Week ending 16th May 2014

INTERESTing Times

With the Bank of England delivering its latest quarterly Inflation Report last week it was no surprise that the business and political media was focused on what it would say about interest rates.  The level of unemployment had already dipped below the 7% point that BoE Governor Mark Carney had previously indicated could be a trigger for a rise in rates.

In the event Mr. Carney effectively quashed speculation that rates could rise before the end of this year.  He conceded that the day Bank Rate would start to rise is getting nearer but now was not the time to raise rates and when they did start to rise they would only do so gradually.  In the BoE’s judgement that there is still enough slack in the economy to enable it expand further without triggering inflation.  This is based on information from the network of BoE agents based all over the UK who talk to local business people about the prospects for their business and the sector they operate in.  The feedback is that generally most sectors are still highly competitive with capacity to fill and little prospect of being able to raise prices.

The exception seems to be the housing market.  Much has been written and said about this in recent weeks and what this could mean for interest rates and what the authorities should/can/can’t/want to do about it.  The British have national obsession with house ownership and consequently the prospect of even a small increase in interest rates is portrayed as apparent personal and national financial Armageddon.  In spite of all the speculation and bright ideas Mr. Carney repeated what should by now be the “bleeding obvious”.  Whatever the BoE can or can’t do about interest rates to influence the housing market, the core problem is that we are just not building enough houses to meet demand.

We have not been building enough for 30+ years and we know we haven’t.  This has not been for want of trying, or at least for want of target setting for house building by successive governments.  Whatever they said and whatever they intended, it just didn’t happen.  Yet still we have the Labour Party announcing it has the answer because if elected they will build 200,000 houses a year to 2020.  Well, what a brilliant idea, and thank God we have the Eds Milliband and Balls to think of these things for us!

The truth is that they have no more idea than their predecessors on how to actually achieve this.  There was a time when we could build houses at that sort of rate, so the conclusion is that we should be able to do it again.  However so much has changed since those times that the same approach will not deliver today.  And that is the real problem.  After so many years of repeated and almost continuous failure in this area there is only one possible conclusion.  As a nation we simply don’t know how to deliver enough houses to meet demand.  We did once but we clearly don’t now.  Now all is not lost because it is possible to find out.  However that is not going to happen until our political leadership actually recognises and crucially admits that it doesn’t know but that it has a plan to find out.

Sadly, with an election coming up next year finding a politician who will admit to not knowing how to do anything is about as likely as finding the Holy Grail.  In the meantime though for the rest of us, when we come up against a problem we just don’t seem able to solve, however hard and often we try, then maybe it’s time to ask ourselves if we actually know how to do what needs to be done.  If we can identify what we don’t know how to do then we can start the process of finding out.  Even the most complex problems and challenges can be tackled effectively if we start by admitting and identifying what we don’t know.  Try it sometime!

ONS on us

On the subject of house prices, last week the Office of National Statistics (ONS) informed us that twenty percent of adults who hold at least one university degree now have wealth totalling at least £1m.  Apparently the number of millionaires has risen by fifty percent in four years despite the recent financial crisis and almost a tenth of British adults own assets worth more than £1m.  The flipside of this is a stark gap in wealth between people with different levels of education, with only three percent of people with no formal education qualifications worth more than £1m.  This gap is widening.

David Willets the universities minister seized on this as justification for coalition policies to charge higher university fees and to push more school leavers to go to university.  They also seem to be pushing more people into apprenticeships which is a bit contradictory.  But as long as they are pushing the rest of us somewhere they seem to be happy.  The Labour party were a bit slow off the mark to pick up on the increasing gap between the wealthy and poor, but don’t worry they will!

Strangely the figures from the ONS take no account of liabilities, mortgages and other loans and debts.  This renders the figures meaningless.  A pensioner living in Middlesborough who has paid off their mortgage and with no other debt could actually have greater net wealth than someone living in London with their house mortgaged up to the hilt and in danger of paying a mansion tax.  They don’t FEEL like millionaires whatever the ONS says and that is what really matters for real people.

The ONS has a record of publishing statistics that are either late or wrong or both.  It has now added meaningless to its track record, except of course for politicians.  As we are paying for the ONS to do its work, we should expect something useful to come of it.

Pfizer - all pfizzle?

By the time you read this Pfizer’s bid for AstraZeneca may well have petered out, at least for the time being.  Last week both companies’ top management appeared in front of the Business Select Committee.  Pfizer boss Ian Read was vague on detail about potential job cuts and reductions in R&D investment, though he admitted there would be some.  His main argument appeared to centre on the combined businesses being “bigger” and therefore by definition “better”. He justified the unquantified cuts to jobs and R&D as “part of being efficient”.  As with “bigger” he appears to view the word “efficient” as a "good thing" so no need to spell out what it might actually mean.  He also insisted that Pfizer was a “company of high integrity focused on patients and delivering drugs to patients”.  He seemed oblivious to a track record that gives the perception of exactly the opposite.  His 36 years at Pfizer were definitely showing.

If I was an AstraZeneca shareholder that performance would be enough for me to say “no way”.  Of course that is not the only consideration.  AstraZeneca’s insistence that they would be better off as an independent company is founded on their claims for their research pipeline of products in development.  If a reasonable proportion of these reach the market then the future would look good for AstraZeneca.  The problem is that it is very difficult with pharmaceutical companies to predict whether this will happen.


