Commerzbank defeated in Bonus Fight

All managers involved in employee compensation will be well advised to study the implications of this protracted legal case (see here and here). When senior managers of Dresdner Bank in London tried to pacify members of staff that were unsettled by news that Commerzbank was about to make a takeover bid they did not foresee the implications of the verbal promises intended to calm the nerves of their employees. They would not have expected that two trials in the British courts would have considered their statements to be a legally binding contract that even the dramatic upheavals of the financial crisis in the later part of 2008 would not have been able to extinguish.
In a similar vein, all-too-often I find that the coordination between senior management and human resource departments leaves a lot to be desired. In addition, special deals - often verbally - are agreed with staff members that lead to further confusion and mistrust among other staff members that feel that they are discriminated against. In the case of the promises made to Dresdner Bank one could also have said (even without the benefit of hindsight!) that employment prospects during the summer/early autumn of 2008 were already less than rosy and the threatened (or feared) exodus was highly unlikely.

Scariest Part of Gold Crash?

Reads a headline but the article forgets to mention what really should scare investors, market professionals and regulators: the fact that the price of a major asset can plunge by such a large amount in a few days demonstrates the inherent fragility of financial markets. During the past 30 years the unprecedented growth of  (mostly over-the-counter) derivatives - subject to 'light-touch' supervision - has created a huge house of cards of interconnections between all financial market participants that could rapidly spiral out of control. The absurd length of time required to unwind all the liabilities from the collapse of Lehman - and the number of company 'boxes' created by that firm - shows that the current regulatory scheme is not up to the job. Proper stress-testing of banks, insurance companies, securities firms, asset managers and pension schemes would have to be much tougher and assume a shift in asset prices by multiples of the underlying assumptions that are used today, something in the order of 20-25 percent.

German Managers want banking pay limited - but not their own

A poll conducted by Handelsblatt comes to the conclusion that German Managers favour limiting pay in the banking industry but not in their own companies. How hypocritical can you be? But apart from this questionable aspect limiting pay in the banking industry would mean that only second-rate people would want to pursue a career in banking. This episode demonstrates that the question of pay - especially for senior management - cannot be tackled in specific industries but must be part of a wider solution based on sound management and moral principles.

Fed sends Minutes a Day (!) early - the real questions

In the Lobby-infested cesspool that is Washington it is no surprise to find that the Fed 'accidentally' sent copies of the latest Minutes to a select list of banks, investment managers and lobbyists. While the easy excuse is that it just is a 'fat finger' error caused by some junior staffer (an unpaid intern?) I just find this explanation less than satisfactory. As anyone who has ever sent an email message to a maillist should know a message is only sent to the recipients that are included in the list. If only this select group of recipients gets the mail it should mean that there was a sort of priority list. Otherwise all those who have signed up to get the Fed minutes delivered upon release should have seen the message at the same time. In addition, there should be a forensic audit into the trading activities of all recipient firms to find out whether they profited from this information or not.

Libor - Regulators asleep on the Watch (again)?

While I have doubts that the alleged or actual manipulations of the Libor rate-setting process really did major harm to anybody it is amazing that one large market participant was allowed to play a crucial role in the fix. Another case of regulators asleep on the watch?

Salz Report on Barclays - another Figleaf for the Establishment

The lengthy - and ridiculously expensive - Salz Report has to be seen in the long English tradition of conducting expensive and lengthy enquiries when the solution to the problem would just have taken common sense and a willingness for decisive action. Both ingredients are missing. It is not clear why there would have to be an enquiry into Barclays Bank and not into any of the other major banks, investment institutions, regulators and politicians who must certainly share a large part of the blame for problems in the financial sector - and wider economy - that have evolved during the past few years. The proverbial blind man could see that executive pay in banks - but also in investment firms and major listed companies - has spiralled out of control. It leaves a sour - not to say salty - taste in one's mouth when one sees that the costs of the report are such that the 'solution' is part of the (pay) problem. How can anyone justify that a 244 page report that any junior management consultant with his head screwed on could has put together can cost £17 million! And how much of that did go to the City 'Grandee'?

No regulators slated for failure

But HBOS chiefs 'slated' for failure (Financial Times). And anyone thought that there was a proper investigation of banking problems?

Goldman Sachs Liberty Harbor - too close for comfort?

Another Cyprus Bank Robbery?

