based budgeting can be summarised as the process of preparing financial plans from a change perspective, normally building the financial plan from scratch (the zero base), viewing the process as if the organisation has not delivered the particular service of product in focus before.
Some of the lessons learnt are briefly listed below:
- Many versus few – Instructions and the interpretation thereof by individual users
- Focus on the Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) and people cost early in the process
- Check Payroll Data integrity
- Understand thoroughly the organisational restructuring issues (get Human Resources understanding the financial budgeting language early in the process)
- Ensure a distinction between building a Business Case versus Budgeting
- Confidentiality (how, who, what and staff and managerial morale implications)
- Education process and ensuring skills, knowledge and information convergence to ensure the budget is delivered as a value added ‘conversation’
- Appreciation of management style versus timetable for budget delivery
- Over communicate (more information is better than more or inadequate assumptions)
- Concentrate on the budget story (strategy and changes) and ‘hang’ the budget numbers on the end of the storyline (Making the budgeting process less ‘threatening’ to budget owners)
These lessons can be separated into two distinctive themes, namely the Human Capital dimension and the Systems issues.
Themes to be aware of
As far as the Human Capital dimension is concerned the major lesson is to ensure that both the budget holders and prepares are fully cognisant and understand the language of both budgeting and what the inherent risks and concerns around a zero-based approach is.
Key issues and risk are around work stream teams from different disciplines (HR, Finance, Operations, IT and marketing) not always having a common language and frame of references for similar linguistic terms and phrases. Ensure that potential for misunderstanding the objectives and delivery mechanisms are addressed early in the Zero Based Budgeting approach.
Foster a culture of empathy within the management ranks and never underestimate the emotional impact that getting rid of people can have on both the managers having to make the tough calls and both the staff being called upon to leave and the staff morale of the people earmarked to remain behind and deliver the business as usual processes.
As far as the Systems issues are concerned, ensure that enough time and preparation goes into the planning and delivery of the Zero Based Budgeting mechanisms and tools, as you will be running a process that has not been utilised and thoroughly tried and tested under operational conditions before. There are risks in the following areas to be aware of:
- Data integrity
- Spreadsheet modelling and calculation errors
- Documentation and the support services (handling budget holder queries and concerns)
- Skills and knowledge of the budget holders and preparers might be limited
Conclusion
As was suggested in the Lessons Learnt listing above, over communicate with managers, budget holders and preparers and staff. Ensuring that adequate information is made available in comprehensible and non-technical language is the key to success. Too often we have seen ‘lazy’ and shortcut assumptions being made, when a little bit of extra effort, ‘digging’ and asking the right people with the operational knowledge the right questions would ensure a more robust and rigorous budget.
Finally, ensure that both the process and outcomes are well documented and articulated as they serve as your shield and defence when the reality does not turn out as the best laid financial plan might have anticipated.
We view Zero Based Budgeting as a risk-based change management tool that assists and informs the senior managers in any organisation of the opportunities and risks inherent in designing and building innovative change processes to help add value to the organisation’s overall performance.
At theMarketSoul ©1999 – 2011 we have practitioners available who can assist you on a consultancy basis to operationalise the full 360 degree Financial Management practices most organisations require in order to ensure that they remain competitive, profitable and continue to create value.
Risk Management Ideas
Risk has as one of its essential elements TRUST as a foundation.
Trust on the other hand has many other factors that interplay and interact on it.
Markets are created when there are needs that are not immediately met from you local environment and therefore scarcity exists. Market participants step in to fill this ‘needs’ void.
Image via Wikipedia
As for any subset of Risk, either Operational, Market, Liquidity, Interest, etc. a big part of the assessment process it not just about looking inward and assessing the risk profiles, risk attitudes, risk systems, etc., but an important part of the process is stepping into the realm of uncertainty and looking outwards and the wider market context we find ourselves in.
Being too prescriptive about the individual risk profiles and control systems will only stifle innovation and growth. Some say we need a very healthy dose of growth right now, whereas others are content with the new world order of the ‘anti growth economic’ bias (our description of austerity) we have already entered in the Western Hemisphere.
Our positive risk management framework, also known as Value Oriented Risk Management encapsulates both risk and uncertainty management and combines it with the best offerings of Value Based Management. (For more information or to contact us, please click on the Contact us link or read the article entitled “The Intersection – Where Risk, Value & Reward“ link by clicking on the embedded link.
