Author Archives: univest

BREXIT – What a difference a week makes

univestBREXIT – What a difference a week makes

The past week has yielded so many interesting events that I have shelved my scheduled blog to consider the potential impacts to the whole EU debate.

In no particular order let us start with the UK Budget speech given by George Osbourne last Wednesday. All sounded good with much bravado albeit two of his three fiscal rules were already in shatters. But the economy is growing so such rules are only political rhetoric. However, he used this platform to make a clear statement that the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had provided evidence that UK exit from the EU would damage the UK economy in the short-term. This statement clearly aggrieved the OBR as, by tea time, they had completely refuted his representations as they only provided (conveniently selected?) views provided by third parties.

Then he expounded the view that we were all in this together as he slashed corporate taxes at the same time as slashing benefit payments (some £4 billion) to the most disadvantaged. Whereas there is no doubt that the welfare budget in the UK does need to be reined in, it cannot be achieved merely by setting arbitrary limits and crossing out figures on a spreadsheet with a complete disregard for social justice. Again, by the end of the week, these welfare cuts had diluted from hard cuts, to a discussion, to kicking into the long grass, to being scrapped with the very public resignation of the Work & Pensions Secretary, Iain Duncan Smith who gave an impassioned account of his position on the Sunday morning Andrew Marr show. Let us not forget that this happened to Osbourne in his last budget as well.

Also, during his budget speech, he confirmed that the continued refusal by the EU to relax VAT rules to allow tampons to be zero rated, the so-called tampon tax (some £500 million pa), would result in the taxes collected continuing to be distributed to various women-based charities. The following day David Cameron went to an EU Summit meeting in Brussels regarding the important refugee crisis. Apparently, during a coffee break, all 28 EU leaders agreed to relax the EU VAT rules. Clearly not planned. Has Europe realised that BREXIT is gaining support? How many more rabbits will be drawn from EU hats between now and 23rd June?

It was interesting to tour the Highlands of Scotland a few weeks before the Scottish Independence referendum to test my view that Scotland would be stronger in the Union, and thus the vote would be to stay part of the UK. Having purposely stayed in B&B and small privately owned hotels it was interesting to speak privately with the Scottish people about their thoughts. In those 8 days only one person clearly stated that they wanted independence. Much was offered by the UK Government in fear of the noise by those shouting ‘independence’. Had they copied my trip they would determine that no deals were necessary. Everyone else was keeping their thoughts to themselves because of what they were seeing in places like Glasgow where Alex Salmond’s equivalent of Hitler’s brown shirt nationalistic youth movement were intimidating those who openly wanted to remain with the UK. Come the day the silent majority, proud of their heritage within the UK, prevailed. I would therefore suggest that rabbits from the EU, at this late stage, will not work. Indeed, I think the canny Scots are likely to deal Nicola Sturgeon a blow in the EU referendum. Ouch, Nicola.

Then we have the third fiscal rule imposed upon himself regarding converting the current budget deficit into a surplus by the end of this parliament. The general view on this pronouncement is that he needs a major event, such as an exit from the EU, to provide a credible excuse for missing this target, as most surely will be the case. But not because of misguided ambition as a budget surplus should be the goal for fiscal prudence, but the target has to be reasonably achievable with a balanced approach. Ouch for political ambition.

And Peter Mandelson amused me by suggesting that if Maggie Thatcher was still in charge that she would vote to stay in. Having known her views, I’m sure that she found the surrender of so much UK sovereignty to the EU by Tony Blair in her final years as depressing, and would certainly have returned from negotiations with a credible reform deal before even thinking of such a stand to remain a member. It was also interesting that Mandelson had conveniently forgotten that he proposed we join the Euro. Beware of the so-called Prince of Darkness.

Then I read a City Comment in the London Evening Standard by a journalist with the name of Anthony Hilton. Firstly, he was abusing a quote by a long deceased industrialist, Sir Arnold Hall, “What problem do we have which is so serious that (BREXIT) could possibly provide the answer”? Then he used comparators that demonstrated his armchair approach to journalism. For example, he states that the German economy can operate very well within the EU, so why can’t the UK? If he remotely understood the difference between the German and the UK economies he would understand the answer. Whereas the UK sits with the USA economy as an outsider, or open structure, the German economy is quite the opposite as an insider, or closed structure. Ownership of German companies is protected with incestuous patrimonial linkages between German banks and companies, with preferential proxy votes and cross-shareholdings. Foreign ownership of a German company is so rare that it is major news. An example of the vast difference this closed structure reveals can be illustrated by reference to the steel dumping by China. The incestuous linkages in Germany mean that steel users (car production construction, and other major engineering companies) can be compelled to buy from German steel manufacturers rather than buying cheaper steel being dumped by China. This is protectionism. Our open system cannot compel our companies to use British steel. So when our steel companies suffer the impact of dumping we can do nothing about it because it would require Government intervention – not allowed by the EU. And will Germany fully support an anti-dumping campaign against China – not likely as China is an important market for Germany exports. We should also remember that Germany makes the trade rules within the EU to favour Germany, as with the Euro fiscal policy.

He further cites Wolfgang Schäuble, the German Finance Minister, and one of the nationalistic dinosaurs standing in the way of the much needed radical EU reform, who stated at the recent BCC conference that, after BREXIT, any trade deal with the EU would be conditional on maintaining free movement, and continuation of some form of payment into Brussels. This is typical scaremonger nonsense. Do the USA, or even Canada suffer such impositions in their trade agreements? The German Foreign Minister was far more realistic. He endorsed the view that a free trade deal would be agreed within days of BREXIT irrespective of EU political views not least because the German Government would be bombarded by their major companies and banks because of the high level of exports to the UK, not to mention that imports from Germany to the UK are significantly larger than UK exports to Germany.