When the state loots the shareholder

State-sanctioned looting of shareholders becomes the norm in the United Kingdom. First not-so-gentle persuasion was used to force banks to compensate 'victims of mis-selling' (though how these millions were forced to buy products that they were not supposed to either want or need still is beyond me). Then all those who were at the loosing end of derivative contracts that were designed to protect them against interest rate risk were out with their begging bowls and a complicit media commentariat, lobbyists and politicians jumped on the bandwagon to punish the unloved banking sector. The latest illustration of madcap regulatory overreach is given today as the UK's FSA fines Prudential Plc 30 (in words: thirty!!!) million pounds on the spurious pretext of not having been informed in time about a possible bid for AIA. The shareholders and pensioners who are paying for this nonsense will be the ones picking up the bill that feeds the ever-rising army of paper-pushers in the regulatory Gulag that slowly strangles the financial industry in the UK - no need for the 'Troika' to aid an inept government of PR luvies.

Stalinist Incomes policy - spiteful and arbitrary

The European (Dis?) Union is on the slippery road to serfdom (Hayek) when professional agitators like Sven Giegold (read his CV carefully, you will shudder when you read it!) are given the opportunity to introduce 'laws' that arbitrarily set pay (Financial Times) for a minority of the population that he and his minions want to punish for ideological reasons. It is not possible to argue with these extremists (have a look at what 'Attac' stands for) and the only way to combat the takeover of the pseud-democratic institutions in the EU and the member states is a complete overhaul of the political system based on a radical and comprehensive form of direct democracy safeguarded by a proper bill of rights that bans discriminatory legislation. Those who do not just want to shrug their shoulders or clench their fists in their trouser pockets should contact me and take part in the democratic reform project.

UBS: Will Junk Pay motivate the troops?

I doubt it. When regulators don't regulate properly and management runs the ship aground it is not obvious why 6,500 staff should pay the penalty. Top management may be able to be paid in monopoly money as it has (hopefully) made it's pile and could happily retire even if the bonds that are being paid turn out to be worthless. But any aspiring young - or even middle-ranking - banker needs hard cash to pay to the ever-rising cost of housing, education etc. And is there ever going to be a penalty for regulators or politicians that don't do their job properly. The ECB has just announced that it will hire another 2,000 (useless) bank 'supervisors' in the near future....wish we had another Kafka to weave a novel with this subject matter.

Deutsche Bank - Vorwaerts mit Achleitner?

The write-offs published in DB's results show that despite all the market-leading positions the Bank may have in certain business segments the size of the company makes it inevitable that some major air pockets are hit in various parts of the far-flung empire. This is a problem that all banking behemoths face. Add the incentives to make more profits every quarter (and a corresponding bonus) and you have nearly guaranteed that some transactions will lead to losses. So it is problematic when an institution such as Deutsche Bank finds it necessary to put Paul Achleitner into the role of chairman of the supervisory board after he has managed to display less than excellent flair for managing the finances and investments of Allianz AG. Do I need to mention Dresdner Bank to anyone?

Derivative Trading - prone to abuse, fraud

As little - or even no - cash changes hands when transactions in derivatives (especially those conducted " Over-the-Counter") are executed they require even more oversight than transactions in securities that are cash-settled within a very short time span. Malpractice can easily be hidden from compliance and audit departments - even if these are not complicit in any misconduct or fraud. Often staff in these units are of lower status, less well paid and less well versed in the intricacies of the instruments involved. OTC derivatives are by nature traded by appointment and the correct pricing is not easy to verify - even with the best intentions of any supervisors. So it is quite easy to build in a margin for those that want to skim some money off the transactions they conduct. That the dealing community fights every proposal to bring all transactions online and onto exchanges raises doubts about the sincerity of their motives in doing so. Reports about the conditions in the dealing department of Monte dei Paschi di Siena illustrate these problems poignantly. (Reuters)

Nomura - profits still weak

The 9-month results for Nomura Holdings offer a slightly more positive picture but given the generally favourable market conditions experienced in the 3 quarters to the end of 2012 one would have to say 'could do better'. The after-tax profit margin is just a tiny fraction of total revenues - and the gap between pre- and after-tax net points to somewhat ineffective tax management.

Derivatives: Instruments of Mass Destruction?

Another day, another disclosure of a massive derivative loss. Given the astronomical amount of outstanding (OTC) derivative contracts (and even astronomers that are used to think in big numbers might have trouble relating to the relevant numbers) it is no wonder that these 'accidents' pop up on a regular basis. Low or non-existent capital requirements make these off-balance sheet exposures attractive for treasurers and CFO's. They require little or no cash up-front so give the somewhat false impression that entry to the great casino is free and profits will flow like manna from heaven. Sometimes they are sold as hedging instruments - and they might well be fit for the purpose but the iron discipline needed to stick to that narrow use is not given to all market participants. And many users are easy prey to the salespeople that are highly incentivised to peddle ever-more exotic schemes that resemble a 'heads I win, tails you lose' game. And given the fact that derivatives are ultimately a zero-sum game it is only natural that those offering these products are above all interested in making sure that they are not on the losing side of any derivative deal. Derivatives may well have a place in the arsenal of any financial market participant - but have to be supervised by experienced experts who can give an objective assessment of the risks and rewards involved.