Our Value Oriented Risk Management is the positive Risk Management focus, acting as an enabler ensuring that you unlock value in your organisation a midst the regulatory compliance constraints added to your management agenda.
TheMarketSoul ©2010
Related articles
- Do banks and colleges understand risk management? (normanmarks.wordpress.com)
- Integrate risk management with the rhythm of the business (normanmarks.wordpress.com)
- Risk Management: adding to uncertainty! (fitforrandomness.wordpress.com)
- Why is residual risk so important? (iso27001standard.com)
An Aggregated Challenge
Conspiracy theories!
Today we express an opinion on the phenomenon of ‘governmental’ economic landscape shaping.
Interference whether actively pursued or via involuntary actions promotes our heightened sense of concern by the effects that the aggregation of supply and therefore the encouragement, either directly or indirectly of oligopolistic and monopolistic market structures, is having on the global competitive landscape.
It has occurred in the financial services sector and it happening in the oil industry too.
Image via Wikipedia
Even though the barriers to entry are relatively high, having fewer competitors on the scene cannot be a good thing.
The trends we are spotting in the competitive landscape are as follows:
Imperfect competitive firms (many market participants with differentiated products & services) are being deluged with over burdensome bureaucratic regulatory requirements, shifting some of these additional transaction costs onto the ultimate (final) consumers, whilst in strategically important industrial complexes, such as energy supply, the aggregation effect is indirectly encouraged to ensure that national strategic and security interests are promoted.
Funny old thing, economic theory then…
theMarketSoul ©2010
Related articles
- Aggregate function (luiscarlosmr.wordpress.com)
- The Design and Use of Political Economy Indicators: Challenges of Definition, Aggregation, and Application (pro2sell.com)
- Macroeconomics: Somehow the Bullshit Artists Have Won–A Question for Gavyn Davies Department (delong.typepad.com)
- Open Economy and Aggregate Supply (socyberty.com)
- Guest Post: Integration (alternateeconomy.wordpress.com)
Capricious Markets
The market is capricious. We are paraphrasing a line from one of Bernard Cornwell’s series of historic novels on 9th century England, where he referred to the ‘old gods’ (pagan gods) of the Danes and Vikings as capricious.
So if the impulsive nature of markets is to be appreciated for what they are, then why are we trying so hard to manage risk completely out of existence?
We will focus on two specific factors today in what we refer to as the ‘dumbing down of risk’.
A strict or narrow definition (old financial language) of risk is possibly that it is a quantifiable number with a probability ranking and we can therefore attach a statistical inference to the occurrence of the risk event.
Yet in The Health & Safety Executives language a risk and “Risk management involves you, the employer, looking at the risks that arise in the workplace and then putting sensible health and safety measures in place to control them”. So in the common language in the work place the HSE has managed to destroy the proper use of the work risk and risk management with this dumbed-down version.
In our mind, if the risk cannot be quantified and expresses on a scale of probabilities, then it is not a risk, but an uncertainty. And we can manage both risks and uncertainties, but the emphasis is different.
Maybe any situation or health and safety ‘risk’ can eventually be codified on a risk probability matrix, but the cost involved in getting to this situation is prohibitive, so we shall stick to our guns and call a health and safety issue a ‘Health & Safety Uncertainty’.
Image via Wikipedia
Let’s recap briefly the difference between what risk is (supposed to be) and what uncertainty is:
Risk in investment and market participation is the likelihood of a quantifiable measurable outcome either occurring or not occurring.
Frank Knight In his seminal work Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit, Frank Knight (1921) established the distinction between risk and uncertainty.
| “ | … Uncertainty must be taken in a sense radically distinct from the familiar notion of Risk, from which it has never been properly separated. The term “risk,” as loosely used in everyday speech and in economic discussion, really covers two things which, functionally at least, in their causal relations to the phenomena of economic organization, are categorically different. … The essential fact is that “risk” means in some cases a quantity susceptible of measurement, while at other times it is something distinctly not of this character; and there are far-reaching and crucial differences in the bearings of the phenomenon depending on which of the two is really present and operating. … It will appear that a measurable uncertainty, or “risk” proper, as we shall use the term, is so far different from an unmeasurable one that it is not in effect an uncertainty at all. We … accordingly restrict the term “uncertainty” to cases of the non-quantitive type.” |
Too summarise therefore, risk should be a measurable and quantifiable occurrence, whereas uncertainty is what the HSE addresses, but misinforms as risk, namely the likelihood of something occurring, but that likelihood is not quantifiable.