I could further dismantle his arguments, but would suggest that he listens to someone like Sir Peter Hargreaves, the co-founder of the very successful Hargreaves Lansdown investment manager, who has a real-world experience and suggest that not only would the UK be better off outside of the EU, but such a stimulus would re-energise the British people to take more pride in the UK, buy British, and put the ‘Great’ back into Britain. For certain the UK has problems in productivity, poor venture investment, and lack of manufacturing. Perhaps a refusal by the EU to provide goods will stimulate the UK to make their own – a boost to employment, and needed reduction in the balance of payments – all positive. We could also relabel our much heralded sparkling wine as Champagne (as do the Americans), retain our traditions of sausages, Cornish pasties, pork pies et al without meddling interference in the British way of life from Brussels.

My final observation for today is the visit by Obama to Cuba. The opportunity to re-engage with Cuba has been staring at Europe for some years, with the doors open to engage. Whilst visiting a few years ago on an exploratory trip ‘America’ still invoked hatred with the Cuban people because of the Bay of Pigs incident. The opportunities for European businesses was considerable, as was the opportunity to substantially re-establish original European businesses in sugar, and other agri-products, as well as new off-shore oil & gas finds. The inward looking nature of the EU has surrendered this opportunity to the USA who will now move in and, no doubt, ignore repatriation of former European assets. The British understand the importance of such opportunities because of their historic trans-global, outward view of the world, in stark contrast to the introspective view of the EU.

Let us hope that the coming weeks are somewhat quieter, and less damaging.

 

 

BREXIT – What Deal?

univestBREXIT – What Deal?

When David Cameron elected to engage in a referendum regarding UK membership of the EU his pronouncement was that he would seek much needed fundamental reform to the EU, or support an ‘out’ vote. These reforms included substantial issues such as curtailing the role of the European Court of Human Rights in UK determinations, to scrap the Human Rights Act, reclaiming sovereignty for both our parliament and our judicial system, and to have sanction over immigration into the UK.

What he achieved is zero reform; only some tweaking at the fringes which, until written into Treaty are no more than what the Courts call mitigating circumstances in determinations, the existing Treaty being the fundamental basis on which they will make determinations. Few, if any of the EU leaders who agreed this tweaking will be in office when the next Treaty is discussed, and the European Parliament can most certainly vote down any, if not all of the concessions. Thus why the ‘deal’ is already in the dim past of the EU referendum debate.

As a trained negotiator I have an unease about the lack of any substance to the ‘deal’ as Germany most certainly needs to keep us within. Did Cameron not have the heart for such a negotiation? Is there a deal behind the scenes regarding the future of Cameron? Was he the wrong man to negotiate? History may tell us the answer, but until then we must accept that the ‘deal’ does not remotely meet with the initial basis of the referendum.

I am not going to debase my discussion by using speculative monetary values, or the use and abuse of statistics. As it is clear to see in the media the business and financial community are divided on opinion based on their specific vested interests – thus irrelevant. As argued in previous blogs this debate is about the future of the people in the UK. All of the economic and political arguments pale against the right outcome for the British way of life. Business and finance will continue regardless of the choice made in June. As one dear lady so elegantly put it in a Jeremy Vine interview last week, ‘so-called experts built the Titanic, but not the Ark’.

I do not believe the people of the UK will engage with the current political and business debate. So let us bring the argument down to a reasonable comparator argument that anyone can understand. Our base will be a recently new golf club where the charter debenture holders (the people who essentially financed the building of the club) sought preferential treatment as part of their contribution. This creates a two-tiered system of membership even though much of their initial investment has been redeemed through subsequent debenture sales. What will happen over time is policy committee members will change, and privileges of the charter members will become fuzzy, and erode, until they have no more privileges than any other member, i.e. harmonising rights to all members. This is what will most certainly happen in the EU. Fuzzy memberships such as Norway, the UK, and Switzerland will be tolerated in the short-term, but over time the boundaries will be eroded until they are eradicated. In Political Risk parlance this is called creeping expropriation. If the UK elects to remain an EU member it will most certainly not retain any special status over time.

The generally accepted current situation of the EU is fragile, and in need of serious reform. So what is the future if the UK votes to remain within – uncertainty. What is the future if the UK votes to leave the EU – uncertainty. So what is the difference – control of the uncertainty. The UK is not a Switzerland or a Norway. The UK is the 5th largest economy in the world – and carries much power and influence in the world in its own right (as endorsed by the German Foreign Minister on Radio 4).

Let us look at uncertainty, again in an easily understandable form. Uncertainty is as much part of life as day and night. The obvious relevant examples are life-changing decisions to get married, have children, or God forbid – divorce. They all require uncertain adaptability, but are all undertaken with the hope to a better future. For a while they can be a struggle, but the outcome is generally worth it. Ask any woman who has gone through labour, but yielded a healthy baby – the pain of labour is soon forgotten. A BREXIT includes a 2 year ‘grandfather clause’ where all of our existing relationships with the EU continue giving time to agree alternatives such as free trade agreements. The UK will see some immediate benefits in that the irksome elements of the Human Rights Act can be ignored, immigration can be brought under control, and our transport infrastructure can quickly progress without the interminable interference of Brussels. Therefore, our uncertainty has a short-term safety net which negates the scaremonger argument that the short-term will be turbulent; but does have some valuable upsides. The UK successfully recovered from 2 World wars without help, so a relatively simple exit from the EU should be a breeze. I would suggest that most people will not feel any immediate difference.