Goldman: plays a simple game better than most

Quarterly figures just released by Goldman Sachs this morning demonstrate (again) that the firm plays - what should be a simple game - better than most competitors. No need for expensive consultants to figure that out, just common sense and experience.

JP Morgan: Review of the 'Whale' Trades

Nothing but a very thorough review of the losses made by the 'Whale' was to be expected but one still has to wonder how much good this report will do. Its recommendations certainly will keep a lot of regulators and JP Morgan staffers very busy in the future. But looking at the quite unstructured text in the 18 pages it contains hints at the main problem any financial institution faces: complexity and human frailty combined with a good mix of fear, risk and greed. Setting up ever more complex procedures and review bodies will only go so far and never be a perfect substitute for common sense and competent, honest and modest people.

UK: Hellbent on destroying its banks?

Readers know my scepticism with respect to the LIBOR witch hunt (and the PPI/payment protection insurance brouhaha that is completely blown out of proportion and turns all notions of individual responsibility on its head). But if there is any truth to it that the regulatory jobsworths (and their political puppetmasters) put pressure on Royal Bank of Scotland to get rid of two senior executives than one really has to say that the 'Coalition' here in the UK is hellbent on destroying what is left of indigenous UK banking institutions. Cameron and Osborne (and with a little bit of luck Nick Clegg as well) will find themselves cushy jobs with their Etonian or City friends and hangers-on after (as I would expect) they lose the next election. But the taxpayer and citizens of the country would have seen their (involuntary) investment in RBS go down the tubes.

Libor Trades - Simplistic Calculations

Reports about the profits that Deutsche Bank is supposed to have made (where can we finally expect to see a hard copy of dollars and cents?) are simplistic to say the least. Of course, ALL trading houses will (hopefully) have made money from 'Libor trades'. The alternative would have been to have lost money in these trades. But as even any intern serving in an investment firm knows, that does not mean that any profit has been made in an improper fashion. Have any of the critics in the media, politics and regulators even had a good look at the acres of office space trading desks occupy? do they know how many different desks and investments are linked to Libor? Then they would understand that even the efforts of a group as large as the (supposed) group of UBS staffers can hardly have shifted the actual Libor rates produced collectively by ALL the contributing banks by more than a tiny amount. And even within UBS, for example, there would have been winners and losers on any given day, just that the people responsible for Libor quotes may have gained a small advantage at their expense. But for that I still would like to see actual proof and not general displays of shock, horror etc

Banks: Time to get out of Europe!

Recently 500 (in words: five hundred!!) policemen were delegated to conduct a search at Deutsche Bank's headquarters. Anyone with half a brain will realise that to set loose such a large group to do a job for which they are less than qualified can only be motivated by political reasons. So it would be only natural that the Co-CEO of the business - which is after all a significant employer and taxpayer - would be in his rights to lodge a complaint with the political overseers of the judiciary and police. After all, the temporary 'constitution' of Germany is less than punctilious about a proper separation of the powers of government. But when this simple complaint causes a hysteric reaction among the ruling political establishment - fanned by a media that sings to the same collectivist hymn sheet - then it would be time for any self-respecting institution to ask itself if it is worthwhile to stay domiciled in the country or debark to friendlier shores. The same question should be asked by HSBC, Standard Chartered and any bank that does not simply want to become a 'utility' (ab)used to finance spendthrift states.

Merger Blues: Another day, another Write-off

Now it is Legg Mason's turn to eat humble pie and write off a major junk of its investment in Permal, the hedge fund group. No blame sticks to Permal though as no one (except maybe some advisers too keen on their fees?) held a gun to Legg Mason's head and forced them to pay over the odds. It remains to be seen if adding some heft to Permal's assets via the acquisition of Fauchier will help to right the ship. Fund of Hedge Funds are relatively new businesses, often built by one or a handful of entrepreneurs and the task of creating a lasting enterprise culture is a daunting one. The purchase is the easy thing!
Permal to acquire Fauchier Partners (Financial Times)

