Category Archives: Economy

Whither the Welfare State?

Sea wall and railway
Image via Wikipedia

Or should that be “wither” as it’s clearly time to change the model dramatically – a model which was developed after the last war, in a very different world?

As Dr Adrian Rogers quite famously put it, “You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the industrious out of it. You don’t multiply wealth by dividing it. Government cannot give anything to anybody that it doesn’t first take from somebody else. Whenever somebody receives something without working for it, somebody else has to work for it without receiving. The worst thing that can happen to a nation is for half of the people to get the idea they don’t have to work because somebody else will work for them, and the other half to get the idea that it does no good to work because they don’t get to enjoy the fruits of their labour.”

Having only moved to England a few weeks ago, I find it’s interesting to listen to what people here are saying about the “welfare state” issues, particularly at the moment when it’s clear that the new government has no chance but to make some dramatic changes to the way things have been done in the past 13 years of Labour Party rule.

But it seems that it’s not just the country that Labour has brought to the edge of bankruptcy: former Deputy Prime Minister under Tony Blair, John Prescott, has told us that the Labour Party itself is in danger of bankruptcy, with debts of some £20M ($30M) through a combination of over-spending and poor accounting: ironically making the announcement on the day that Tony Blair’s new investment bank was being registered… At least the party was consistent with its approach to finance, even if the former Prime Minister seems to have profited most handsomely from his time in office.

However, I digress. The basic issue, as Dr Rogers so succinctly put it, is that Governments can’t just create money magically, but can only redistribute money from one part of society to another, and the more that people want to take, the more that others are forced to give.

Few people doubt that societies should help those within them that are unable to fend for themselves – this compassion, after all, is what is supposed to make us human – but the question today is how much help should be given and to whom. I find it astonishing, for example, that there are families in England who have not worked at all for three generations, and simply live off benefits. Others, who receive free housing, believe it should be their right to pass these houses onto other family members. Girls find that being a single parent is a profitable enterprise, and start to have babies at a very young age, then turn to the state for housing and benefits, and are able to live comfortably without working. The list of abuses to the system is endless…

Clearly this is wrong. We should protect those unable to work for reasons of frailty, but those who are healthy should have a defined maximum period – say 6 months – on “free” benefits and then should start “earning their keep.” If they can’t find a paying job within that period, the welfare authorities should have them working for the society that is housing and feeding them – there is so much that needs to be done, from infrastructure development and maintenance to helping the elderly and the sick (hospital porters, for example), and would provide benefits in return for such work. This would not only help motivate them to find more steady (and, perhaps, comfortable) work, but reduce the costs of running local authorities as much of the work could be done by those on benefits.

What do you think – should benefits be given without restriction, or should recipients who are able to do so be obliged to “earn” their benefits, and help the society that is providing them in return?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Not Really a Global Economy

My Pocket Contents
Image by William Hook via Flickr

The news continues to be full of stories around the Global Economy and how companies increasingly operate independent of national boundaries – so that one could be forgiven for believing that we really do live in a global economy.

However, as my current experience of relocating to a “First World” country – England – shows, where one would expect that things do operate in this way, the reality is very different and the Global Economy seems a long way off.

Certainly, some things work well – one can move money between bank accounts across multiple geographies easily (provided, of course, your accounts are all with one bank, otherwise it’s far more complicated). Mobile telephones also operate well across boundaries, although you pay handsomely for making and receiving calls when away from the country where your phone is registered – profiteering, perhaps?

However, the rather large holes in this Global Economy story (myth?)  have really been exposed when trying to establish myself with the basics here.

  • Renting a home – this is far from simple. You have to get credit reference agencies involved and they require enormous amounts of information. Simply giving them details of your bank/s and relationship managers isn’t enough: you have to do all the leg work yourself.
  • Insurance – amazingly, motor insurance companies apparently don’t give credit for a no-claims driving record in countries like Dubai (an extremely challenging environment as anyone who has driven there will attest), although they are happy to do so for comparatively tame driving countries like New Zealand, so no more no-claims bonus on motor insurance…
  • Telephones – it took me a week to establish that I COULD get Blackberry Services on a Pay As You Go basis (I was told by some mobile operators and some phone shops that this was impossible for the first week, but kept researching until I found it could be done).

In fact, for most general things (even using your new bank account’s debit card) the over-riding requirement is for a local Post Code (you’re asked for this the whole time), so if you’re still trying to set things up and don’t yet have a fixed abode, you end up having to borrow a post code and address from a willing friend or relative for even simple transactions.