So where does this detour into the use of language leave us as far as the Capricious Market is concerned?
We suppose that because market participants are both humans and mechanical systems (eg. ETS – Electronic Trading Systems), one of these participant groups, namely the humans have a level of sophistication and complexity (irrationality) that leaves the best construed risk models in tatters, once the uncertainty element of human emotion and the perception factor unleashed.
Therefore, to construct models of rational behaviours, the outcome and predictability of non-human mechanical systems (in other words more models) should be able to predict the behaviours of other models. But to extend this to human actors clearly moves us more firmly into the domain of uncertainty and not risk.
Therefore, we conclude that the markets will always be capricious as long as irrational beings are willing and able participants. Until this ceases to be, let us ensure that we get the use of our risks sorted out from our uncertainties.
theMarketSoul ©2010
Related articles
- Sunday Thinking: Are you dealing with Risk or Uncertainty? (codebetter.com)
- Do banks and colleges understand risk management? (normanmarks.wordpress.com)
- Risk Management: adding to uncertainty! (fitforrandomness.wordpress.com)
- Thought Leader Global Hosts Internal Audit, Risk Conference (prweb.com)
- Business Resilience Brochure (slideshare.net)
- Why is residual risk so important? (iso27001standard.com)
Commentary on newly proposed UK Financial Regulation
The news headline: Osborne gives Bank of England top regulatory role
Our response:
Firstly, we are relieved to see no sweeping statements such as abolishing ‘boom and bust’, which by inference must mean that the ‘normal’ business cycles will from now on resume business as usual, albeit with slightly more volatile amplitudes?
The statement regarding more tools is interesting, because as far as we are aware there are two, maybe three specific tools available in the toolbox at the moment. Fiscal policy and monetary policy and the third one possibly being risk management. Therefore, as with the debate currently evolving between Efficient Market Hypothesis and the behaviourally focussed irrationality school of (economic) thought, that there is no unifying theory yet offered to explain market events, we are still searching for the ‘unifying toolbox’ or rather the Swiss army knife of financial stability and regulation?
Image via Wikipedia
So we can read into the statement that we will add more tools, rather than take tools out of the box never to be returned, such as the retention of Sterling and thus monetary policy.
Therefore, the one important tool at the moment that requires sharpening is the regulatory framework and structures that support both regulation, monitoring, enforcement and dare we say it ‘rehabilitation’, because just like of criminal justice system, even though we have both the laws and enforcement framework, we will always have the offenders and ultimately it is the ‘how to rehabilitate and re-integrate’ them issue that we have to deal with. If moral hazard has now been replaced by having to swallow ‘TARP’-entine (poetic licence evoked) and senior investment grade civil servants (RBS and the half of Lloyds they own), then the compensation schemes being touted and created via banking levies, is the wrong approach and signal to send to the market participants.
The G20 seems to be driving the urgency of the regulatory reform agenda, timeframe and tripartite of Financial Regulatory Standards, capital adequacy and strengthening Corporate Governance regimes as outlined by the Bank for International Settlements. However, some framework agreements have been in place for some time, such as the Norwalk Agreement between the IASB & FASB. Thus, it is not a case of the lack of effort and focus, but rather a lack of urgency and clear objectives in creating a global regulatory and governance framework.
As the BP debacle has illustrated, it does take some time to formulate a coherent response and action plan and if the Global Regulatory Framework is not given sufficient debate, design and implementation time (due to political expediencies), all we will do is sow the seeds of the next crisis, which, as stated before is definitely on the billing in a country near you very soon.