There is one element of the uncertainty that I have yet to see any comment. What is likely to happen to the EU without the UK as a member. There are a number of relevant uncertainties. Other net contributor countries could see the UK exit as a sign that the current EU model is really broke, and thus elect to do the same – especially as the EU will have to increase contributions of other member States to fill the vacuum left by the considerable contribution by the UK. The right-wing elements of France could rise and depose the French Government. France has much to lose by a UK exit. Where were these concerns in the deal negotiations – or wasn’t the threat of the UK leaving a serious consideration?

If Germany can find the means to support the Eurozone then it will more rapidly consolidate its hold over the Euro countries – and the people of the UK will be thankful that they departed. Of course we still have the Greek issue which will most certainly be a thorn in the side of Germany – will this lead to conflict within the Eurozone? We have seen that the poor response by Germany to the economic situation in the Eurozone when they refused quantitative easing some 4 years ago. The too little – too late plan by the ECB yesterday was greeted with derision by the markets.

The UK has a proud history as the banking centre of the world boasting excellence in financial capability (even when Labour are in Government), and the ability of the UK to rise from both the irresponsible spending of the last Labour Government and the financial crisis lays testimony to the intelligent and speedy response to such events. Should this be sacrificed to the incapable Eurozone mandarins who clearly do not have the experience, or the global market understanding?

In summary BREXIT will yield uncertainty whichever way it goes. Therefore, the issue is whether or not the people of the UK want control over such uncertainty, or do they want to surrender decisions to Brussels – unaccountable to the people of the UK, and not so interested in preserving the British way of life.

 

 

The Foundation Stones of the BREXIT issue

The Foundation Stones of the BREXIT issue Before embarking in any detail blogs regarding the political and economic merits relating to BREXIT I would like to consider the environment leading to thi…

Source: The Foundation Stones of the BREXIT issue

The Foundation Stones of the BREXIT issue

img1The Foundation Stones of the BREXIT issue

Before embarking in any detail blogs regarding the political and economic merits relating to BREXIT I would like to consider the environment leading to this referendum.

I think what is happening in the USA at this time allows us to sit back and observe what happens when the people feel that politics is stagnant, and thus irrelevant. If we use a simile of the US Congress and the House of Representatives as two conflicting factions of Europe, and President Obama as the people wanting to move forward in their lives but stifled by the conflict, then we can understand why Donald Trump is doing so well. My view is that the European Commission has lost sight of the problems in Europe being more interested in the degree of curvature of a banana than the real problems of economic inequality, global instability, and now the refugee crisis. Indeed, the refugee crisis demonstrates the difference between out-of-touch grandstanding vision, and reality.

In the late 1970’s, my mentor, Walter Wriston, and probably the most influential banker in the world at the time responded to my question regarding the political influences on deregulation of financial services and global capital flows (Big Bang in 1986) by stating that politicians come and go. Business drives economic prosperity, and the banks are the enduring stable force to ensure the required liquidity to facilitate global trade. I have never forgotten his response, essentially because it has shown over the years to be the case. I was also taught by him that there are two factors in global business decision making; inevitability, and consequence. To him (in 1979) deregulation of financial services was inevitable, with timing being the only consequence of interference from politicians.

I had the opportunity to attend a presentation to senior bankers by Jacques Delors when President of the European Commission. He was expounding ever closer European union in his attempt to convince senior bankers of the merits of forcing European federalism upon the UK. I suggested to him that businessmen, rather than politicians, would drive any unity in Europe, if deemed beneficial, while the politicians were still talking about it. Even his (French) economic adviser could not dispute the reality of my comment. It was interesting last week to see how few of the CEO’s of major corporates in the UK were prepared to openly endorse the views of David Cameron regarding BREXIT.

My opinion from many years of experience throughout the world is that the EU model is broke. The Cameron negotiations demonstrated that there is no appetite from vested interest parties to fix it other than tinker at the edges. In recent years the faults in the USA federal model have clearly demonstrated how damaging such models can be to the people when vested political interests can completely stifle the function of Government, and thus damage the lives of the people it is there to protect. Therefore, the only other route is to let the EU empire fall, and then remodel into something more worthy of consideration by the people. Does the UK want to be part of this (inevitable?) decline when it has other options? I think that a risk analysis would err on the side of caution, i.e. stand outside as a spectator and watch. And let us not forget that the Greek crisis revealed another truth – that the big decisions were made in Berlin – not Brussels.

Business will always find a way to trade, and thus survive. Thus BREXIT is only about the people of the UK, and their influence over decisions regarding their own future.

To Be, or Not to Be (in the EU)? That is the question

img1To Be, or Not to Be (in the EU)? That is the question

At last we have a definitive timeline to determine our future. Do we want to be ruled by a Germanic invasion of Europe for the third attempt in a hundred years, or do we rely on our historic past and save Europe from a model that was broke the day the Euro was introduced?

Having not yet analysed in full the proposed deal agreed by David Cameron last week, I can only comment on what he says he has achieved, having twice listened to his claims. The first alarm bell was the excessive use of Aristotle pathos during the Andrew Marr interview Sunday morning. Invariably a sign of a weak argument.

Let us quickly deal with benefits as this is only window dressing at just £30m or thereabouts per year. The UK net membership contribution is some five times this amount per week – some £2 per head of every man, woman and child in the UK. And what about the money sent to support families in places such as Africa, India and Pakistan every year. Add to this people from places such as Switzerland who come here to retire to take advantage of our NHS, our subsidised travel costs for pensioners, and our substantially lower cost of living – what have they contributed to our country? I would argue that child credits should be paid to every worker at the same level assuming they are paying UK taxes. The fact that their children are in another country should be seen as a saving as they receive their education and healthcare outside of our system. If these children lived in the UK then they would not only receive child credit but also incur costs for education and healthcare. This would amount to considerably more Government support than £21 per week. People who come here only to sponge on our benefits system, or even our NHS, should most certainly be refused entry.