Why is it, that with a 30+ year history of banking, credit, insurance, telephone, etc., etc., usage in countries like South Africa and Dubai (countries that have “First World” standards of traceability on such things) I have to start over? One would think this information would be available to the relevant companies and authorities in other countries, but it seems to be only the case for adverse information and anyone else is “guilty until they prove themselves innocent.”

So much for the Global Economy – or is it just a case of laziness and profiteering?

———-

P.S. This relocation process is, of course, the reason for my lack of blogs recently – I hope to be back to regular blogging in September.

Regular readers will notice the banner picture change to reflect my new home…

Enhanced by Zemanta

The End of Cash?

Image representing iPhone as depicted in Crunc...
Image via CrunchBase

It’s interesting to see the number of recently introduced products coming to market which are designed to, in effect, remove the need for cash.

One that has garnered particular attention recently is, of course, Square. This comprises a small application that resides on your iPhone (or iPad, iPod Touch) or Android phone, together with a little reader that plugs straight into the audio input jack of the phone and turns it into a personal credit card payment machine that will allow the user to accept credit card payments from anyone for a small fee (typically 2.75% + 15c). With no costs for set-up, application or card reader this is sure to change the game for those tens of millions of small businesses, traders and professionals that have, until now, fallen outside the electronic payment net because they are too small for the card companies to serve cost-effectively.

But Square is not alone – Obopay allows anyone with a  mobile phone to set up an Obopay account and, for just 25-50c (plus 1.5% if you’re using a credit card to fund your account) send money – in other words, make a payment – to anyone else with a mobile phone, whether or not that person already has an Obopay account. Again, there are no setup costs.

And then there’s Intuit with its GoPayment service that also enables credit card payments from a mobile phone – this time with a Bluetooth reader – at a cost of 1.7% + 30c per transaction, although this service does have a monthly service cost of $12.95 attached to it (I wonder for how long, though, given the competition above).

Doubtless there are many others, too, either in stealth mode at present or on the drawing board.

What’s more, these systems allow you to build purchase histories by customers, offer loyalty programs and great levels of service more simply than the straightforward cash systems did – so even the smallest businesses can step up their marketing at little or no cost.

At present, all these products only work for you if you’re a US-resident/business, but it’s only a (hopefully short) matter of time before they go global and the way of transferring value changes forever from cash to electrons. No more looking for change, worrying about how the currency in a new country you’re visiting works, being concerned whether anybody’s watching as you withdraw a large amount of cash from an auto-teller…. And, of course, if you’re a small business, no more concerns about having the right change for those large notes that auto-tellers like to give, about the value sitting in your till, or being worried when taking your cash to deposit it.

It’s going to be interesting to see how society changes over the next generation as we move from cash altogether. Will the nationalistic bonds to a currency (and the resulting issues of payments from/to different countries and with travel) be removed, and could we find a common global currency?

And, of course, we’re seeing the continued drive for the mobile phone to be less a telephone and more a personal digital assistant in every way – clock, alarm, calendar, address book, diary, music player, radio, newspaper, camera, voice recorder and now, wallet. As an aside, it’s interesting to see how many of the Generation Ys don’t wear watches – their phones tell them the time. Has the watch industry got an answer to this, its potentially biggest threat?

We’re at a very interesting point in the 5000 year evolution of money as we know it. Will it disappear completely as a physical object in the next 20 years?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Can Europe Survive? Life after Katla…

Katla
Image via Wikipedia

The recent chaos surrounding the eruption of the Eyjafjallajökull volcano in Iceland – with effects being felt globally in terms of significant financial losses, disruption to travellers, disruption to food supplies, and so on – needs to provoke some serious discussion as to what actions are needed to prevent even greater, and much longer-term, chaos in the event of a more significant eruption.

After all,  history has clearly shown that when Eyjafjallajökull erupts, it’s very much larger neighbour Katla is generally not far behind, and Katla is overdue for an eruption anyway.

While the size of eruptions can never be accurately forecast, the historical evidence shows that Katla’s eruption is likely to be at least ten times the size of the Eyjafjallajökull eruption – and quite possibly more. This could mean not only significant floods of fresh glacial-melt water into the sea (a volume equal to the combined flow of the Amazon, Mississippi, Nile and Yangtze rivers is estimated to have occurred following its 1755 eruption), but a column of ash rising 20km, or more, into the jet stream and being spread over a much greater part of the Northern Hemisphere.

