Friday, September 2, 2011

Reflections on Mr. Bernanke’s Speech at Jackson Hole and Future Monetary Policy

by Don Alexander, MBA

Associate, RSD Solutions Inc.

www.RSDsolutions.com

info@RSDsolutions.com 

 

Unlike at his Jackson Hole speech in 2010 when QE2 was presented, Fed Chairman Bernanke did not pull a rabbit out of the policy hat last week.  The focus was not on the immediate outlook for the economy or monetary policy, but more on the structural headwinds facing the US economy and other long-term issues such as fiscal policy.  Mr. Bernanke made two surprises on short-term policy: the lack of discussion about further asset purchases or other easing options and that further policy options will be considered at upcoming FOMC meetings.     

 

He differentiated between the cyclical and structural/secular role of monetary policy, noting that the Fed is less effective when it comes to the latter role.  He reminded his listeners that the Fed alone cannot carry such a heavy policy burden and that fiscal policy was needed to promote growth and stability.  Fiscal policymakers face a fine balancing act “the need to place fiscal policy on a sustainable path” and to avoid “severe economic and financial damage” while noting the fragility of the current environment.  He noted reforms are needed in other areas of economic management, emphasizing the need for a better process for making fiscal decisions.  

 

Mr. Bernanke noted economic policies that support robust economic growth in the long run are outside the province of the central bank.  He implied in the President’s upcoming speech on needed fiscal stimulus and job creation – a constructive and collaborative approach by the Administration and Congress was required.  Another round of damaging policy dithering and political bickering would have strong adverse consequences on the economy.

 

The Fed continues to have a more optimistic view on US economic prospects than most private sector analysts.  The major difference is the Fed assumes that a number of temporary factors that depressed economic activity in the first half will not be present in the second half.  If this view is correct, it would imply that chances for QE3 are minimal.  However, if the Fed view converges to that of private sector, the chances for QE3 increase.  The most likely form would be through increased asset purchases of longer-dated maturities.

 

Other extreme measures would not be considered, unless the economy and financial markets substantially deteriorate below current prospects.  The Fed would have three possible policy options: the extension of the QE program into other markets such as corporate bonds, a sharp increase in the program that extends the Fed’s balance sheet and an explicit or implicit change in the Fed’s policy targets.  However, US economic prospects have not deteriorated enough to consider these options.

Thursday, September 1, 2011

When group think predicts the future: A lesson for risk management

by Michael Arbow

Partner, RSD Solutions Inc.

www.RSDsolutions.com

info@RSDsolutions.com

 

Health experts in the US have warned that unless a trend is broken, half the US population will be obese by 2030 (about 164 million people): their solution is to get governments to resolve the problem through increased education and taxation on fattening foods.  This analysis and the resulting solution outline a few issues experienced in risk management; namely group/clone think and the need for a “man made” solution to natural phenomena.  By broading their health research and consulting with economist, agriculturalist and global population experts they would have learnt that the trend can’t continue because the growth in world population and wealth, the transfer of food from mouths to fuel tanks and the falling rate of increases in food growing productivity (amount of food grown per hectare) are all leading to higher real food prices.  As prices rise there will be demand destruction (Americans consume on average 12 times more food than they need to survive, Japan 7) and consumption of food will move to more historical levels.  Thus the trend will not continue as it will be ended through natural economic conditions of supply and demand.

 

So you can see from this example how group think when applied to risk management can lead to a possible false conclusion which the groups then feels obliged to mitigate.  So the question is:  How does your risk team go about reducing the chance of group think – do they bring in other departments, seek guidance from the cloud, or bring in independent third party views? 

 

For more on this article from the UK’s Daily Mail online service follow the link: http://tinyurl.com/3w43889

Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Measuring earthquakes: A lesson for measuring risk

 

by Michael Arbow, MBA

Partner, RSD Solutions Inc.

www.RSDsolutions.com

info@RSDsolutions.com

 

Last week, areas on the Eastern U.S. seaboard and parts of central and eastern Canada experienced a rare earthquake which emanated from Mineral, Virginia.  Damage was minimal.  As measured by the traditional Richter magnitude scale, the quake was recorded as 5.8.  The Richter scale has been the bench mark for measuring earthquakes since 1935 but the 1997 work of Rachel Davidson advocates use of an Earthquake Disaster Risk Index.  Ms. Davidson believes that what is more important isn’t the magnitude of the quake but rather the damage.  Case in point: Haiti recorded a magnitude 7.0 earthquake which led to the loss of 230,000 lives while Japan’s recent 9.0 led to 16,000 deaths (an earthquake 1000 times stronger).  Haiti’s high death toll is attributed to poor construction and rescue operations.  So how does this map onto enterprise risk management?