His scaremongering essentially revolves around trade and defence. I found it bizarre that he puts our membership of the EU on the same context as our membership to the UN, NATO, G7, etc. This is comparing apples and bananas. We sit at the top table at the UN, NATO, G7, etc whereas we are a secondary player in the EU, tolerated primarily because of our historic influence in the world, and our substantial contribution in membership fees (without which the EU is likely to collapse). Last week the German Foreign Minister, speaking on Radio 4, clearly stated that the UK leaving will substantially reduce the influence of the EU in the world. He recognised that the UK is a primary driver in global influence of the EU, and we would most certainly retain our influence. We are the fifth largest economy in the world, and we benefit from an historic trans-global approach to the world. I find the EU extremely introspective. Ask someone in China where is Brussels, and then where is London – the easiest example to support my argument.

As for trade, we constantly hear from politicians wishing to stay within the EU that the EU is our largest trading partner, and indeed some claim that the EU is the largest trading bloc in the world. Rubbish and rubbish. We import some £300 billion per annum in goods and services from the EU – about two months worth of our overall trade. We sell considerably less to the EU. Our largest investment market is the USA, and we would be far better served in exports by nurturing our Commonwealth nations who constitute some 1.85 billion people as against some 340 million people in the EU. Politicians in the EU would impose trade barriers against the UK at their peril – of their own corporate leaders. Ask the USA, whose corporates are still trying to recover from the ill-considered trade barriers set by the USA in the 1970’s and 1980’s.

Our finance sector is another scaremonger tactic. I found the statement, purportedly from HSBC, that should the UK leave the EU then they will have to establish investment banking activities in Paris as ludicrous as moving their headquarters back to Hong Kong. They might decide, as is normal practice in banking, to establish themselves within a market – but Paris? I also do not expect Deutschebank to reduce its presence in the City of London any time soon as the EU will need the capital raising capability of the City.

What Cameron did not achieve is any real movement in our sovereignty, as it is referred to, and the primary reason declared for Boris Johnson electing for the out of Europe campaign. Our legal system is considered as one of the best in the world, especially for trade and finance – and thus the dominance of the City of London. Its strength is that it grew with the market, and continues to rapidly evolve as is required to meet new challenges – and it is trusted. The continuing imposition of EU law can only impede our ability to retain this dominant position, and thus the dominance of the City – as has been attempted twice during my life as a banker. Germany has never been trans-global in its finance policy, and is invariably behind the curve on matters economic. For example, they dithered for some 3 years about quantitative easing meaning everyone within the Euro suffered.

The only applause to Cameron is for forcing the EU to agree a new deal in time for the referendum to occur whilst Angela Merkel is still in her final weeks of office. Politically well played – that is until Merkel’s response to the refugee crisis went sour. Had Merkel not lost her support within Germany she would have done whatever necessary to avoid the EU collapsing on her watch. There are now whispers that two other net contributor countries are considering following our lead out of the EU. Will the unelected grey suits in Brussels get the message? Today my vote is for Rule Britannia.

More to follow as the detail evolves.

The General Election 2015 – A Sorry Tale

univestThe General Election 2015 – A Sorry Tale

Are we all now completely disillusioned with the current General Election? Whatever happened to integrity of manifestos and campaigning? Now it’s down to who has got the biggest ……

It is also noteworthy that Ed Balls has been demoted to the second rank of campaigners. The stench of his part in the last Labour Government, plus the number of times he stood at the dispatch box during the recent term condemning economic policy which actually worked in spite of the debacle in the Eurozone. So much for the Eurozone signally the end of Rule Britannia as and when we leave the EU –  it’s the EU that will collapse as well it should – for the third time.

Whilst I appreciate that some greedy bankers created havoc in the financial markets right under the eyes of the so-called regulators, this was mainly in the USA. The previous Labour Government had still spent all of the people’s hard earned taxes on populist social experiments that all failed, or left the public sector in substantial dire straits, e.g. PFI for hospitals and school that can no longer afford the poorly negotiated high payments. Indeed I am struggling to recall one Labour Government since WWII that did not leave the country bankrupt or near bankrupt with the banks being called upon to use the might of the London financial markets to beg, borrow, or otherwise as much foreign money as possible to keep the country afloat. Thus why Maggie Thatcher spent so much energy putting the “Great” back into Great Britain. I also remember that when Tony Blair took office the previous Conservative Government left him with a surplus in the Treasury.

So what about our lefty Ed Milliband; what will he do? An accountant friend of mine has put together a little tale of how our tax and benefits system will work using Ed’s plan. It is a sobering message.

Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

  • The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing
  • The fifth would pay £1
  • The sixth would pay £3
  • The seventh would pay £7
  • The eighth would pay £12
  • The ninth would pay £18
  • And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20.” Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody’s share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage. They decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

The result was that the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a100% saving).

The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33% saving).

The seventh man now paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28% saving).

The eighth man now paid £9 instead of £12 (a 25% saving).

The ninth man now paid £14 instead of £18 (a 22% saving).

And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16% saving).

Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free.

But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got £1 out of the £20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got £10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved £1. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”

“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next week the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important – they didn’t have enough money between all of them to pay for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

German Domination of Europe – When will they learn that there is a better way

German Domination of Europe – When will they learn that there is a better way

The poignant D Day events of last Friday reminded me that this year is also the centenary since the start of the First World War, or the Great War as it is more commonly known. Although I have many good friends in Germany, and hold absolutely no prejudice against the German people of today, it occurred to me that, for 100 years, the elite of Germany have attempted to mould Europe in their own image, initially through two catastrophic world wars, and currently through self-serving political and economic influence within the European Union.

