That was week ending 6th July 2012

Too big to ...?

There is a perverse streak in me that means when everyone is talking or writing about a particular story I feel compelled to write about something else. This makes it difficult for me this week because last week the Barclay's story dominated the airwaves and column inches to the exclusion of almost anything else.

However it reminded me of the “too big to fail” problem we have with all our banks. The government has said it will introduce reforms so that in future a failing bank can be wound up without the need for taxpayer support. Not much sign so far of anything actually being done about this.

This made me to think more about the “too big” thing and about organisations that become “too big to work”.  There is emerging evidence of disconnects between different levels of management in Barclays creating a situation where the manipulation of Libor by traders was perceived by them as the thing to do. Those disconnects are a symptom of an organisation that has become “too big to work”.

By definition becoming big means a business has grown and growth we are told is a “good thing”. However you can have too much of a good thing. Growth that is the outcome of sound values and continuously building organisational competence and capability is sustainable and delivers value. Growth that is achieved through temporary market advantage, merger, acquisition, financial engineering etc., but without sound values and which outstrips growth in organisational competence and capability usually ends in tears. You may think you need to be big “in order to compete in a global market”, but if you are just not good enough then just being big doesn’t do it. Which brings me to …

Aviva

Apart from spending zillions rebranding with a name that means absolutely nothing at all, Aviva is a classic example of becoming too big to work. Ask any independent financial advisor and they will tell you they are complete nightmare to try to work with. A sure sign of a business that has become “too big to work” is when, like Aviva they come up with one new strategy after another. Each time they convince themselves that this next one is going to work. These strategies always have fancy strap lines like “one Aviva, twice the value”. Under former Aviva CE Andrew Moss this became “one Aviva half the value”, as the share price fell by 60pc.

New Chairman John Macfarlane pronounced last week that the business was a mess and he was going to clear up the mess (though he didn’t use the M-word). Central to his strategy is making the business smaller by selling or winding down 16 of its 58 businesses. However demonstrating that Aviva has not lost its preference for fanciful sound bites the man leading the restructuring, David McMillan, will become “director of group transformation”. In my experience anyone accepting such a title is either very brave or very foolish, possibly both. But, we shall see.

Whose side are they on?

I end this week with a story from one of our clients, a £5m t/o construction services business. In spite of being in a very tough market they have continued to grow and create jobs. However they have to carefully manage their cashflow to support their working capital requirements. Their bank has been supportive but not generous in this respect.

So when the opportunity came to receive a grant from the Regional Growth Fund to help them fund the deposit for some capital investment they were considering they decided to apply. A grant would make it possible for them to make the investment earlier than would otherwise be prudent and create a few more jobs in the process.

In spite of being informed they were exactly the type of company this was designed for our client’s grant application has been refused. The reason given is that the underwriters have calculated that our client can service the borrowing at the funding level required and does not need the 10% deposit support. In other words because the bank felt they could make the repayments there was no grant available.
If they had demonstrated an inability to service the debt payments then they would have qualified for the grant. This means that you have to be a bad risk before you qualify for support. Our client now has to reapply for higher funding up to a level (which they don’t need) at which the risk calculation confirms they can’t service the debt without the 10% funding.
This is just nuts and shows how the people administering these schemes have no idea at all how businesses, especially small businesses, perceive and manage their risks. Lack of confidence is cited as the reason why so many businesses are not investing. A scheme like this can help business mitigate risk and therefore encourage them to invest sooner rather than later. In my client’s case it would have meant that they reduced the risk of having to dip into their cashflow which they need to service their working capital requirements.
Mr Cable this is a serious disincentive for businesses like our clients to apply for so called assistance like the RGF. At this rate the management time they will spend on this is likely to outstrip the value of any grant. No wonder small businesses wonder just whose side the bizarrely named Department of Business, Innovation & Skills is actually on!

That was week ending 4th May 2012

Mervyn swervin’

In his BBC lecture last week Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England inferred that he had seen the banking crisis coming but had been unable to convince the government to take action.  “In hindsight … we should have shouted from the rooftops … we should have tried harder”.

I have seen Mervyn King speak and he comes across as logical and capable with considerable brain power throbbing away under that urbane and calm exterior. However when you reflect on what he says not all of it hangs together quite as neatly as it first sounds.