However there is one party involved that must believe that these developments will be successful and that party is Pfizer.  Why would they be bidding to buy AstraZeneca now if they did not?  If they can buy them now before the pipeline is proven then they would win handsomely and put off the evil day when their own under investment in new product development catches up with them.  It means if Pfizer can buy AstraZeneca at or around their current offer they will either win, or not lose because they could hack out enough savings to redress any shortfall from the product pipeline.  All the more reason for AstraZeneca shareholders to say no, or at least to hold out for a substantially improved offer.

Meanwhile

The French government has moved quickly to block the GE bid for Alstom by creating new powers to stop foreign takeovers of “strategic” industrial groups.  In fact they moved so fast I wonder if they are using some sort of “app”.  Something called “Legislation a Grande Vitesse” (LGV) perhaps.  You just put in what you don’t like the look of and then the app searches through the legal statutes to come up with the necessary legislation for you to put it right.  It also dates everything at around 1849 so it is very difficult for the EU commission to argue against.

Industry Minister Arnaud Montebourg stated “With this reform, France will have a clear and efficient legal framework comparable to other open economies within and outside Europe”.  Whilst our government talks about what they should/can/shouldn’t/can’t do the French just do it and then issue statements like this with a straight face!  As I said last week it helps if you know clearly what you want.

You heard it here first

In my previous article I said I did not like the look of the proposed Dixons Carphone Warehouse merger.  Well it seems I was not alone because when they officially announced the proposal for the merger last week, Dixon’s shares fell more than 10 percent and Carphone Warehouse 8 percent.  David Alexander, retail analyst at Conlumino acknowledged that “Although there are plenty of reasons to view the merger in a positive light, the history of M&A is littered with the corpses of failed unions”.  Says it all for me.

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

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.

That was week ending 27th April 2012

Well that was a week wasn’t it!  What with the Murdochs at the Leveson Inquiry, a technical double dip recession and the collapse of the Dutch government, it was a week in which business, the economy and politics became inextricably and messily entangled. It’s hard to know where to start, but here goes.

Flat Earth Society

The previous week I sat down with a group of East Midlands’ business people and the regional agent for the Bank of England. “Our best quarter ever” and “optimistic about 2012” were just some of the positive views expressed, significantly more positive than the Bank of England man had expected.

Then we learn that the economy contracted by 0.2% and we are technically in double dip recession. Would this have come as a surprise to those people at that meeting? Well probably not, because what they also all agreed on was that there are and will continue to be winners and losers out there. Therefore the net overall improvement, if any improvement at all, will be small.
So whether the economy is 0.2% up or down makes little real difference. The economy continues broadly flat with nothing significant in prospect to change that any time soon. We have been telling our clients for some time that they should develop their strategy on this basis, but that does not mean that they cannot grow. What it does mean is that without growth in the wider economy they have to win market share and that often requires a different business model, strategy and attitude.

The group at the meeting agreed and that the key difference between the winners and losers was “attitude”. Those who believe the earth (and the economy) is flat are afraid to venture far and try anything new. Those who believe the earth is round know there are opportunities out there, even if they can’t see them yet over the horizon and are prepared to venture out after them.

Yes but …

We do need to get the economy as a whole to grow and a roughly equal balance of winners and losers is not going to do what’s needed. We think there are three key challenges to overcome, where government has a key role to play.

First there are two types of small business with potential to grow, the relatively new business with innovative products and services and the established business that fought its way through recession, often at considerable cost to profits and balance sheet but is now able to grow again. However the financing requirements for both types of business are all about the future, whilst conventional lenders’ criteria are based on past performance and current balance sheets.

These two perspectives are fundamentally incompatible so it should be no surprise that banks are not providing sufficient finance to fuel growth for smaller businesses. “The banks are not lending, there’s no demand” arguments are getting us nowhere and we need new radical thinking with government providing the catalyst.

The second challenge is how to unlock the mountains of cash currently being hoarded by many businesses, both big and small.  This is about “risk” or at least the perception of risk. Psychologically business people need to feel the prospect of reward from investment to be significantly greater than the risk. Right now many can see the risks but not the reward. But just look at the effect the changes to the “patent box” tax regime had on investment intentions at GSK and others. This approach should be used across the business tax spectrum, especially where it would encourage employment.

Third, government should switch on more spending on infrastructure related projects and the OECD now appear to agree. This may need more radical thinking on transferring spending from other areas plus, as the OECD suggest, some easing of the time frame for deficit reduction. Not easy as the transfer would likely come from areas such as welfare and local services. However the boost to the economy and employment would be significant in a relatively short period of time.

If effective strategies were implemented to overcome these three challenges we believe we would see the economy growing within 12 months. Anybody got any better ideas?

Shareholders are revolting

The story on Barclays CEO Bob Diamond’s pay package continued. Nearly a third voted against the remuneration report or abstained. Chairman Marcus Agius appears to think it is all about communication. "Evidently we have not done a good enough job in articulating our case: on some matters we should have communicated earlier and more clearly". However just how you tell shareholders " we are paying ourselves three times a much as your total dividends" without making them think enough is enough is beyond us.

It is too early to say if finally the big institutional shareholders are really going to hold their directors’ feet to the fire and insist reward must reflect performance. However for all the politicians’ huffing and puffing and the sheer exasperation of the rest of us the resolution of over the top reward for mostly mediocre performance was only ever going to come from shareholder pressure. If Barclay’s directors have to buckle maybe this will be the catalyst for change.

Thought for the week

We are grateful to Sally Anderson of Sally Anderson Executive Support Services for this quote from Rosa Parks. On first read it seems a bit “motherpie and applehood” but then it grows on you.  See what you think.

“Stand for something or you will fall for anything.  Today’s mighty oak is yesterday’s nut that held its ground”.

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.