History has already shown some of the worst effects from major volcanic eruptions in Iceland – that of Laki in 1783 resulted in famine across Western Europe, and as far south as Egypt, one of the longest and coldest winters on record in North America, and the death of tens of thousands of people from gas poisoning and famine. It was even linked to the start of the French Revolution, where the lack of food played a significant role.

Admittedly, these are somewhat extreme examples, but they show what is possible should Katla’s eruption be a big one – and almost all experts agree that with Katla, it’s not a question of “if” but of “when” it will erupt.

So, what are some of the possible effects of a big Katla eruption?

  • Air travel – the recent 6-day chaos would potentially be dwarfed by one that could last months. This would not only impact passengers, but freight, too. Tourism would certainly be impacted negatively, but so would food imports and general freight movement.
  • Agriculture – the impact of a prolonged cold spell would drastically affect crop production in Europe and, potentially, elsewhere in the Northern Hemisphere. For Europe, this would just add to the difficulties faced by the lack of air transport to bring in fresh produce from elsewhere.
  • Power – of course, a lengthy period of exceptionally cold weather would push up power consumption dramatically. Could Europe cope with a prolonged extra demand for power for heating?
  • Wealth – potentially a significant shift in the wealth of Europe as the combination of food shortages, collapsing tourism, freight reduction and prolonged cold takes its toll. Where would this wealth go, and who would benefit?

Disturbingly, though, little attention seems to being paid to this, in spite of the lessons we’ve learnt from Eyjafjallajökull. And if it’s not Katla, how long before another significant eruption – perhaps in Iceland, or perhaps elsewhere (Yellowstone?)…

European, and other, governments need to get together as a matter of urgency on this: the planning for overcoming the potential problems is not something that can be done overnight in a reactive manner. Rather, they need to start work today on ways to reduce the reliance on current modes of air transport (could the airship make a comeback?), to find additional reliable power sources, determine ways to source sufficient food, and so on.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Does “The Cloud” Make Sense for Business?

HANOVER, GERMANY - MARCH 01:  Illuminated plas...
Image by Getty Images via Daylife

The interest in Cloud Computing has grown exponentially in the past few months with a quick Google search on “The Cloud” and on “Cloud Computing” yielding over 25 million articles between the two phrases.

Suddenly, it seems, this is the panacea for all that ails in the technology space – or is it?

There is certainly a good deal of ongoing investment in giant data farms – although the cost of power required to run, and cool, these massive installations is now causing serious concern. I’ve seen estimates of up to 100MW for a giant server farm under development, with 50MW farms apparently not being unusual. Consequently we’re seeing imaginative schemes to overcome this in advanced stages of investigation – ranging from hydroelectric schemes in particularly cold countries with good water, like Iceland and Finland, to Scottish tidal power, to some companies even investigating building sea-platforms that use wave energy for power and sea water for cooling.

However, there is equally a slow but steady increase in governments wanting to monitor data traffic – apparently for security reasons, although I suspect there may be oversight by the fiscal authorities, too. Even Australia is talking about Internet filtering…

All of this is adding greatly to the conversation, of course, with equally strong lobbies on both sides of the debate – much around whether Cloud Computing is taking us back to the old “mainframe and dumb terminal” computing days or whether it’s taking us forward to an more secure, cost-effective era, albeit with the possibility of less flexibility with systems and information.

In my view, though, the issue of whether to adopt a Cloud architecture or not comes down to individual companies and applications – and for the purposes of this discussion, I mean a public Cloud architecture, rather than one owned by the end-user company.

To my mind, the companies that should strongly look at this approach are the SMEs (Small and Medium Enterprises). The reasons here are straightforward economics – few will have the staff or the capital resources to have a fully secure IT infrastructure, complete with Disaster Recovery. This means multiple servers in multiple locations, interconnected by very high speed links and a significant IT team managing it all, with a strong security system. By adopting Cloud architecture for most applications – including that most critical one of all for most businesses, email – the issues of security, availability, backup and full disaster recovery are outsourced to the experts and the SME gets on with running its business. That’s not to say you dispense with PCs – they will still have a strong place in many areas, from detailed individual analysis of data to creative writing, design, etc.

For large corporates, though, the issue is different. They have large IT teams. They have multiple locations, many servers and, generally, already have high-speed connections between them all. Therefore, ensuring adequate levels of security and availability while having a proper backup regimen and a full set of disaster recovery plans for each location, should be routine and already in place. For these organisations, Cloud Computing makes little sense – except, perhaps, for some specialist applications that are not available in another form.

