Showing posts with label risk assumptions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label risk assumptions. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Headless chickens

by Stephen McPhie, CA

Partner, RSD Solutions Inc.

www.RSDsolutions.com

info@RSDsolutions.com

 

 

I’ve been following the recent Canadian general election.  Not many people outside Canada have done so because the coverage in non-Canadian media has been pretty well non-existent as usual.  Fortunately the internet lets me follow such worthy electronic publications as the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star – and, if I want to read Rex Murphy (always a good read), or Conrad Black (who seems complimentary to Canada and anyone who might help get back his Canadian citizenship), the National Post.

 

Also, in the UK, there has been a referendum on the “Alternative Voting” system (a sort of modified first past the post system that means that the winner might well be the person who gets the 2nd or 3rd highest number of first choice votes).  The AV referendum, held expensively to placate the junior party in the governing coalition (and which ended up causing them major grief), returned a resounding no, as it was intended to do by the senior coalition partners.

 

Commentators have determined that the Canadian election changed everything, not just for the next 4 or 5 years, but forever.  They are reading the last rights of the Liberal party as well as the Bloc Quebecois.  Perhaps they are right but I reserve judgement.  After all, it was not too long ago that the Tories were reduced to 2 MPs.  They changed and adapted but they are still obviously very much with us.

 

In the UK, there was also an election for the Scottish government that really might change everything.  It was held under a proportional representation system, widely thought to have been put in place to make it extremely unlikely that the Scottish National Party would ever gain a majority government.  Well the extremely unlikely happened.  The Labour party, which has regarded Scotland as its own personal fiefdom, is in total disarray.  Seat after seat that a few weeks ago it would have been assumed that a dead worm could win for Labour fell to the nationalists.  Actually, all other parties did badly and the leaders of the 3 main opposition parties have all quit.  However, at least in a UK context as it affects the party, it is probably the greatest worry for Labour.  They mismanaged the whole process and their assumptions brought forward for many years were all wrong.  Now they are running around like headless chickens.  Having lived in Canada through 2 Quebec referenda and all sorts of attempted constitutional contortions, I have an idea of how things will pan out over the next few years.

 

I could go on about politics but that is not really the point I want to make.  There are lessons for companies managing risks.  The unthinkable can happen and does happen frequently.  Sacred assumptions can break down overnight.  They can also change or return just as quickly.  Scenarios, systems and processes must take account of this. 

 

And I do not consider my idea of what will pan out in Scotland as a sacred assumption.  I plan to buy a small, uninhabited island off the Scottish coast and declare independence from Scotland, England, Newfoundland, the BBC and anything else that claims jurisdiction!

 

  

 

Wednesday, May 11, 2011

Unquestioned Assumptions

By Stephen McPhie, CA

Partner, RSD Solutions Inc.

www.RSDsolutions.com

info@RSDsolutions.com 

 

Does your company revisit assumptions upon which your approach to risk is based?  Are assumptions challenged?  Is there a dynamic process to do this?  Throughout most of my career, U.S. government obligations have been considered to be the definitive risk free debt.  No longer, now that S&P has placed it on negative outlook.  Willem Buiter, a former member of the Monetary Policy Committee and now chief economist at Citigroup, told the CFA Institute annual conference in Edinburgh[1]: “S&P’s negative outlook (on the US) is likely to be followed by a negative watch and then a downgrade early in 2013, unless a miracle happens …”.

 

Should this have been foreseen some time ago?  I would argue that this assumption about U.S. government debt should have been questioned several years ago.  In fact, perhaps it should never have been taken as an assumption. 

 

Nothing is risk free and no assumptions are valid beyond the moment they are made.  That is why a risk management system must be dynamic, and not imposed statically and left to apply until someone new comes in and decides to do an update, perhaps years later.



[1] As reported in the Herald www.heraldscotland.com/business/markets-economy/us-economy-may-face-debt-downgrade-1.1100695