It cannot be disputed that the engine-room behind the introduction of the Euro was Germany, and in spite of the so-called stringent rules of entry into the Euro, Germany allowed such rules to be significantly relaxed to allow countries to participate where compliance with the entry rules would result in such countries otherwise unlikely to qualify for entry for years to come. It is no secret that Germany has significantly prospered under the Euro – at the expense of the other member nations. These nations now seek financial support, and the German Government have a hard time selling these bailouts to the already over-taxed German people, albeit a problem created by Germany in its self-serving quest for the domination of Europe.

Sometimes I reflect that Germany, having left Europe devastated in 1945, forgets that much of their subsequent prosperity was built on their substantial participation in the Marshall Plan (whereas the United Kingdom, as victor, did not qualify for any such support and has been required the swallow the cost of the wars, and rebuild using its own resources). As with the so-called super-model of Japanese prosperity in the 1980’s I do not subscribe to the German economic model of today, and certainly would strongly oppose this model being at the centre of the European Union. The current German economic model has a fundamental incestuous instability at its core, just like the proverbial pack of cards, and just as with Japan before its economy collapsed.

And this week the German elite are flexing their self-serving muscle again by instruction Angela Merkel to support a tame federalist like Jean-Claude Juncker as European Commission president, a move that is counter to the fundamental reforms needed by all donor nations – except Germany.

I have just noticed a news headline  ‘German chancellor Angela Merkel has cautioned David Cameron not to use threats of a UK exit from the EU in his campaign to block a federalist candidate from taking the helm of the European Commission.’

Without these reforms my view is that the UK should not threaten to leave the EU, but make it very clear to Germany through the promised referendum that the people of the UK do not see their future dominated by the German vision of Europe. Maybe then the UK will have to pick up the pieces of an imploded Europe for the third time.

The Morality of Dishonesty

univestThe Morality of Dishonesty

The following story was relayed to me in a somewhat cruder form last week. The original author is unknown to me. However it had some interesting observations and so I have edited it into a relevant form for today’s society.

A few years ago two armed thieves robbed a bank – one of them shouted: “Don’t move! The money belongs to the bank. Your lives belong to you.”  Immediately all the people in the bank laid on the floor quietly and without panic.

This is an example of how the correct wording of a sentence can make everyone change their world view.

One woman lay on the floor in a provocative manner. The older robber approached her saying, “Madam this is a robbery not a rape. Please behave accordingly.”

This is an example of how to behave professionally, and focus on the goal.

While running from the bank the younger robber (who had a University degree) said to the older robber (who barely finished basic education): “Hey, maybe we should count how much we stole.” The older man replied: “Don’t be stupid. It’s a lot of money so let’s wait for the news channels to be told how much was taken from the bank.”

This is an example of how life experience is more important than a degree.

After the robbery, the manager of the bank said to his accountant: “Let’s call the police.” The accountant replied “Wait – before we do that let’s add to the robbery the £800,000 that we took ourselves a few months ago and claim that it was stolen in the robbery.”

This is an example of taking advantage of an opportunity.

The following day it was reported in the news that the bank was robbed of £3 million.  The robbers counted the money, but they found only £1 million, so they started to grumble. “We risked our lives for £1 million, while the bank’s management stole two million pounds without blinking? Maybe it’s better to learn how to work the system, instead of being a simple robber.”

This is an example of how knowledge can be more useful than power.

Moral:  Give a person a gun, and he can rob a bank – at great personal risk. Give a person a bank, and he can rob everyone – with little personal risk.

Work Related Stress – Do Corporates understand this problem, and do they care?

univest

Work Related Stress – Do Corporates understand this problem, and do they care?

Are major corporates playing lip service to EU OSHA (The European Agency for Safety & Health at Work) guidelines on work related stress and psychosocial risks? Having recently had the opportunity to review this campaign, and the proposed methodology of incorporation into a multinational corporate environment, where the primary implementation was the proposed OSHA poster campaign, and the implied consideration was not to blame management, I have my doubts that management understand the significant impact to bottom-line resulting from a stressed workforce.

What do we mean by stress and psychosocial risks? – as defined by the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work

Psychosocial risks arise from poor work design, organisation and management, as well as a poor social context of work, and they may result in negative psychological, physical and social outcomes such as work-related stress, burnout or depression. Some examples of working conditions leading to psychosocial risks are:

  • excessive workloads;
  • conflicting demands and lack of role clarity;
  • lack of involvement in making decisions that affect the worker and lack of influence over the way the job is done;
  • poorly managed organisational change, job insecurity;
  • ineffective communication, lack of support from management or colleagues;
  • psychological and sexual harassment, third party violence.

When considering the job demands, it is important not to confuse psychosocial risks such as excessive workload with conditions where, although stimulating and sometimes challenging, there is a supportive work environment in which workers are well trained and motivated to perform to the best of their ability. A good psychosocial environment enhances good performance and personal development, as well as workers’ mental and physical well-being.

Workers experience stress when the demands of their job are greater than their capacity to cope with them. In addition to mental health problems, workers suffering from prolonged stress can go on to develop serious physical health problems such as cardiovascular disease or musculoskeletal problems.

For the organisation, the negative effects include poor overall business performance, increased absenteeism, presenteeism (workers turning up for work when sick and unable to function effectively) and increased accident and injury rates. Absences tend to be longer than those arising from other causes and work-related stress may contribute to increased rates of early retirement, particularly among white-collar workers. Estimates of the cost to businesses and society are significant and run into billions of euros at a national level.