Related articles
- Bank of England should be left alone to police banks, says Governor Sir Mervyn King (telegraph.co.uk)
- FASB in “religious war” to bring in fair value (accountancyage.com)
- Group of Thirty (G30) Calls for Urgent Action to Strengthen System-Wide Financial Regulation and Supervision (prweb.com)
- Irresponsible bankers will smile at the global regulatory reform chaos (appgifs.org.uk)
- Britain overhauls financial regulations (business.financialpost.com)
- Why There’s No One in Jail Over Royal Bank of Scotland (forbes.com)
- Bank of Canada urged to take ‘clear leadership role’ in regulatory oversight (theglobeandmail.com)
- Why is the Bank for International Settlements interested in Karl Marx? (Part three) (pogoprinciple.wordpress.com)
- “Break Up the Banks? Here’s an Alternative” (economistsview.typepad.com)
- City fears Bill will not protect UK from rivals (independent.co.uk)
The Cost of a ‘Licence to Operate’
Reputation Risk and damage mitigation must be some of the watch words and the top priorities at BP at the moment. So how are they faring in the management this agenda item?
What ‘price’ or cost must we attach to a ‘licence to operate’?
Image via Wikipedia
It is interesting to observe behaviours of Chief Executives under the probing scrutiny of a congressional committee’s line of questioning and investigation.
Are we busy reshaping the competitive landscape and entrenching further oligopolistic market skewing structures? And this running in parallel with Financial Regulatory reforms encouraging more of an ‘imperfect competitive’ and fragmented (read more costly) landscape.
It is interesting how the issues and debates are being shaped by political expediency, rather than the true and honest ‘economic landscape re-alignment’ agenda we all deserve. And yet again timetables are being set to accommodate political schedules, rather than the issues and factors that we really need to address in order to encourage enlightened and informed re-balancing and redress within the economic frameworks we operate under. So the people who ultimately ‘pay the bill’ are having the fundamental issues clouded and waters muddied, with needless ill-informed debates and noise around reforms that are ill-conceived and containing basic design flaws.
We felt that there was hope back in late January 2010, when the Volcker Rule [video reference]was first muted, but as is now apparent, the agenda has been filled with noisy distractions and unfortunate detours that will ultimately deliver half-baked reforms and regulations that will sow the seeds of the next cyclical bubble of euphoria and the subsequent eye watering ‘pop’ once we come down with the inevitable painful bump. Timing is of the essence, yet the timeframes are uncertain and so they shall remain.
Image via Wikipedia
The next few days and weeks will be crucial ones that will reveal what exactly the true (life-cycle) cost of a ‘Licence to Operate’ is and what price we have to attach to monitoring and managing a global reputation risk framework and infrastructure.
Related articles
- Paul Volcker: Here Are 5 Ways To Know Prop Trading When You See It (businessinsider.com)
- Jim Flaherty steps up to object to U.S. banking rule (business.financialpost.com)
Sustainability I
The focus on sustainability and sustainable practices is a self defeating objective. Sustainability means that business leaders take their eye off the equity holder’s value creation ideal, as it flies in the face of self-interest as promoted by Adam Smith some 234 years ago (The Wealth of Nations , 1776).
Image via Wikipedia
Self-interest and the pursuit therefore is being clouded by a multitude of other non value adding factors that is diluting the message and contributing to more uncertainty and risk and therefore capital flight and volatility in the financial and capital markets as we have experienced over the last 2 years.
This process and Zeitgeist will not disappear or be properly understood, unless we develop a deeper understanding and familiarity with uncertainty as a driver of the innovative spirit of human endeavour.
Risk management per se is not the answer and panacea it is held out to be, and if it promotes a more risk-averse society, then we are heading for the middle ground of mediocrity, tyranny and decline in social values and structures that have taken many hundreds of years to create.
Being part of the system with a myopic view, rather than standing outside the system with a holistic and reflective frame of mind is causing more damage than good.
Yet how are we to live and deal with the cognitive dissonance that these two views by the very nature induce?
Let’s open up to good honest debate, search and reflection, rather than to dogma and a narrow focus on defending vested interests and old world models.
We are in the midst of a major cultural, economic and world order paradigm shift and the outcome is uncertain, potentially destabilising, but we must embrace this exploration of uncertainty and chaos the will inevitably ensue.
theMarketSoul ©2010
Related articles
- Adam Smith’s Psychology (psychologytoday.com)
- EU Commission to adopt “new” Strategy for sustainable Bioeconomy (3eintelligence.wordpress.com)
- Adam Smith – the old Lefty (notnumber.wordpress.com)
- Adam Smith’s Ideas on Labour and Value (Part II) (quackonomics.wordpress.com)
- Sustainability? (madisondesignconstruction.com)
- Adam Smith got it all terribly wrong? (worldmediatrend.wordpress.com)
- 7 Overarching Objectives of Sustainability (linkingsustainability.com)
- What kind of web content will make my business more sustainable? (marketing.yell.com)
Short-sighted: Actor behaviour in the market for competitiveness
Competition is a good thing. Of that we are sure.
