Posts Tagged ‘Banking & Capital Markets’

An Allegory for an Uncommon Time

Tuesday, June 22nd, 2010

By Mark P. Dangelo

www.innovative-relevance.com

(as also published at the National  Mortgage Bankers Association)

In a dark cave, a fire glows in the corner casting its shadows with eerie reflections on the objects within.  In the flickers of light, we can see outlines of gray and black hues sketching out eight individuals – all chained together, all facing forward. 

For decades, each of these figures –consumer, banker, GSE, financier, investor, regulator, politician, and technologist – faced the wall in a sitting position gawking at the dancing wall images encapsulating a unique reality for their daily existence.  Each saw their reality in isolation even though the images of their existence were created from the same source.

The cave, and its changing shadows, was the only existence this group of eight had ever known for business, markets, and individual reward.  The inhabitants had never left the cave, yet each was firm in their own but different, realities.  Their livelihood and prosperity was the cave.  It was comfortable, convenient, and it defined their existence. 

A Seismic Disruption

Just over two years ago, a magnitude 8.2 financial seismic disturbance unshackled the cave dwellers from their bonds, and the light that reassured them of their existence sparked and began to rapidly dim.  In short, the seismic aftermath freed each of the linked from their one-way value chain of subsistence.  As they rubbed their dust cover faces, they witnessed a new illumination coming from the entrance of the cave. 

Disoriented and driven by failing debris, the historically interconnected dwellers were separately forced into the open and the strange confines of a new world.  Grasping, groping, angry, and seeking safety, the eight moved to the glow of new surroundings, as a method to escape individual and financial demise now being delivered by the cave that once protected and sustained them.

For the group of eight (G8), their survival outside of the cave was savage.  Month after month, their long-held axioms were shattered – home ownership, mark-to-market, hedging strategies, derivatives, regulatory certainty, housing markets, ethics, investor confidence, sovereign wealth and currencies, consumer behavior, regulatory oversight, risk analytics and strategies, swaps, structured financing, fiscal responsibilities, and even government-backed enterprises, which have the potential to saddle taxpayers with $1 trillion USD in losses against the national debt (multiples greater than AIG). 

Moreover, the G8 were challenged by those who had already lived outside of the cave, as they were acclimated to behaving and interacting across new world commerce.  These “global dwellers” had different mores, protocols (i.e., regulations), and business demands quite distinct from the G8.  The original G8 longed for the prior security of their cave. 

For the next 827 days, aftershocks and misplaced initiatives dominated their interactions with these global dwellers, and those that indirectly had come to depend upon them.  The G8’s prosperity (i.e., cave light), as defined by their historical cave surroundings, was being extinguished.  A new illumination was coming from a different source delivering ever changing images and realities – a radiance that was high in the sky rising from the East.  The G8 were grasping for efficacy in a new environment as the rules and workflows of operation were regularly failing their original creators.

For the G8, as they exited from cave their global wealth steadily declined by over $20 trillion, as triple-A asset backed securities and complex, opaque OTC derivatives fell in value or vanished all together.  As the markets fell, business interactions among the G8 declined resulting in 1 in 10 domestic adults being unemployed.  Moreover, unsustainable household debt or leverage approached 200% of income as government debt reached WWII ratios against GDP.

The shockwave of unemployment and survival conditions outside of the cave inverted the ratio of new mortgages when compared against delinquencies and foreclosures. Calendar 2010 promises nearly 3 million repossessions and short sales against an average of 650,000 originations.  Private securitization fell from over 60% in 2006 to < 2% in 2009.  Moreover, 2010 brings new survival risks for the G8 cave inhabitants, as global dwellers and their investors demand new restrictions as volatile sentiment creates lingering doubts – and the potential retracing (e.g., double dipping) of the on-going survival pain. 

Life on the Outside — The Unthinkable becomes Commonplace

New behaviors and strange occurrences for the G8 grew.  Consumer strategic defaults became commonplace as “underwater” became a key justification for default.  Bankers reluctantly became “utility” providers, as they never thought their actions would become public record – let alone achieve such a level of public vilification.  Making matters worse, HAMP, which was promoted with the hope for all the G8, is now facing the potential of a 75% re-default within 12 months for those already “helped.”