And, of course, if all the world’s large corporates had all their corporate systems in a few locations, what a tempting terrorist target that would make – SPECTRE, of James Bond fame, would seem tame by comparison with the havoc that could be wrought in such a scenario.

So, to answer the question about whether “The Cloud” makes sense for business, my view is that for most SMEs, certainly. For large corporates, probably not. What do you think?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Is Offshoring threatened by a return to Onshoring?

CHICAGO - JUNE 16:  A demonstrator protests ag...
Image by Getty Images via Daylife

One of the potential side-effects of the global economic slowdown that could have far-reaching financial and political consequences is the question of whether offshore jobs should be brought back onshore.

After all, since the Offshoring model really started to take off in the 90s, a number of economies have become dependent on the revenues generated by their ability to provide such facilities for the historically more costly Western countries. For example, India’s business and technology services companies are estimated to have had revenues of some $58 Billion in 2008, up from just $4 Billion ten years earlier, with that sector’s export earnings (largely Offshoring) reaching an estimated $46 Billion in 2008 – offsetting some three quarters of the country’s oil imports.

The rationale for Offshoring was simple:

  • Consumers were ever-more price conscious, and companies were equally ever more cost conscious.
  • Developing economies had much lower labour rates and so could provide manufacturing and many services at significant lower cost, to the benefit of the consumer and the company.

The effects on local labour were not a serious consideration as it was widely believed that they would find alternate employment – perhaps even at a higher skills level which would earn them more money.

Of course, Offshoring was not without its challenges – issues over the quality/consistency of goods and services supplied, of cultural/language differences (especially in the services sector), of corporate governance (data and information leaks, etc.) and of differing expectations of both parties raised their heads. But these could be overcome while economies remained strong and consumers kept buying.

However, the persistence of the economic slowdown, coupled with the likelihood that unemployment in the Western democracies will remain high for the foreseeable future and the growing public debt are forcing a re-evaluation of the Offshoring model:

  • What impact will weaker Western currencies have on the production cost?
  • Will a move to new models of outsourcing – using a managed-services model with guarantees of performance/quality, as opposed to the classic “staff augmentation” model – enable total delivered cost to be lower Onshore?
  • For manufacturing, to what extent will lower transport costs of finished goods offset the higher manufacture cost of Onshore products?
  • What is the premium that can be attached to national pride (e.g. goods/services from that Onshore country)?

And then there are political considerations for the Onshore country: politicians that are seen to encourage job growth are more likely to be re-elected. What’s more, perhaps this could be done in a way that benefits that country’s fiscus, while being seen to be friendly to business and to the workforce as a whole. To what extent would tax breaks for companies bringing jobs back Onshore be offset by the additional income taxes it would gain from the newly employed, the decrease in unemployment benefits and the additional sales tax/VAT it would gain from the spending of these people?

Although a return to Onshoring may not be suitable for everything – large scale manufacturing of small, relatively low-cost items, for example – it seems to me that the benefits to a country, and to that country’s employers, of adopting a greater Onshoring model could be significant. And, if this trend took hold, the impact on Emerging markets that had come to rely on providing Offshoring could be even more significant. What do you think?

Update:
Great blog article by Derek Singleton: “5 Strategies for Growing as a Domestic Manufacturer

Liquidation – a valid way to build personal wealth?

An assortment of United States coins, includin...
Image via Wikipedia

A friend of mine in another country brought to my attention a company that is currently under voluntary liquidation – an act that reminded me of how often I’ve seen this tactic used as a convenient way of enriching oneself at the expense of others.

And isn’t enriching yourself at the expense of others in this way little more than fraud?

The problem here is that liquidation laws are necessary for a business in trouble to find a way to most fairly compensate all its creditors and close (or, in some cases, restructure) before it incurs further problems, resulting in even bigger losses for the creditors.

However, some unscrupulous people will start a business, build it over a few years to gain the trust of its suppliers and customers, and then at a point where the cash-flow starts to become problematic, put the business into voluntary liquidation and walk away from the debts. In the meantime, of course, they have paid themselves substantially in terms of salaries and bonuses – in effect, living extremely well off their creditors that are then left behind holding the proverbial baby.

While it is possible, in law, to go after these individuals and sue them for their personal assets to cover the delinquent debt, this is extremely expensive and, in order for the action to be successful you generally have to prove some form of wilful intent: always a tough thing to do, even when all the circumstantial evidence might point that way.