It is one of the key ingredients of a dynamic market process, yet is competition and the potential negative consequences of short-sightedness a means or an end in itself?
Today we argue that the unfettered aspiration of competing for competition’s sake and the shedding of what is seen as non-core processes and competencies in organisation, will eventually lead to sub-optimal performance and is an unsustainable practice.
In the unrelenting search for shareholder value creation, which is the fiduciary and main responsibility of the board of any shareholder / equity owned organisation, we believe that sub-optimal decisions are being taken, both because of target operating model enhancements and short-term return of investment (ROI)
One of the underlying objectives of International Harmonisation of Financial Regulatory Standards (as currently promoted by the IASB & FASB) is the desire for greater transparency and ultimately more regular and frequent reporting cycles. The view is that the greater the frequency in reporting, the less information asymmetry will be in the market, thereby eliminating insider trading and other undesirable ‘sharp’ market practices that regulatory bodies such as the SEC, London Stock Exchange, NYSE, NASDAQ, DAX, etc., are trying to stamp out.
But if we extend this logic, or rather shorten the current reporting cycles from the regular quarterly updates to say monthly, weekly , daily or even hourly updates, the already short-sighted mentality will become even more sharply focussed. And this begs the question: “How will CEOs and other business leaders have to ‘defend’ their decisions on a minute by minute basis under this unrelenting 24 hour news and sensationalism culture”; thus leading to an even more intense short term focus on their part. Certainly, this must be the worst of all downward spirals and tyranny of information overload?
But, by logical extension, this is exactly where we are heading in a decade or two’s time.
So, if the focus is then on more short-term results and ‘core processes’ where does this leave the current wave of outsourcing, off-shoring or near-shoring of non-core processes?
We contend that the already well established trend of ‘letting go’ of all non-core processes and competencies has a negative effect on the longer-term sustainability of the organisation.
Succession planning could already be outsourced and thus not on the board’s agenda, as recruitment consultancies now fulfil the non-core ‘attraction of suitable candidates’ services, with the traditional Human Resources fulfilling a more Risk mitigation / management functions of ensuring compliance with Health & Safety Executive , employment law, equality laws, etc.
Another unintended consequence is the fact that because organisations more and more frequently utilise professional specialists to deliver projects and programmes, the esprit d corps is disappearing from organisational life. It is difficult for managers to gain this motivational force of esprit de corps when they are managing ‘virtual teams’ and a cadre of temporary service providers through dysfunctional processes of ‘on-boarding’, induction, project management, quality control, motivational traps, engagement, focus, etc.
Therefore, to conclude this opening article in a new series around the ‘new labour market models [1] [2] [3]’, currently being practiced in the western free market democracies, let us ask the key question that is one of the foundations of the factors of production in achieving economic advancement:
“How do we recognise, incubate, nurture, develop and sustain talent and talent management in our organisation, when this critical activity is handed over to outside consultants who have a different business model and agenda to our corporate ambitions?”
We know that there are some ‘labour supply aggregators’ or forward thinking recruitment consultancies that realise that their own models of engagement has to change, in order for them to move into the value creation and value addition space, but there are still far too many ‘factories’ with conveyor belt mentalities out there. Not to let the corporate ‘talent managers’ off the hook, because if you don’t have people and processes in place to manage the talent anymore, you only have yourself to blame when the ‘transparency machine’ of financial regulatory reform forces you down the channel of short-term decline…
Related articles
- Why Talent Management Tech is Super Hot and Bound to Get Hotter (readwriteweb.com)
- TEDS Celebrates 20th Anniversary (prweb.com)
- Be social: Recruiting using social media (marketing.yell.com)
Does Law inform or enforce culture?
If ‘the Law’ is the codification of cultural norms and practices, does the Law then not inform culture?
Policy, social malice and engineering of social outcomes bend these laws into legislative blunt instruments designed to enforce cultural behavioural changes on a grand scale, trouncing the common law of good judgment, neighbourly relations and common sense and thus freedom in their wake?
Within the above question and assertion lies the ‘malice of the free market’; where misguided and misinformed regulation channels behaviour and economic interactions in directions and with outcomes not anticipated or foreseen. Thus unleashing the ‘law of unintended consequences’.