Even those “Sheppard’s” of the old cave – the regulators, their agencies, and politicians – now added more uncertainty and strange behavior. This diverse trio reacted to the demands of the global dwellers, and the chaos they were unprepared to experience.

Individually and using public forums, once comfortable regulators found their relationships and new world frightening.  They chose to hide behind the nearest tree to avoid retribution or inspection.  Politicians blamed everyone around them as a global distain grew into domestic consequences – their role and reelection appeared no longer ordained – as some were having tea while others were distributing wealth and retribution. 

Investors and brokers now realized, what meteorically goes up can crash to the ground destroying their secure cave and everyone in it.  It was no longer a game or an illusion on the wall of the cave.  It was real, and the consequences dehumanizing.  Actions and results went well beyond the “education” of the markets and informed investors, moral hazards, or even “the greater good.” 

And yes, the technologist who was seeking to streamline processes for operational efficiency (i.e., the interconnected images on the cave wall), find these new global dwellers offensive, belligerent, and failing to accept the storied accomplishments once taken as gospel within the cave.  Their prior status seems to have little meaning to the global dwellers, who have established themselves and their markets without the dogmatic expertise of the G8 “cave interactions.” 

Finally, after a year of debate and blame, in an effort to create a new “virtual” cave, the G8 proposed new guidance for their surroundings.  This guidance was designed to ensure their relevancy and standing in the “new world order.”  They would “set things right.” 

Creating a sweeping series of changes, captured in hundreds of thousands of words and legal language, the G8 sought to create an innovative reality – a “better” reality.  It was a new set of standards for all to follow and admire – to ensure that the collapse of the new, virtual cave can never happen, like the “real” cave did. 

In an effort to adapt to its new global surroundings, the G8 members lobbied, shouted, projected, and cajoled not only each other, but those new relationships they needed for survival and prosperity.  The new world order was now close at hand as the G8 demanded adherence and respect.  But, were these “sound laws” enough?  Too Much?  Or was it all just another illusion – more than business justification and markets demanded – to wield influence and “stake out territories?” 

Rebuilding Against the After Shocks

So dawns a new quarter as the G8 lobby for and lament against financial reform and revolution.  Nearly three years after their cave collapsed, those original eight who were holistically linked have fractured and polarized.  As the pillars burn, for many innocents caught in a financial disruption not of their making, the Four Horsemen have arrived in rumbling droves. 

However, from the ashes of illusion, hope arises – and we believe prosperity will be forthcoming, driven by new guidance and innovation.  But when?  Who will be the beneficiaries?

Contrary to the hope of G8 members, rebuilding does not mean the same or even retro.  Very little will be the same, and the time machine is out-of-commission.  The old cave light taken for granted as the “Sun” by the G8 is now larger providing illumination for all the global dwellers – not just those within the destroyed bunker.  This “New Sun” (rising in the East) is not easily controlled, and it must be harnessed differently if a new ecosystem of co-dependent business models is to be sustained. 

However, for those adjusting to the global dwellers and their “strange” relationships, there is a material risk.  If they adopt and adapt to new behaviors and methods of business, will they be shunned (or worse) should they return to their original G8 members?  Will they recognize their old friends and foes?  Will they be cast aside by those who still favor those dogmatic methods, which once led to prosperity – but sowed the seeds of the largest financial seismic disruption in 80 years (but the largest in net losses)?

For the G8, questions remain in the effort for transparency and viability.  A cursory few include:

·         Consumer:  Will their new “cave” be dependent upon old ideals?  Will they behave so differently that only “educated” owners will be allowed to participate in the new society?

·         Banker:  Will their longing for the historical, be the seeds of their slow demise?  Have their sunk costs of cave participation become so culturally ingrained that they only are perceived to change when forced?

·         GSE:  What will their role be after the “period of convenience” ends?  Are they the next “public-private” villain as the global dwellers seek a new leader(s)?