Man Group faces huge write-off on Acquisition

It was clear to me from the outset that the decision by Man Group to acquire the hedge fund GLG was more out of desperation (to diversity, or as Warren Buffett would say 'diworsify') than rational calculation. While the hedge fund business has been - and will remain - a good business to be in it requires more than any other business a fine judgement of people, enterprise cultures and business trends. Needless to say, the 'advisers' on both side of the deal above all will be interested to bank their not inconsiderable fees while wash their hands of any subsequent problems that may emerge post-deal.
Man Group faces heavy GLG write-off (Financial Times)

Libor: The Shakedown gathers steam

When I originally commented on the Libor 'Scandal' I got a surprisingly strong reaction from readers - even those that normally are quite critical of  'Ueber-Regulation' disagreed with me. But it is still less than clear who has really lost money due to the supposed manipulation - and if so, how much was lost (Dollars and Cents please you righteous citizens!). An article in the Daily Telegraph points out that from a legal point of view a successful prosecution is less than certain. So today's announcement that UBS alone might face penalties of close to $ 1 billion can only be understood in a climate of witch hunt mixed with a supine and spineless management culture in the banks concerned. After all, senior management wants to sleep quietly and does not give a damn about the shareholder's money. Similar abuse is rife in the so-called mis-selling 'scandals' related to payment protection insurance or sales of derivatives. Reader replies such as this one are not very illuminating (except about the public's attitude towards the banks) as they are unable to shed more light on the crucial question of who has lost (or maybe gained) how much from any Libor fixing.

An interesting discussion may be seen on this thread (Financial Services Regulation, Linkedin)

Distastrous Acquisitions

Rumors have it that Bank Austria may lose nearly 80 pct of the more than $US 2.2 billion that it paid for Kazakhstan's ATF bank in 2007. Together with the huge write-off that Credit Agricole recently had to make on its Greek adventure and the problems that
Man Investment has digesting its acquisitions this provides more evidence that poorly planned and/or executed acquisitions can prove to be hugely expensive.

Scandalous Regulators

Anyone who thinks that I take too negative a view of the 'efforts' of the regulators should have a look at this article. (Mises Institute)

FSA: Jobsworth at the controls!

Jobsworth: "a person who uses their job description in a deliberately uncooperative way, or who seemingly delights in acting in an obstructive or unhelpful manner." (Wikipedia). This definition comes to mind when observing the activities of - nameless and faceless - bureaucrats who have the ultimate say on who can occupy a senior position in the British financial service industry. I was always wondering why anyone would submit himself to the humiliating treatment meted out by people that would hardly ever stand a chance to succeed in a competitive environment. If politicians want to safeguard the financial system it is up to them to devise good regulation and not start micro-managing the sector in what can only be called a proto-stalinist manner. I have proposed simple and effective solutions in several posts, but so far no one seems to care - creating thousands of pages of new regulatory pamph is much more to the regulator's liking. Does Vernon Hill really need the aggravation at this stage in his life? The British Jobsworth establishment seems to do everything it can to protect the existing banking oligopoly while shedding crocodile tears about the lack of competition and bank lending.

'Britain' tightens grip on foreign banks

Reads a headline in today's Financial Times. This is another brilliant idea to weaken the position of the City of London as a financial centre. If my memory does not play tricks on me it was British Banks that caused most of the mayhem during the Financial Crisis 2008-09. Let the establishment - led by dusty professors, superannuated chairmen and boards and a one-time PR manager - ruin the country. UK is nearing the precipice, just wait when the herd turns on this country. Fiddling while Rome burns?.

Derivative Timebomb - still not defused

Talk, talk, talk - that is all the regulators and their political puppet masters seem to provide with respect to the derivatives market. Could it be that they just do not understand these markets? I agree with Chris Whalen and Barry Ritholtz (see video) when they call for the repeal of the Commodities Futures Modernisation Act which carved out a largely regulation-free zone for the OTC derivatives market. Even better would be a strengthening of margin requirements across the board - anything under 20-30 percent depending on the product is not good enough. Let us remember how markets moved close to that in panics during 1987 and 2008-09.  Recent worries about the adequacy of central clearinghouses put the finger on this problem but I fear that their capital and margin requirements are not up to the task - BY A MILE!

Bureaucrats take over the Banking Industry

While there are other reasons that 'banks do not want to lend' (such as lack of suitable borrowers) the nitpicking and intrusive regulation by anonymous paper pushers and their political puppet masters is another - and growing reason - for the lack of dynamism that is evident in Europe's banking industry. And that applies not only to the sickly Euro-zone but also to the UK. Latest exhibit: the procrastination  (Boersenzeitung) with which the German Banking Supervisor BaFin handles the acquisition of BHF-Bank by Kleinwort Benson. While Germany might be good at churning out industrial products (with generous help from a misguided currency defense that simply knocks out of contention all its major European competitors) the banking skills in the country will wither away to invisibility as any entrepreneur with a little bit of nous will stay clear of this country.

