archive: political


Looking for Profits in All the Wrong Places

Wednesday, December 2nd, 2009

imagine

Investment comfort in the world of high finance all too often comes from fast profits in known and proven markets.  The never-ending game of offering higher profits at lower [apparent] risk to attract capital was certainly alive and well before the global economic crisis.  The question is, why does it appear to be coming back?  Didn’t we learn anything?

A global economic recession of epic proportions should have taught us a few lessons, but the days when CNN is glued to the US consumer expenditure figures as if it were the only barometer in existence, it seems it isn’t so.  Too much investment comfort will lead to not enough investment in the future and much greater economic turmoil down the road. For economies to flourish they need to grow, and we seem to continue to look for growth in places where the potential is quite low.

One of my mentors used to always say that if you aren’t feeling nervous and agitated about a deal, then it’s probably not a good one.  We were investing Goldman Sachs money, so the deals we worked on weren’t small and were often the first of their kind in that country.  A healthy amount of discomfort means we’re forging new territory.  Forging new territory in a world that primarily relies on capitalism to make the wheels go around is a good thing.  Running in the same old markets over and over and over again may move the wheel around, but it does little to make the wheel bigger.  In a world where we are slated to break 9 billion inhabitants in the next 40 years, we will definitely need a bigger wheel.

There is an inherent flaw in this mindset of investment comfort.  It stays in the world of what is known and it over-exploits markets such as US housing, US consumer, and luxury hotel.  While billions of dollars were being invested by countries all of the world in relatively finite (but comfortable) markets, much of the world’s potential new markets were being ignored.  I would argue that it is actually riskier to invest in false markets (backed by too much debt) that are unsustainable and maxed out on growth than it is to invest in creating completely new markets in the emerging and developing world that are backed by sustainable commerce.  It doesn’t feel riskier because it is known territory and feels comfortable, but from a purely economic system point of view it is, definitely riskier in the long run.

I believe this will be the biggest lesson of the 21st century for both the private and public sectors around the world.  During the 20th century, there was adequate growth potential in the population and quality of life in developed countries to support investments shrouded in the comfort of known markets.  This will not be the case for the 21st century.  The 21st century requires new investment models, new leaders, and new perspectives on globalization.

I predict that the very best Wall Street firms will turn from security selection and asset management in known markets to designing unique investment solutions that build entirely new markets around the globe.  They will bring public and private money together in ways that have never before been attempted.  The old model of trying to build nations through foreign aid and local (sometimes corrupt) governments alone clearly doesn’t work.  We need new models that forge new territory and challenge conventional thinking.  The potential and the opportunity are there.  The question is are we going to seize the moment and begin to look at the world differently?  Are we going to set future generations around the world up for success or for failure?

An uber-macro-global economic view of the world indicates that with stagnant population growth and an already high quality of life in much of the developed world, the economic progress and growth necessary to continue building global wealth must come in large part from under-developed countries.  In other words, the developed world is becoming over-saturated with capital.  The excess capital is creating false markets in many cases because new markets are unobtainable.  Companies are either stealing customers away from the competition or simply swallowing the competition because the markets are not big enough to support them all.  We also saw this play out over the five years prior to the recession where cheap debt allowed for an ever-increasing portion of returns to come from debt arbitrage as opposed to real investment fundamentals, which basically masked the issue.

Though, without the comforts of known markets, the developing world represents a significant potential for entirely new markets.  These new markets won’t get created overnight; however, they will require long term commitments and a lot of hard work.  The ones we are seeing pop up in China and India have been in progress for decades.  Creating entirely new markets requires both time and investment in infrastructure to create an environment where a middle class can flourish and grow.  Investors are starting to consider places like China and India, which is good, but they must realize that though the business mechanics are similar, the subtleties, relationships, and manner in which business is conducted is quite different.  There is still much work to be done in these markets and well as smaller ones that get far less attention but hold an equal amount of promise.

Success in creating new markets and building a middle class in nations void of one will require new and innovative ways of combining public global aid with both foreign and domestic private investment. Creating partnerships that promote food security, business investment, and job creation to jump-start capitalistic activity seems far more beneficial than the old ways of shoring up the local government and banks.  When businesses are sustained, tax collections will shore up the governments in much more sustainable ways, and citizens will gain more political power to avert corruption.  It’s about starting an economic cycle, not circumventing it.  Governments generally do not produce economic activity, but they do benefit greatly from it.  It starts with building business, not building governments.  We need an entirely new perspective on how we can work together to build markets and bring people out of poverty and increasing the quality of life of those who currently reside at the bottom of the pyramid.  This ultimately requires a broadened view of capitalism.  Creation of the haves and have-nots does not have to be a side effect of capitalism.  We can choose a different path for the future of our world.  This is what it means to start thinking like a global citizen.

Can the US be the Kind of Leader the World Needs?