·         Financier:  Where’s the deal, what’s the spread, and how can it be hedged?  Is this new world really any different than the old one?

·         Investor:  What will be recoverable and who was to blame for their loss of stature and capital?  We were “mislead,” right?

·         Regulator:  What are the implications and impacts of action or inaction?  Is it a global world or “each cave / clan for themselves?”

·         Politician:  Am I interfering in the life and property of “my subjects” with “proper justification?”  Is it safer to be “feared than loved?”

·         Technologist:  Do we have the new skills, processes, data, and architectures needed for conformance and compliance?  Will the existing become immaterial?

Rebuilding, as Machiavelli wrote in 1513, is a torturous compromise, “Men have imagined republics and principalities that never really existed at all.  Yet the way men live is so far removed from the way they ought to live that anyone who abandons what is for what should be pursues his downfall rather than his preservation; for a man who strives after goodness in all his acts is sure to come to ruin, since there are so many men who are not good.

* * * * * * * * *

So even after nearly 2500 years of allegorical symbolism, it still appears that our parable has not reached its conclusion – not yet.  For lurking within the woods and waters surrounding the recently combined global dwellers, including the G8, are bears, bulls, bugs, horses, reptiles, lions, sharks, snakes, and may be an iceberg.  The environment has changed, the interactions uncertain, and predators are many.  The only axiom still valid is that a new equilibrium has not been achieved. 

Looking Back at the Strategy of Why Some Succeed — and Many Fail

Monday, March 15th, 2010

by Mark P. Dangelo

www.Innovative-Relevance.com

It was a decade ago, at the peak of the NASDAQ Composite, that the world began to truly comprehend the potential of the “nets” (i.e., Internet, intranets, extranets, and more recently the “clouds” and mobile 4G).  As new firms rose to trailblazer prominence (e.g., Amazon, AOL, Atomic Tangerine, Egg, and others), the phrase “brick and mortar” increasingly became linked with traditional, unwieldy, hierarchical, and candidly, resistant to change enterprises “destined to go the path of the dinosaur.” 

Yet, what was once dismissed out-of-hand (i.e., layering[i]) is now set to become a top-5 strategy challenge for every management team, vendor, and outsourcer surviving in this decade.  A critical question remains if organizations have the vision and humility to leverage the past, while innovating for the future.

A Decade for the Record Books

Since 2000, the removal of the old became a classic win-lose corporate context framed by:

·         enterprise solutions (e.g., SAP, Oracle, and PeopleSoft),

·         consultants, outsourcers, and advisors (e.g., Accenture, TCS, ACS, and McKinsey), and

·         channel-specific solution providers (e.g., Cisco, Sun, and IBM). 

Within the finance and mortgage groups (FMG’s), the implementation value chain solutions became inverted with technology ideals frequently trumping business models, as volume, any volume drove people, and processes over sound management judgment. 

Inadvertently, brick and mortar principles were perceived as outdated and discarded as organizations chased the markets – and the most debt-laden homeowner in history.  With 2010 set to produce the largest volume of delinquencies and foreclosures on record perpetuated by a jobless recovery (9%-10% until late 2011), the surface indicators might support the frustration that once again, we need to start over.  Throw out the legacy models and lessons learned in favor of new approaches and technologies.

Today, pundits declare that the FDIC interventions, TARP injections, and Federal Reserve market actions are merely perpetuating the foundational decay long hidden within traditional FMG’s, operating on axioms defined back in the 1930’s. 

The belief remains that the greatest financial meltdown ever (in real USD lost) was just waiting to happen.  It could not be stopped even if we understood what “irrational exuberance” really meant.  All it needed for the traditional firms to fail were vast real estate bubbles spread across developed nations to provide the spark that lead to the vanishing of 10%-12% of global wealth (since 2007).

Learning, Layering, and Looking Forward

Indeed it is time for sustainable change, new ideas, fresh industry blood, and elimination of systems that benefited so few.  So, why reexamine 20th Century principles that have already been cast aside by 21st Century attitudes and doctrines?  In a virtually connected world that never sleeps, who needs brick and mortar dogma when continuous technological innovation is what consumers are demanding?  Why indeed. 