Take as an example the economic condition referred to as Moral Hazard.
A definition is:
Moral Hazard occurs when a party insulated from risk may behave differently than it would behave if it were fully exposed to the risk.
Moral Hazard therefore flies in the face of the principles of personal responsibility and thus accountability for our actions to a wider stakeholder community.
Is Moral Hazard perhaps promoted and therefore amplified by the fact that business leaders are not more formally educated in their fiduciary responsibilities?
Is this a function of weak or inefficient corporate governance structures and frameworks, or merely an oversight that is readily addressed by ‘occupational licensure’ or the professionalization of directors by only allowing formally qualified persons to serve on certain corporate boards?
Would this formalisation process of understanding fiduciary responsibility hinder the spirit of free enterprise and risk-taking or enhance the governance and risk aptitudes in a controlled and more channelled and focussed practice? Would it have as a positive consequence an amplifier effect for raising the corporate governance and Enterprise-wide Risk Management practices?
Related articles
- The Big Design: Moral Hazard, and the EU (themarketsoul.com)
- Individually smart, collectively dumb! (business2buddha.wordpress.com)
- How Moral Hazard Learned to Stop Worrying and Hate Santorum (esquire.com)
- A Question is Bothering Me… (fsaraceno.wordpress.com)
The Sustainability Gene
The CBI published a report entitled “The shape of business – the next ten years” in late 2009.
The authors identified 5 key drivers affecting the business environment, namely:
1. Changing finance and capital conditions,
2. The decline of trust in business and markets,
3. A less benign macroeconomic environment,
4. Social and demographic change where the recession will have a major influence,
5. Sustainability and resource issue.
We pick up our cue from the fifth driver being Sustainability for today’s post.
Our comment serves more as an aide-mémoire to return to in more detail in future articles. This post also does not serve as a commentary on the CBI’s report, but rather as a general opinion on the nature of sustainability and human a nature and is therefore pure conjecture.
We believe that sustainability as understood to mean the impact we have on the planet and the resources we consume, is not a natural human phenomenon, in the face of self-interest (as per the economic definition of the term) and competition for scarce resources.
In other words sustainability flies in the face of human kind‘s natural tendencies to compete for resources, either by war and confiscation, or by trade and exchange for those scarce resources.
We therefore contend that as human actors interacting with and through the free market mechanism, we do not naturally possess a ‘sustainability gene’, but instead have to develop a new model and framework for ensuring that this objective is effectively pursued and becomes part of the underlying psyche of being in business and discharging our fiduciary responsibilities.
Linking to our previous post ‘The Markets do not need certainty’, we contend that it is structure that helps shape markets and creates the conditions conducive to the effective operation of those markets. Other factors will ultimately affect the efficiency of the markets and some of these factors include Innovation and such like.
In conclusion, let us wrap up with a few quotes on sustainability:
- You can never have an impact on society if you have not changed yourself. Nelson Mandela
- The very process of the restoring the land to health is the process through which we become attuned to Nature and, through Nature, with ourselves. Chris Maser
- We can learn whatever we need in nature because we are part of nature. Human beings are part of Creation. We live by the same laws as all of nature. Anne Wilson Schaef
And in the final quote above we possibly see a glimmer of hope for a possible answer to our ‘Sustainability Gene’ deficiency. Somehow Adam Smith’s ‘self interest’ and the modern free(ish) market system require an injection of nature law and justice.
Whatever that shall be.
Related articles
- Sustainability? Ask the CFO, says KPMG (nigelcameron.wordpress.com)
- What Is America’s “Worldview?” (papundits.wordpress.com)
- Growth Vs Protection! What is your Perception…? (consciousnesssintegration.com)
- Adam Smith’s Psychology (psychologytoday.com)
- Biodiversity is Important! (environmentechnology.wordpress.com)
- Will is Power… from the Selfish Gene to the Transcendence of the Human Being (claudiafeitosasantana.wordpress.com)
End to End or Integrated systems and thinking processes
Silos.
We hear this management buzz word quite often touted in office settings, and conferences in the media, etc.
We argue today that silos are cultural norms. They are national cultural models possibly endemic of certain national cultures. We certainly have no empirical evidence for this, so this is pure opinion and conjecture on the part of theMarketSoul contributors.