So, having accumulated a handy sum from this now-defunct business, they start again – looking for new victims. Mind you, some are brazen enough to start again in the same line, asking the same creditors for credit – and often, these creditors fall for it the second time, thinking that they will somehow be repaid from the profits of the new business…

And yet, these self-same businessmen will tell you that there are no victims here as their suppliers are (generally) covered by credit insurance and so will be paid out, while the credit insurer should be able to recover its money from the receivables (if it was that simple, why are they liquidating in the first place?)!

The fact is that credit insurance almost never covers the full debt, so the suppliers have a significant shortfall. On top of this, the insurance premiums invariably rise – the insurer has to covers its losses somehow, after all – and is also wary of that sector so withdraws/reduces cover for smaller, generally honest, businesses that then face genuine cash-flow crunches and may have to fold as well.

Victimless? Certainly not.

So, my question to you is this: do you believe this sort of action is legitimate, or should laws be framed to ensure that such action results in the forfeiture of assets by the liquidating party to cover the shortfall?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Get used to high inflation!

Assorted international currency notes.
Image via Wikipedia

There’s something missing from all the talk of whether or not the economic bailouts have saved the world from a depression – as opposed to a severe recession – and that’s how the massive spending by governments around the world is going to be paid for.

Perhaps it’s the “party effect.” After all, when you’re having fun at a party, nobody wants to think about the hangover that will be with you tomorrow. Not that we’re all having fun in the current recession, of course, although it could have been a lot worse. But the hangover is sure to follow.

The problem is that governments around the world have realised they are easily able to spend money they don’t have, and the recourse – if it comes at all – will come on somebody else’s watch: generally the opposition party that comes in after them. It’s nice to have your political foe lumbered with your mess…

However, the facts are clear – public debt (i.e. what governments owe) has grown at an alarming rate. Let’s look at a few examples among the world’s larger economies, showing public debt as a percentage of GDP for each country at the end of 2009 (using estimates from the CIA World Fact Book):

  • USA                       83.4%
  • Japan                    192.1%
  • Germany              77.2%
  • France                  79.7%
  • UK                         68.5%
  • Italy                      115.2%

What these huge percentages mean is that, firstly, government is over-spending dramatically and secondly, that the percentage of government income (read: taxes!) that go just on interest payments on this debt has grown to become one of the largest single budgetary items.

In fact, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) recently estimated that Japan and the UK would need to reduce government spending by 13% and the US by nearly 9% just to “restore stability” over the next decade. How can they do this with such massive bills to pay? Oh, and it’s worth noting that the public debt does NOT include provisions for future expenditure on pensions, medical assistance and other state commitments – this is only the current debt!

So, what can governments do?

Reducing government spending to any meaningful degree is often seen as political suicide – especially as elections get closer.

Raising taxes is even worse…

There are only two, linked, things they can do to get the public debt as a percentage of GDP down in a reasonable time: keep interest rates artificially low to reduce interest payments and allow inflation into the system to increase GDP and their own revenue as a result.

A 10% inflation rate over five years will reduce the percentage of public debt by close to half, assuming the GDP growth matches or exceeds the inflation rate (e.g. grows in real terms). The other benefit of this is that government revenues will increase accordingly – higher sales means more sales tax/VAT, salaries rising around inflation rate will mean more tax income (the tax decreases are always lower than the extra amount paid through “bracket creep”), and so on.

My guess is governments won’t allow 10% as it’s psychologically too high, but I expect to see inflation moving quite quickly to the high single-digit range, say, 9%. We’ll need to tighten our belts and adjust our business plans accordingly – the ride for the next decade will be somewhat rough.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Are Layoffs Bad For Business?

View of Wall Street, Manhattan.
Image via Wikipedia

“Downsizing is killing workers, the economy – and even the bottom line.”

This direct quote from an article in Newsweek of 15th February entitled “Layoff the Layoffs” rather forcefully makes the point that contrary to conventional business wisdom, the constant cycle of cutting headcount as a primary means of cutting costs is tantamount to long-term economic suicide – not to mention the effects on the health of people.

According to the article, research clearly shows a link between layoffs and lower stock prices, with the negative impact on the stock prices worsening with the size and permanence of these layoffs – in spite of the widely-held view that layoffs will boost stock prices through showing effective cost management.