Nevertheless, when examining those “Jurassic” systems with their layers of front and back office control procedures, history has now shown that the brick and mortar strategic operating principles remained very viable and stable.  When glancing backwards, it is the techniques and underlying implementation methods that have been permanently transformed (see Figure 1 for a list of principles, demands, and techniques). 

As portrayed in Figure 1, it is precisely those brick and mortar operations that not only survived (albeit slightly dented), but continue to grow – JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America to name but a few.  Moreover, each FMG holds valuable lessons learned — as well as publically exposed pitfalls.  If the U.S., like the new stress test ordered for the UK banking community, enters a pause or retracing of economic growth in 2010 (i.e., double bottom), the value g leaned from the surviving FMG brick and mortar principles may be the difference between survival – and receivership.

Layering Tackles Strategy, Complexity, and Uncertainty

Layering for 2010-2013 is best defined as the utilization of principle driven models (i.e., process, business, and technology across the mortgage pillars of origination, servicing, and securitization).  This often missed strategic approach allows organizations to employ the “best-in-class” solutions, products, and services even if they might be viewed as competitive (see Figure 2). 

It is the assembly of these “building blocks” that provides the distinction and profitability so badly demanded within struggling FMG’s.  Stated more pointedly, how many of those “pure-play” offerings survive after just five years?  With VC investments now just 30%-35% of 2006 levels, you only have to look at their investment web pages to notice the portfolio rot driven by a failure to anticipate consumer change and uncertainty. 

If truth be told, the deployment of layering is inherent within all viable business models – domestic or global – as their usage surrounds the assembly of strategies, processes, technology, and people.  Analogous to the building of a foundation with stone, cement, and metal, the use of layering for sustainable business resonates with profitable innovators.  It is now fundamental criteria in investor minds as well.

As shown in Figure 2, if the “foundation” of layers cannot be assembled properly (e.g., the laying of brick for a wall meeting industry “building codes”), the ensuing channels, offerings, and markets will collapse onto the basement floor – much like investors in RMBS and CMBS experienced during the last four years.  Yet, are organizations fully equipped with the skills and abilities to critically examine the successes and failures?  What about the performance of partners and channel providers?  Or will it become a situation where teams are sent out to perform “bring me a rock” analysis?

Stated bluntly for those who still fail to see the building block challenge and financial opportunities, if everyone utilizes the same standards and electronic delivery strategies, how come everyone isn’t equally successful?  The aforementioned are merely the vehicles of delivery – not the layering of complex business requirements that if assembled wrong, lead to failure.  In some cases, career ending failure.

In Closing

If you have any doubts on the strategy of business and technology layering, then take a look at the survivors from the companies previously mentioned.  What were the key principles that lead them as pathfinders succeed and adapt, while others failed or were acquired?  Did they lack technology, people or the “right” idea?  Did they shun brick and mortar principles entirely or selectively apply the fundamentals that worked for their business operations and technological implementations?  Did they let their egos drive their actions?

So now, 10 years after the great market corrections of 2000, it is the innovative business leaders who are gleaning safe and sound practices from the old brick and mortar.  For vendors and outsourcers, those operational leaders that can deliver scalable, interoperability layers of processes and technologies will be the household names across the industry.  How many will act?  How many will continue to be froze in place holding on to the ideals misplaced and misrepresented?  We can all think of a few.

Enterprises (i.e., the core business, their vendors, and outsourcing providers) able to rapidly adapt to changing consumer needs, and more recently, radical mutations of homeowner behaviors will be able to weather any downturn or changing market conditions.  It seems the lessons and principles of the past have become the guides of the future.

Funny, sometimes to go positively forward, you must start out in reverse. 



[i] Analogous to a “method of propagating plants by covering a branch or shoot with soil so that it takes root while still attached to the parent plant.”