 

First, traditional benchmarks or test of risk exposure may have outlived their usefulness.  Second and more importantly when looking at risk, one may wish to take a more granular look at the impact of an economic quake in each department or product rather than the company as a whole.  At a high level (Richter scale) the economic quake maybe neutralized but at a more granular level products and/or divisions maybe wiped out.  Identifying and realizing this can focus corporate resources to areas in need so to better mitigate their risk.

 

For more about Stanford's Rachel Davidson’s work click on the link:  http://tinyurl.com/4ymv83u

 

 

Tuesday, August 30, 2011

How do we incorporate bullying in risk management assessment?

by Stephen McPhie, CA

Partner, RSD Solutions Inc.

www.RSDsolutions.com

info@RSDsolutions.com

 

 

Most of us have seen them, either in our own organization or in that of an acquaintance.  Some of them are visionary and some are just plain wrong some or most of the time.  What many of them share is an absolute belief in themselves and an absolute intolerance of being questioned by those below them.  Others are just covering up their own inferiorities.  They are senior management bullies.  And when the bully is the top guy, disaster could lurk.  No normal risk management system can offset or effectively mitigate such a situation. 

 

By all accounts the former CEO of Royal Bank of Scotland ruled his domain by fear until the bank required a huge government bail out and he acquired the dubious distinction of becoming the most hated person in Britain according to some opinion polls.  Accounts by people who worked under him suggest that everyone lived in terror of the guy.  And this was a person who was aggressively trying to make his institution into the largest bank in the world.  He nearly succeeded - on paper – until the whole thing came crashing down in sea of bad assets.  Nobody in the bank dared stand up to him.  And he probably steamrollered the board.  (I’ve seen smart aggressive CEO’s steamroller boards many times before.  Most board members barely understand their company’s business let alone have the knowledge to sustain an effective argument against such a CEO.)

 

I’ve seen his breed of CEO a number of times.  Of course, you want a CEO who believes in himself and his strategy.  However, you don’t want a person to be an absolute power unto himself (or herself) and able to run amok with shareholders’ creditors and other stakeholders’ livelihoods.

 

So if you are analysing a business, do you include the CEO’s personality type in your assessment?  If so, how?  Is your own business in this situation?  If so, what can be done about it, if anything?

 

Sunday, August 28, 2011

Risk: Created and negated by you and nobody else but you

by Michael Arbow, MBA

Partner, RSD Solutions Inc.

www.RSDsolutions.com

info@RSDsolutions.com


Recently I went on a vacation to Acadia National Park near Bar Harbor, Maine to do some “mountain” hiking.  Over three days I hiked several trails in levels of difficulty from easy to strenuous or difficult.  One particular trail – The Precipice – is rather popular and considered not suitable for the faint of heart and my hiking partner declined to join me for she considered the trail too risky and believed I should consider it the same.  During our discussion, I recalled a conversation between a CBC radio interviewer and an experienced mountaineer who had scaled Mt. Everest a few times.  The interviewer asked: “,… but isn’t climbing Mt. Everest very risky?” upon which the talk show guest replied “If it was risky, I won’t do it.”

 

 

What the interviewee then explained was that given his intense and detailed preparation, confidence in choice of mountain equipment and his physical and mental fitness; what seems as a risk to many was not a risk to him.  This reinforced for me that risk is subjective or alternatively that what we originally perceive as risk can be reduced to a near non-risk situation with proper planning and thought.  Organizations face risk daily, however more successful ones routinely enter seemingly dubbed “risky” areas because they have identified the risks and put in place risk mitigation tools or procedures that provide them with the confidence of moving forward.  This begs the question: Are there risks your organization/department has identified that may be holding you back unnecessarily which, if you took the effort to mitigate could increase profitability and opportunities?   

 

Note:  A special thanks to LB for the pic.  One of the summits we shared - Dorr Mountain with Cadillac Mt. in the background.