How significant is the problem?
Stress is the second most frequently reported work-related health problem in Europe.
A European opinion poll conducted by EU-OSHA found that more than a half of all workers considered work-related stress to be common in their workplace. The most common causes of work-related stress were job reorganisation or job insecurity (reported by around 7 in 10 respondents), working long hours or excessive workload and bullying or harassment at work (around 6 in 10 respondents). The same poll showed that around 4 in 10 workers think that stress is not handled well in their workplace.

In the larger Enterprise Survey on New and Emerging Risks (ESENER) around 8 in 10 European managers expressed concern about work-related stress in their workplaces; however, less than 30% admitted having implemented procedures to deal with psychosocial risks. The survey also found that almost half of employers consider psychosocial risks more difficult to manage than ‘traditional’ or more obvious occupational safety and health risks.

Having considered these definitions, and reflected on my own experience over the years creating, changing or rescuing investment banking operations I found myself compiling my top ten reasons for stress in the workplace. In no particular order they are:

  • Managers who rule by fear and/or dictate cause stress
  • Managers who do not know how to manage people cause stress
  • Managers who fear for their own position cause stress
  • Managers promoted under the Peter Principle cause stress
  • Managers who are emotional and/or insecure in the decision process cause stress
  • Managers who promote politics or other unhealthy competition amongst their staff cause stress
  • Managers who do not have an intimate knowledge of the business cause stress
  • Inexperienced people – wrong people for the job – cause stress
  • People suffering stress in their private life are prone to suffer stress in the workplace
  • Likewise people stressed in the workplace can take it home and cause stress in their private life which then reflects back into the workplace

My generic definition of a manager in this list is a strategic or tactical role, from main Board director down to line manager.

Therefore, from my own experience over many years, both as a Director of Operations and Management Consultant, my observation is that management are by far the most significant cause of stress in the workplace. This is logical if you think about it because these are the people who define the workplace.

The workplace that I speak of is probably one of the most stressful. Investment banking operations are extremely dynamic, constantly changing to meet new market demands, every transaction dealt during a trading day must be processed that day, imperfect settlement means that on a normal day some 30% of transactions fail (significant funding and hedging cost considerations), more on a volatile trading day, and little errors can result in a high cost. A typical trading day could see some USD 3 billion of turnover with an average transaction value of some USD 4 million or equivalent in other currencies. An error of just 0.25% on such volumes could result in a daily loss of some USD 7.5 million – the cost to run such operations for 1 year. So the stakes are high, and there is no room for errors.

With this background in mind it should not be too difficult to imagine the impact of any of the stress situations that I have identified above. During my career I have experienced the stress caused by poor management ranging from excessive demand on staff both in effort and time, fear, incompetence, poor leadership, breaches of human dignity, mental cruelty, demand for favour (including sexual), and physical brutality. I have experienced the human impact caused by workplace stress, whether it be mental breakdown in the workplace requiring long-term medical treatment, broken marriages, dropout, and even a premature death resulting from a mental beating from a tyrant director. In the environments in which I have worked it would be very unusual not to experience the extremes of human behaviour as it is a dynamic people business, and attracts some of the most aggressive people, many of whom have no understanding of compassion, or consideration of the impact of their decisions on others.

Examples of managers who rule by fear and/or dictate are plentiful. These people are particularly bad if they have an emotional character, and/or are very insecure. If these people are given too much power they can raise havoc in the workplace. Whether they like you or not carries more weight than merit, and total loyalty is a pre-requisite irrespective of how bad the leadership, or poor the business decisions. Very much also depends on their mood on the day resulting in erratic business decisions. Sacrificial lambs are a feature of such people as they comply with the final phases of poor management, i.e. punishment of the innocent, and decoration of the uninvolved. A manager makes a mistake; some innocent underling becomes the sacrificial lamb and loses their job.

For those not familiar with the phases of a management doomed for failure I will recount the origin of the eight original phases, which I see have now been condensed to seven or even six. In the mid-1970’s I was with Chase Manhattan Bank engaged in a project being managed by the consulting firm Arthur Anderson (no longer with us). After the first year the progress of this project was so dysfunctional that a group of us within the bank compiled the equivalent of a university Rag Mag for Christmas 1977. We identified the phases of our dysfunctional project as Confidence, Enthusiasm, Confusion, Disillusionment, Panic, Search for the Guilty, Punishment of the Innocent, and Decoration of the Uninvolved. For those who remember we also designed the tie with the motif of a picture of an anchor with a ‘W’ underneath it as presents for the associated Arthur Anderson staff, and still widely available in the City of London. This was not my first experience of poor management, and the associated profound stresses on the staff, but it was by far my most prolonged period of continual stress as a result of chronic management.

I was later asked to restructure an investment bank where the existing debt securities operations was a shambles. Operations staff were working an average 60 – 80 hours per week, there was no integration of the various functions involved, politics and finger-pointing was rife, poor transaction processing was the norm, moral was non-existent, and systems were wholly inadequate.

Having immediately realised that the executive management was located 18 floors above the operations totally removed from what was happening, and the various departmental heads were lacking the knowledge required for the business, my first task was to make it clear to the management all the way up to chairman of the bank that there would be no interference, that no-one, including the MD and Chairman, could request anything from any of my staff without coming through me first, and that my authority extended across the trading floors. I also refused to join them, preferring to have my office within the operations area (which was later mimicked by the MD). As the former head of settlements had suffered a nervous breakdown I recruited a known entity to fulfil this role, and replaced all department heads who were either not qualified, or not capable. Within 3 months anyone still on the floor at 6pm had to write down why they were still there, and put it on my desk. This is a psychological process more for them than for me as they have to read what they have written, and thus ask themselves whether or not it is credible. I needed them to go home to their families, and return fresh the next day to meet the ever present challenges of a new trading day.