In a Word, “GlobalBorderMalevolence”

Tuesday, February 16th, 2010

By Mark P. Dangelo

www.Innovative-Relevance.com

It has been repeatedly said that, “Desperate times call for…,” well you know the rest.  With a weak economic recovery underway, many domestic financial leaders are trying to navigate unchartered territories, while endeavoring to avoid collisions with unique business obstacles – regulators, politicians, depositors, investors, and global capital markets. 

With nearly 7 million domestic jobs lost in 32 months it may be 6 to 12 years before they can be replaced with equal paying positions — if history is any guide.  The embers of technology investment are seducing many to believe the recovery is here – but is it a recovery that includes domestic workforces? 

Moreover, with trillions USD in deficits piling up and an escalating trade war beginning (all but in name) with the U.S.’s largest creditor, can technology investment be sustainable especially for a mortgage market still under duress? 

If origination volume in 2010 is estimated to be one-third of the levels from 2006 and with REO properties held in reserve equaling or surpassing the number of listed ones (another 8 to 10 months of supply), have we reached an equilibrium – or is there more to come? 

Yes, as my mother used to say when I was a child, “You ask a lot of questions.”  But these days, with so many “experts” at every corner, I feel compelled to query even more. 

Perhaps a fable will help frame the concerns I have when it comes to the slippery slope of regulation and the hidden dangers subsequently facing the outsourcing industry over the next 18 months (within finance and mortgage markets (FMM) for onshore and offshore business process and technology outsourcing).  My fable is titled, “GlobalBorderMalevolence.”

“It is often those nasty ‘unintended consequences’ that linger on long after the deeds are done.  For example, with nearly half-a-dozen global regulatory discussions on going and increased taxes or fees nearly certain for financial lenders, won’t that create additional pressures to margins, profits, and an ability to lend? 

If fees cannot be passed on either due to competition or regulation, then the obvious answer is cutting costs.  For the last two decades, institutions have sought cost reduction and avoidance via outsourcing of functions to developing countries with lower wages and educated classes of laborers.

Therefore, will not an implication of cost cutting demand further shifting of knowledge jobs from west to east in an attempt to keep profits stable to meet investor and regulator solvency demands?  Will not that have an impact on FMM domestic employment moving forward?  If employers shift higher-paying functions to cheaper locales, does that not then mean less tax basis to offset rising regulatory costs and a Federal budget? 

So when jobs are lost, now do we need then a ‘jobs bill’ to protect domestic workforces from disenfranchisement indirectly created from the very issues that taxpayers were seeking relief from – unemployment, lack of credit, or foreclosure?   If we need a jobs bill, then don’t we also need protection from those ‘nasty’ outsourcers who are ‘exporting the future of our economy?’ 

So why not put an extra surcharge or tax on outsourcers and the firms they represent to ensure that labor arbitrage cannot be utilized to improve margins from those bankers who seek to reward themselves with huge bonuses?

If the Indian outsourcing industry increases at their projected 2010-2011 rate of growth approaching 15%, while domestic unemployment still exceeds 9.7%, doesn’t this mean that outsourcing is a perfect industry to target by regulators and politicians? 

After all if outsourcers are growing offshore by shifting jobs west to east then are they not taking advantage of global imbalances created by currencies and export-driven state sponsorships?  Aren’t they equally culpable as much as those ‘bad’ bankers who started the whole mess in the first place? 

On the other hand, if outsourcers have let’s say 25% to 35% of their delivery capability taking place onshore in domestic centers of excellence, should they be treated the same as a service or technology provider who has only sales forces within the borders?  Moreover, what should be done to rebalance the labor arbitrage differences for domestic firms who provide outsourcing service offshore but claim U.S. headquarters?

So goes the circular references and the convoluted requirements for even more regulation to determine who and what is being done to whom.  Furthermore, if you start at one point in the value-chain, why not transcend all the way downstream to punish everyone who is making a profit as a result of changes created at the beginning of the chain?  Is this regulation approach really about free-trade and open borders – or retribution and politics?

Besides, why stop there?  What about any third-party partners involved in JV’s?  How about technology solution sets and innovation needed to streamline processes, driving out costs, and displacing workers?  Should anything and anyone that eliminates a domestic job not be ‘punished?’