Another debunked issue is that of productivity – in fact productivity per employee does not rise, no doubt due to morale issues – while a study of companies in the S&P 500 showed clearly that companies that downsize remain less profitable than those that don’t.

Adding to the profitability falls, of course, are the costs of laying off staff – both direct (severance pay, etc.) and indirect (morale, rehiring costs when things pick up, and so on). These are always woefully underestimated, as is the extent to which companies embarking on wholesale layoff programs have to rehire – at inflated cost – key staff who elected to “take the package.”

In fact, McKinsey studies over the years have shown that company executives believe that less than 40% of corporate transformations in their businesses are “mostly” or “completely” successful.
Conversely, companies that choose to find ways to weather the periodic storms are the first to recover, and do so far more strongly that those that have made significant across-the-board cuts.

Of course, there will always be times when cutting staff is unavoidable in a business – it may even be the thing that will save it from total collapse. But when this time does come, all the experts agree that it should be done in a transparent, open manner, with cuts being made in defined areas, rather than simply across the board – the all-too-frequent approach of an uninvolved management team. Getting everybody from the CEO down personally involved will get the best results, as happened with the well documented case of Malaysia Airlines a few years ago.

Hopefully this message of transparency, involvement and engagement will start to get through to company leaders as well as to the stock market and investment analysts that so many company leaders are guided by. As I mentioned in my blog post, “Leadership for the New Business World,” a new set of skills are necessary for the successful business of the future – skills that will rebuild the faith of communities in their leaders. In fact, it’s interesting to see how many of the top-rated companies in Fortune’s “Top 100 Companies to Work For” list this year have weathered the storm without across the board layoffs, with many showing positive growth in staff and even in their businesses, too.

Certainly, companies that retain their staff, and take the opportunity to hire key new ones, retain all the critical “institutional intelligence” and are best positioned for the economic upswing, as I mentioned in my blog post, “Will your business survive the upswing?

There’s no doubt – Layoffs are bad for your business, especially when handled without due care, attention and precision. Conversely, a covenant with your staff to be open, fair and honest with them at all times will go a long way to securing the long-term, profitable future of your business.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

What’s the Future of Banking?

One significant side-effect of the global financial crisis has to be a major overhaul of the world’s banking systems. They’ve been shown to be badly broken.

 After all, what is the current state of play with banks in general, when looking at their supposed core competencies?

  • Lending – very little lending activity going on, and only to those that don’t really need it (the very credit worthy);
  • Deposit-taking – although this continues, albeit at a lower rate due to the general economic woes, it’s done with caution and concern as the public no longer believes in the security of banks (the old adage about being as safe as a bank just doesn’t apply today);
  • Investment advice – does anyone trust the investment advice of banks any longer?

 And then there are peripheral activities such as credit cards – banks lowering limits, and now even looking at penalising the credit-worthy that pay up their credit card bills on time: surely a brilliant way to chase away customers…

Talking of customers: the issue of customer service is still something that few banks understand – they’re not open when customers want them to be, and are seldom found where they’re wanted. Fortunately, technology in the shape of Internet and Telephone banking is allowing us to work around these limitations.

And yet, the self-same group that precipitated the economic disaster of the past couple of years through the sale of very dubious investment instruments apparently repackaged to hide their source, believes that they continue to deserve multi-million dollar bonuses “to retain talent.”

What talent, and why should it be retained, considering the mess the world is in as a result of their activities?

Now that so many banks have been shown to have an extremely dubious business model, isn’t it time to relook the very essence of what they should be doing?   

Let’s see a complete separation of activities, so that banks focus on banking and investment houses focus on investment consulting – it’s clear that the “Chinese Walls” in financial institutions were full of holes.

Banking needs to be about rendering a service to the community – after all, a prosperous and stable community base is good for the bank’s business, and a prosperous and stable bank is good for the community. Banks need to focus on the business of taking deposits and making these funds available for loans to build businesses, put people in homes and generally provide a secure growth engine for the longer term. The short-term focus that we came to see in so many businesses (see: The Perils of Quarteritis) is just not acceptable.

And this model need not necessarily result in low returns for depositors – look at the success of microfinancing from Grameen Bank (and, now, others), both for the bank and the community. As with everything, there will be some elements that give lower returns, while others give higher returns. With careful, skilled management, depositors should be able to see appropriate returns while borrowers can secure appropriate loans.

It’s time for financial institutions to rebuild the trust that they’ve lost, and return to being of service to their communities again, rather than simply serving the bankers’ own interests.