After 25 weeks we had a fully integrated professional operation with new in-house systems. Politics on the floor was actively discouraged, and my door was always open to anyone on the floor for non-business related issues. At least twice each year we had informal gatherings for all staff and their families at which other halves were actively encouraged to raise any concerns they had. For every 5 people on the floor a representative was appointed, and these people were encouraged to meet together monthly to discuss any issues affecting the working environment (necessary feedback). Their output came directly to me, was taken seriously, and corrections made when necessary. We had a hard working, but happy group of people with the only workplace stress being that caused by the normal everyday imperfections in the business sectors in which we operated.

From experience I would suggest that the maxim for a stress-free workplace is to rule by consent, and lead by example.

Before restructuring this investment bank it was losing some £2 million per month through stress related errors caused directly by poor management. Therefore corporates need to understand that the overwhelming cause of stress in the workplace is poor management. Neither poster campaigns or denial will address this problem. The impact on the bottom line can be substantial if such stress is not taken seriously.

A New Multilateralism – Realisable or Wishful Thinking?

univest

A New Multilateralism – Realisable or Wishful Thinking?

I listened to the Richard Dimbleby Lecture on Monday evening with expectation of some new thinking on the way forward. The lecture was called ‘A New Multilateralism for the 21st Century’ and was presented by Christine Lagarde, incumbent MD of the IMF. My initial reaction was that it presented some interesting ideas, but I couldn’t quite put my finger on the relevance of these ideas. So, on Tuesday, I printed off the transcript of her speech from the IMF website. Having now studied this speech in some detail I find it endorses my view that the multilateral institutions of which she leads the IMF are essentially out of touch with the real problems that we face in the 21st century.

Back in the 1970’s, during the oil boom, individuals in the Middle East were accumulating vast amounts of US Dollars in cash because Western banks did not want it. Indeed I remember Swiss banks charging up to 3% p.a. to take these deposits. I actually walked into a room in a palace and saw a pile of US Dollars, and was told that this pile amounted to USD 1 billion. In an attempt to give some visual impression of this pile I am reliably informed that a standard 40ft sea container will hold USD 1 billion in fresh print USD 100 denomination bills. This money was not participating in any economic benefit whatsoever, and there was no possibility that the owner could reasonably consume these funds in their lifetime. Yet just one mile away there were ordinary working people struggling to find the money for their next meal. It occurred to me that if these funds were deposited with SAMA, and used productively producing even a nominal return, such return could be used productively to provide food for these people without any degradation to the original money. Yet the owner had no interest in such a proposition, and was content to accumulate yet more piles to look at.

Unfortunately this sorry tale has since increased in propensity, and as we saw a few weeks ago, Oxfam calculated that the 85 richest people have the same wealth as the bottom half of the World’s population. Christine Lagarde added that the richest 1% in the USA captured 95% of all income gains since 2009, yet the number of people in the USA needing food parcels to survive is now reaching pandemic proportions. She further states that in India the net worth of the billionaire community increased 12 fold in the past 15 years, enough to eliminate the poverty of that country twice over. So why has she not rationalised this into the real threat to the World Order in the 21st century?

We have seen so many billionaires created out of emerging economies such as the former Soviet Union, China, and India, sapping vast amounts of sovereign assets. The rapid nature of such wealth creation should arouse suspicion. However the point that I make is that somehow a few own wealth beyond any reasonable expectation of spending throughout their life. Many will say that they invest much of their wealth, but this only increases their existing wealth. Having met a number of these oligarchs their primary objective is to continue to increase their wealth, usually at the expense of others.

What about if each billionaire set aside USD 1 billion for investment and applied just the income to relieving poverty.

In 2013 an investment return of 15%+ was easily achievable. This would provide in excess of USD 150 million from each billion invested. The billionaire has not lost their capital, but much could be achieved with the income stream. Of course a few of these billionaires are already philanthropic and names like Bill Gates easily come to mind, and who clearly understands that he does not need such vast wealth, so uses his business judgement to make every dollar count in his selected beneficial projects.

Having brushed along with the World Bank, the IMF, and the UN for over 30 years I would suggest that they are political institutions populated by political appointees and academics who have no idea about the real world. I have witnessed a number of World Bank projects which did no more for the recipient country than to provide work for a donor country corporate, create an inappropriate monster that, within 5 years, was derelict leaving the recipient with sovereign debt but with no value to show for it. I have also seen appropriate solutions costing a fraction of the price of the expensive inappropriate concrete alternative discarded because the amount of the appropriate solution did not warrant World Bank intervention. It is interesting that Christine Lagarde acknowledges that it was the fast response of the G20 that stopped the world descending into meltdown 5 years ago rather than the institutions such as the World Bank and IMF founded to deal with such events. I think that this is a good template to use in stating that the current multilateral institutions are not good at delivering effectively solutions.

Although I am clearly in support of the outcome of Bretton Woods, we should also remember that not enough people there were visionary enough to accept all of the ideas of Keynes, and which were subsequently quickly adopted as catastrophe loomed, e.g. removal of the gold standard. Other than those wearing rose tinted spectacles no-one would suggest that the institutions that emerged remotely fulfil their ambitious mandates. I have already mentioned the lack of effectiveness of the World Bank and the IMF, and the UN is little more than a toothless talking shop today – Bosnia being a classic failure.

Christine Legrande suggests that the multilateral outcome of Bretton Woods produced ‘unprecedented economic and financial stability …. Disease eradication, conflict diminished, child mortality reduced, life expectancy increased, and hundreds of millions lifted out of poverty’.