Taking it to extremes, would market competition that arises between industries and their representatives also not fall under this disguise?  If competing standards disadvantaged or displaced one interest group, should they not seek regulatory protection against the other? 

What if secondary group demands created disintermediation within the origination and servicing institutions?  Should they not be then regulated to stop their impacts on BAU and jobs?”

Whereas the fable may be a little “cheeky,” its intended seriousness is not to be dismissed.  These hidden exothermic consequences are growing increasingly likely not just domestically, but within the EU and even within the Asian provider countries themselves. 

Let’s also be very clear, that each side of the outsourcing equation has responsibilities that they have not lived up to in the past.  The firestorm of criticism from many practicing xenophobia is fueled by those outsourcing firms seeking to “take orders” — playing into simple labor arbitrage needs and continually advocating the business model of moving jobs from west to east.  These players still exist and are easily identified by their token domestic presence. 

Conversely, without outsourcing to provide leverage and scale, not to mention aggregation of highly complex and specialized skills that cannot be efficiently integrated with traditionally organic approaches, industry innovation would not have been as great as we might think. 

Why?  Because the savings achieved by using global workforces would not have facilitated investments in other innovations needed – fraud, automated valuations, analytics, data mining, interoperable standards, and the list goes on.  Stated another way, by using outsourcing for delivering commodity transactions in origination and servicing, investments in more specialized and complex functionalities could be made.  They were made.

Outsourcing has benefited not just lenders, but homeowners, investors, regulators, and those seeking political advantage.  It will continue to be a integral part of our process and technological solutions fabric.  However, its usefulness can no longer be thought of as mere “exports” or “imports” by anyone within FMM’s. 

There are polarizing factions that are escalating the rhetoric – they whisper “GlobalBorderMalevolence.”  Perhaps this feeling of disenfranchisement has best been characterized by the creators of Comedy Central’s South Park, “They took our Jobs!”  True, unchecked outsourcing based on mere arbitrage is not beneficial long-term to either party.  Conversely, so is no outsourcing.

Just like bankers who are “bad,” the outsourcing industry should not be thinking BAU.  Xenophobia has arrived as a new form of nationalism.  Domestic or foreign firms with sizable local, heterogeneous workforces (i.e., not imported H1B’s within domestic borders) will be the best positioned to not only avoid this coming battle, but also profit from it.  Integrated, domestic workforce outsourcers will be the survivors – and some very large international providers are already embracing a new business model. 

* * * * * * * *

Undeniably, Humpty Dumpty has had a great fall.  No amount of regulation, central bankers (i.e., Kings), or TARP bailouts (i.e., the King’s horses and men) will ever remake the fragility of an egg that tempted fate and spurned consequences by ignoring the market risks (i.e., the wall).  The fall the FMM Humpty Dumpty was a “splat heard round the world.”

As a final point, the U.S. Administrations’ position on outsourcing and globalization has also become increasingly intriguing.  For example, much has been read into Larry Summers, White House Chief Economic advisor, recent speech at Davos as he cited, “the case for free trade might not apply when countries were trading with nations that were pursuing mercantilist policies.[i]  Even if this particular challenge was directed at one particular country, could it not be also used against others within the same region covering both products and services?

So you see the challenge for lenders and their outsourcing providers will be buried across many nouns– xenophobia, jingoism, patriotism, nationalism, protectionism, and even cultural intolerance.  The noun you select depends on your preference in the on-going debate.  So as new regulation sets in motion the need for increased efficiencies, an implication of what they demand will lay the foundation for yet more regulation and national debates – just farther down into the value chain of mortgage and financial delivery. 

As Abraham Lincoln once said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.  I do not believe that the house will remain divided – it will either cease to be divided,” or its foundations will wither collapsing the entire structure and advancements onto itself.  But will free-market capitalism prevail?  Will outsourcers stumble on their own past success?  Will they seek to empathize with their domestic clients, and the escalating pressures they face?

This debate has only just begun – and it potential consequences are very, very scary.  



[i] “How the Bottom Fell Out of ‘Old’ Davos,” Gideon Richman, Financial Times, February 2, 2010.