In our previous article titled Increased Friction Costs we briefly touched on the issue of processes being back to front in Britain. Processes are very much driven by the national ‘Carrot & Stick’ approach, rather than an enablement, ‘build and they will come’ approach where solutions are found and embedded then suitable and profitable markets are found for those solutions.
Now we can argue that in a very narrowly defined risk management culture and faced with the reality of reduced opportunity to obtain and procure financing to ‘build solutions on speculation’, we just cannot afford to change our exiting disastrous management and control processes.
But this is exactly where we have to stop the train as quickly as possible and change direction to ‘climb the hill ahead’ so that we can experience the potential and opportunity to ‘see the view from another mountain top vantage spot’…
We are in a tight spot. That is a fact. However, we are being held to ransom at the moment by a ‘political’ system and governing party trying to string out the last days of their tenure in power. [This article was initially written before the General Election in Britain].
There is hope, there is a sliver of light and opportunity on the horizon. However, we will need to learn to deal with some pain, as we readjust the ‘crowding out’ of growth by the public sector and debt burden. However, we need to recognise that we will have to apply a bit more ‘market discipline’ to finding, scoping, building and implementing solutions to our problems.
Small and localism are in fact parts of (but not the entire) solution, where small providers (entrepreneurs) are incentivised and tasked with coming together to experiment and create solutions, that hopefully mitigates the risk of large scale failure, but at the same time find scalable solutions that can rapidly be deployed to solve some of the challenges we currently face.
In IT deployment and development projects they call this kind of rapid, ‘low hanging fruits’ approach to development work Agile Development or AD for short. Maybe this together with the professional service chains and clustering we will touch on in subsequent articles is the way forward.
Related articles
- Comments on the COSO draft update of the internal controls framework (normanmarks.wordpress.com)
- Proactive Risk Management (paulevery.me)
- Integrate risk management with the rhythm of the business (normanmarks.wordpress.com)
- Bridging Departmental Divides: Workplace Design Offers a Smart Solution (forbes.com)
- What is the difference between cultural knowledge and cultural awareness? (nadiaabunuwar.wordpress.com)
The US Treasury Yield Curves #2 – Do you factor inflation into the deal?
In the previous article we posted, mention was made of the (0.72)% [negative 0.72%] real return US Treasury investors can currently expect on 5 Year Treasury Bills. The Nominal (quoted) Yield Curves and Real (Inflation adjusted) Yield Curves for two specific points in time, namely Friday 29 July 2011 and 30 July 2006 are listed below.
Yield Curve 1
What is interesting to note is the very flat nature of the Yield Curve for all T-Bills at the end of July 2006, at around a 5% Nominal Return for investors. Yet the most significant fact is that the Real Yield was around 2.37% on 5 Year Treasuries, versus today’s (0.72)% on 5 Year or (0.18)% 7 Year T-Bill yields. In order to generate a very small Real Return, you have to be looking at purchasing a 10 Year T-Bill to obtain a modest 0.38% Real Return in today’s market.
A cynic might make this remark:
“Not only do you pay your taxes, but with the negative Real Yields on both 5 & 7 Year T-Bills, you are paying the government to hold on to your cash too”
They win both ways!
theMarketSoul ©2011
Source Material: US Treasury web site:
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/Historic-Yield-Data-Visualization.aspx
Related articles
Share this:
July 31, 2011 | Categories: 2011, Analysis, Business, Economics, economy, Free Market, Ideas, Inspiration, Market Economy, Monetarism, Monetary Economics, Opinion, Political Economy, Politics, Reflections, Risk, Risk Management, Sustainability, Taxation, theMarketSoul ©2011, Value | Tags: 2011, Analysis, Bill Gross, Blogging, Budgetary Control, Budgets, Commentary, Debt Ceiling, Economics, Economy, Federal Reserve System, Finance, Financial Regulation, Free Market, Government, Ideas, Information Assymetry, Inspiration, Market commentary, Monetarism, Monetary Economics, Opinion, PIMCO, Political Economy, Politics, Risk Management, Sustainability, T-Bills, Taxation, theMarketSoul, Thoughts, United States Department of the Treasury, United States Treasury security, US Debt, US T-Bills, us treasuries, US Treasury Yield Curves, value, Yield curve, Yield Curves | 1 Comment »