Do we not count Korea, Vietnam, Congo, Sudan, Yugoslavia, Israel, Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria …….etc as conflicts? All consumed the lives of many thousands of people including Western soldiers, left chaos and destruction in their wake, and they are still very much in our minds today. When was the last time that the USA was conclusively successful in any serious military conflict? Therefore Europe and the USA may have seen peace and prosperity since Bretton Woods but how many thousands of American and European soldiers and civilians have died in the name of preserving this peace?

To suggest that Europe has been conflict free is also short-sighted. In the past 6 years Europe has been involved in an economic war. Not too many people killed with bullets and bombs, but many have become disenfranchised, lost everything, displaced, and descended into poverty. Is this not symptomatic of a conventional war? When the vision of a European Union was first put to the people the rhetoric promised peace and prosperity for all citizens. I accept that the banking crisis made a bad situation worse, but how many European politicians in France, Greece, Spain, Italy, Ireland and the UK breathed a sigh of relief that they could hide their failure to create a credible EU behind the banking crisis?

Let us examine the two reference dates that she used, i.e. 1914 and 1944. She suggests that prior to 1914 the birth of the modern industrial society brought about massive dislocation between protectionist nations, and inequality between the ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’. Take away the country boundaries, essentially the impact of the digital age, and what is different today?

So where do I see the powder kegs of the 21st Century? Perhaps controversially I do not see the North-South Conflict as a major threat. An implosion within the Islamic community is more likely with primarily Sunni against Shi’a. If you think about it, most of the current conflicts involve the Islamic nations, and are driven by extreme religious division. The intervention by the West in some of these conflicts in the name of protecting the West has no logical outcome. These people have no regard for Western democratic values, or of secular tolerance.

At one end of the spectrum we have the blatant inequality of the distribution of wealth. We are experiencing 2 critical phenomena, both of which are counterproductive to a peaceful, all inclusive world. We have individuals and corporates accumulating vast wealth to the point where the resulting power exceeds that of some major nations. Albeit a few of these have taken a philanthropic stance we should note that such philanthropists are mostly from Western countries. Many of the new billionaires are from emerging or developing economies where democracy does not really mean very much, and a market society is the norm, i.e. everything has a price, even social and civic values. All we need is a charismatic megalomaniac, as depicted by the Carver character in the James Bond movie, ‘Tomorrow Never Dies’, to cause chaos and suffering for many throughout the world. Unfortunately Western civilisation has degraded over the past couple of decades towards a market society thus adding a significant sting to the ever increasing differential between the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’. For example diminish the rights of the ‘have nots’ to education, justice, political influence, and healthcare because they have no money and you have a significant pool of would-be terrorists for our megalomaniac to exploit because they have nothing else, and nothing to lose.

Then we have corporate greed. So what can the people see? During the past 6 years the people have become very aware that their corporate executives have suppressed the salaries of the workers (the value drivers) to below inflation levels whilst increasing their own already attractive remuneration by some 40% average, and which has been allowed by investors because dividends have been maintained to these investors. So the people at the top have handsomely profited whilst real income to the workers has diminished. So much for sharing the pain. In addition these executives are immune to any accountability should they fail. Have any of the avaricious people who profited from the banking crisis been prosecuted, or had their ill-gotten gains repossessed? The banks themselves are being penalised by regulators who should have been more alert to the problems in the first place, and some of these funds do go to Government coffers. But these large fines diminish the capital of the banks, and thus inhibit their capability to finance the very enterprise we need to re-energise the employment market, i.e. they inadvertently stifle recovery, increasing disenfranchised young entrepreneurs.

At a micro scale we can look at the fate of RBS under Fred Goodwin. He was a megalomaniac trying to build the biggest bank in the world. Everyone I spoke to in the City of London at the time leading up to the acquisition of ABN Amro agreed that the terms of that deal, at twice the price that anyone else was prepared to consider, was insane. Yet no-one stepped in to stop him. How much pain, and destroyed lives has RBS caused to many thousands of people. But Fred Goodwin is made for life financially; so well in fact that sticks and stones may break his bones, but he will not lose a night’s sleep over the names that he is called.

At the other end of the spectrum we have the demographic issue. We have already seen a growing view amongst the young generation of workers that their taxes should not be funding the pensions and healthcare of the graying generation. The younger generation see that they have to pay taxes to support the pensions of an ever increasing graying population, and being told that they also have to contribute a significant proportion of their disposable income to their own pension provisions as State pensions will slowly but surely phase out by the time they retire. All of this at a time when real incomes are diminishing in real purchase power terms. Rightly the graying population state that they have paid their taxes, in the form of a special National Insurance tax specifically for the right to a State pension and healthcare, throughout their working lives and thus their State pension is rightfully theirs. The problem is that successive Governments have not ring-fenced these contributions over the years, preferring to spend it in the hope that future generations with continue to fund the requirement; a little like a Ponzi scheme. Add to this the migration of young labour where they have no historic interest in the local graying population, and expect to be able to send money home to support their own aging family, and we have potential serious discourse and unrest. Bring both of the above phenomena together and we have a powder keg just looking for a fuse.

So from where can our fuse emerge? Our fuse already exists in the form of the global internet, social networking, and twitter. Christine Lagarde is right in that the Arab Spring was fuelled by the galvanising of the people through media such as Twitter and social media. But likewise these facilities can also be used to fuel discontent and confusion. Great philosophers such as Aristotle, Kent and Hume have all commented on the importance of gossip to the masses, and our lesser quality media thrives on this obsession. So the touch paper is a disenfranchised charismatic individual or group exploiting the power of gossip through Twitter and social networks. We have seen the impact of disenfranchised ‘have nots’ in riots in many cities over recent years. It is when all of these groups can be galvanised together that we need to be concerned.