Tuesday, November 17th, 2009

bric3

It depends really on the US’ ability to recognize that the type of world leader required in the last century is quite different than the world leader that is needed in the 21st century.  Just as in business, what qualifies as effective leadership changes over time as the constituents being led change not only demographically, but also in what they value the most.  Successful leaders of the 21st century will be the ones that are more inclusive than exclusive; the ones put their egos aside; the ones that lead more by relationships than through control; the ones that recognize that every person and every country has their own story and though on a different scale they may in fact be doing the best they can.  Leaders of the future are not afraid to give credit where it is due, and in some cases they must step aside and let others lead.

Last week I attended the US-China Business Forum Green Texas 2009 in Austin Texas, organized by the US Department of Commerce, US Chamber of Commerce, and the Austin Chamber of Commerce, among others.  The overwhelming take-away for organizations wanting to take advantage of the tremendous business opportunities in China was that you must be willing to make a long term commitment that is centered on relationships, alliances, trust, and respect.  If you think you are going in as the big, intelligent, egotistical American, you will likely be in for a big disappointment.  We heard from folks that have done business in China for decades and newcomers that are still on their journey, and the most successful are open, respectful, and go in knowing that they will learn a lot from the Chinese.  It can be a wonderful win-win for both countries.

We may not always agree with the ways of the Chinese government, but the reality is that they are doing a lot more than the US in getting the world’s economy back on its feet.  They may not have an open political system, but they are very far along in an open economy and that is a massive step forward and certainly one in the right direction.  They may have substantial environmental issues to contend with, but considering where they started, they are definitely moving forward.  We cannot support immoral activity, but we can and should, in my opinion, support what they are doing well and their commitment to an open economy.  Political change will eventually come from within when the growing middle class become large enough and courageous enough to speak up for what they want.  Listening to a talk on China by James Mills of the Economist, this growing middle class and the political implications it may bring is a big concern for the Chinese government.

It would not surprise me if China eventually leads the world in the rate of environmental change.  They are starting at a much lower position than the rest of the developed world, and they will be able to leapfrog the stage we are in and go directly to the latest technologies with the best results.  Despite the large size of their country, their ability to make large sweeping changes is greater than any democracy because they simply lay out the new rules and begin demanding change.  I am certainly no advocating communism, but it is hard to ignore that in the case of environmental clean up in China it will likely be very effective.  My personal opinion is that slowly over many decades China will continue to take on more and more democratic practices in an effort to maintain peace and stability within their own country.

If we do not keep our eyes open, acknowledge and embrace the changes that our own country needs, and are not willing to support other countries in their struggles to become leaders themselves, we will miss the proverbial boat.  We will wake up one day and realize that the US is behind the times and has lost an important and powerful opportunity to continue to lead the world to success, out of poverty, and to a peaceful existence.

We must be proud of countries like Brazil, and be proud that they have one the recent bid for the 2016 Olympics.  Though we all wanted Chicago to be chosen, if we dig deep down in our hearts, we know that Brazil needed it much more than we did.  They now have a goal to work toward to clean up some of the violence, and prop up some of the infrastructure.  I only wish we could have see that before and perhaps graciously asked that Brazil be the winner.  Instead, we have confirmed what much of the world thinks of America; that we are selfish and sometimes a bit of a bully.  What a lost opportunity!

According to last week’s Economist (special report on Brazil), “Brazil has long been known as a place of vast potential.  It has the largest freshwater supplies, the largest tropical forests, land so fertile that in some places farmers manage three harvests a year, and huge mineral and hydrocarbon wealth.  Brazil could easily be one of the 5 largest economies sometime this century.  Shouldn’t we be asking them what they would like to create and how can we help?  Instead we always seem to be saying, “Here’s what you need to do.”  Shouldn’t we be helping our own entrepreneurs do more business with Brazil?  A strong and successful Brazil means wealth and stability for a large chunk of South America . . . and that has to be good for the spread of democracy and the globally interdependent economy.

It’s clear that later on in the century the US may loose it’s first place standing in some measures, or at least loose it’s massive lead.  We can either sit around worrying about how we can keep our edge in whatever measurement the media is focused on at the moment, or we can become true global leaders and help our comrades become leaders themselves and in their own right.

This is the exact same struggle that large corporations are facing today.  They can continue their hard-line ways of controlling their employees and making sure that all the decisions are kept close to the chest at the top of the pyramid, or they can realize that tomorrow’s greatest companies will come about through a new kind of leadership.  Leaders that genuinely deflect the limelight, constantly support their customers and employees, and believe in people enough that their full potential shines through.  These are the companies that will attract the best and brightest employees that design and develop the best products and services.  People will gravitate to companies where they can become themselves at the office and aren’t forced to go down a certain path or abide by a certain set of rules.

As the US learns how to help countries without dictating, and listens to what they really need, and has the compassion to put others first on occasion, then, and only then, will we deserves to be the leader the world can truly look up to.

It’s simple really.  When you gain their trust and have compassion, then you have a chance to really create a positive influence.  Without trust, you will, at best, maintain the status quo.