In particular, given that the BoE is to have a central role in regulation of the financial sector in future, he continues to duck the issue of an inquiry into the part played by the BoE itself in the financial crisis. Mervyn King has neatly side stepped any suggestions of this mainly on the grounds that the bank had no direct role in regulating the financial sector at the time.

For us this is just another indication that we have not really got to the core of what went wrong to cause the global financial crisis and subsequent recession.  Various proposed changes such as BoE becoming the key regulator and separation of retail from investment banking sound as though they might work. However they seem rather more “knee jerk” than based on thorough analysis and assessment of cause and effect. In particular we don’t think the “people factor” has been examined thoroughly.

The flaw in the machine

There is a widely held but flawed belief that organisations can be operated like machines. Operate them according to the manual, pull the right levers and they will produce the results you expect. However there is one highly unreliable and unpredictable component in these machines – people. People have emotions so they do not always behave or respond as you expect.

Two of the most powerful of human emotions are fear and greed and it has long been acknowledged that these are powerful drivers of financial markets. They don’t just influence the bankers, investors and so on; they also influence politicians and governments. Politicians were more than happy to let the credit dance go on because they believed voters would give them the credit for choosing the music.

We believe a more thorough study of the behaviours, both within BoE and elsewhere is needed before a really robust solution for preventing or at least containing future financial crises can be devised.

Shareholders – even more revolting

After a third of Barclay’s shareholders refused to support the company’s remuneration report, 59% of Aviva shareholders voted against theirs, in spite of last minute concessions over directors’ pay. At Immarsat 61% of shareholders refused to back its report. Now Sly Bailey, CE of Trinity Mirror Group will step down at the end of the year. Ms Bailey has received around £14m in the nine years she has been in the job whilst Trinity’s share price dropped over 90% in the same period.

It is beginning to look as though shareholders big and small are starting to demand better performance from their directors. Perhaps now is the time for Vince Cable to nip smartly through the gap that is opening up and touch down with some legislation for binding shareholder votes on directors’ pay. Or even better if companies get ahead of the game and do this themselves.

Effective government.

The coalition government managed to go a whole week without tripping over its own feet. However that’s mostly politics. We are more concerned about government’s inability to deliver effectively for UK citizens. Here are just a few examples.

HMRC sent out thousands of letters fining taxpayers for not submitting tax returns who did not need to submit tax returns. It was also reported that HMRC's response time to phone calls has increased to an average of 4 mins compared 1.5 min in 2010. In our experience anyone who gets through to HMRC in 4 minutes is on such a winning streak they should make serious investments in lottery tickets. The odds of winning are better than getting through to HMRC in 4 mins. As for the person who got through in 1.5 mins in 2010, well we'd like to meet them!

UK Border Force seems to think that the only way to prevent illegal or unwelcome visitors to the UK is to make life miserable for all travellers. We were told last week of a hospital paying £200 for a computer cable that you can buy almost anywhere for £29 and being charged £800 for moving 2 computers.  There are now 33 different schemes for helping unemployed teenagers. Soon there will be enough schemes to employ all the unemployed teenagers to help each other, job done!

It seems that just “doing something”, rather than delivering effective outcomes is seen as the primary purpose for their existence by too many government departments and agencies. Ministers talk about “efficiency” (and “efficiency savings” whatever those are). We would like to hear them using and understanding “effective”.

Got no satisfaction

Yet another study from CIPD, showing that whilst 80% of managers thought their staff were satisfied or very satisfied with them as a manager only 58% of their staff returned the compliment. CIPD, as you would expect puts this down to inadequate management training.

The word “satisfied” caught our attention. Our message to managers is never be satisfied with “satisfied”, “OK”, “not bad” and so on. Seek out dissatisfied; find out what could be better and what would be really, really good if it could be made to happen. This is the way to find those golden nuggets of opportunities to improve that will pay off for you, your staff and your business.

Any sympathy for ...?

Mark Zuckerberg founder of Facebook who will sell part of his shareholding when the company goes public and collect $1bn in the process. However it is reported he will have to pay most of this in tax. So he may be an internet genius but don't ask him for tax advice.

So that was some of the week before this week. We hope you found some of the above thought provoking and useful for you and your business. We trust you had a good weekend and hope you have a great week this week.