Banking Union - not so necessary

Today one of my favourite economic commentators states that "banking union [is] an absolute prerequisite of a properly functioning monetary union. (Jeremy Warner, Daily Telegraph). I beg to disagree. The only reason why weak banks can undermine the solvency of the host states is the lack of a proper regulatory environment in each of the euro-zone member states. As I have pointed out again and again, we are far away from reform measures that would put the banking system on a stable footing. If these measures would be implemented there would never be a requirement to cross guarantee banking systems, nor would there be any requirement  to have a European Banking Authority.

Nonsensical 'study' of High-Speed Trading

While I am critical of some aspects of high-frequency trading - esp the speed advantage that technology provides and which undermines the principle of priority and precedence - this study by a CFTC economist does not cut the mustard. That futures trading is a zero-sum game is nothing new and that those active on a daily basis want to - and have to - make a profit should not be seen in a negative way. After all, who complains about the profits that the casino operators in Las Vegas make? Without them there would be no gaming industry. So let us have more studies, but above make them relevant. This should mean that real abuses get uncovered and the guilty punished. Oh, and what happened to those responsible for MF Global - management as well as regulators?

CFTC: Regulator fit for purpose?

The US Commodities and Futures Trading Commission certainly knows how to make a hash of their task. While major regulatory disasters such as MF Global seem to go largely unpunished and the global OTC derivatives monster escapes any noticable oversight the CFTC is busying itself with closing down the tiny betting exchange Intrade. Is it not time that the overbearing bureaucrats in Brussels once and for all tell their US counterparts that extraterritorial jurisdiction is no longer acceptable?

Swiss-Life CEO: 'We paid too much for AWD'

With better advice Swiss-Life could have saved itself a lot of money and even more bad publicity. The chances that main-stream investment banking 'advisers' talk a willing client out of any deal he wants to do is very small. Too high is the pressure to generate fees that justify a high cost base for the employing firm, too strong the desire to buy an even bigger pad in London's Westend or in the Hamptons. A cursory examination by an experienced observer would have had loud warning bells ringing at the prospect of marrying a solid but staid organisation with a gogo marketing firm lead by a high-profile entrepreneur. On paper the numbers may have made sense - especially before the eruption of the global financial crisis - but the all-important human aspect was overlooked by the blue-eyed analysts in Swiss-Life's planning and strategy team. That the CEO still thinks that acquiring AWD was the right decision is odd - to say the least.

Bank of England appointment - not so glorious

Amid the orchestrated adulation for the newly-appointed Governor of the Bank one should not gloss over the shameful fact that once again the Government has failed to find a suitable candidate among the vast number of highly educated and experienced economists and other professionals here in the UK. Add the fact that a highly excessive pension 'contribution' is made to an already high basic salary (while huge numbers of hard-working public sector employees see their pension packages cut in unilateral fashion) and one can only wonder about the mental state of the decision makers that participated in this mock selection process. With respect to Carney's achievements in Canada one has to say that managing the affairs of a small country (by population) during a global resource boom that supports its economy while the banking system is by tradition a closely controlled oligopoly cannot have been all that difficult. And the conspiracy theorists will have a field day and argue that another Goldman Sachs 'clone' has obtaining vast discretionary powers in an unelected position.

P.S. - those who still think that Carney will save the UK may wish to look at this

HP/Autonomy: Poor Due Diligence, Poor Implementation

This tale of woe again demonstrates that relying on number crunching accountants and fee-hungry deal brokers is the wrong approach to acquisitions. And when a desperate CEO (see story) is at the controls of a business this turns into a toxic cocktail. Looking at targets for acquisitions all-too-often omits the human aspect of the assets to be acquired and - even more deadly - afterwards neglects the fact that a business is the sum of its human capital and not just a number on a balance sheet. Dealing with real people all the time in our recruitment business allows us to bring this crucial aspect into play when advising on strategic transactions.

City of London a "cesspit"? - get real Wall Street Journal!

A sad day when a respected business journal gives an experienced (?) journalist space to write such a poorly-researched and one-sided article. The so-called mis-selling 'scandals' are all the product of a politically correct media hysteria - no one was forced to purchase payment protection insurance and those claiming to have been poorly advised when they entered into swap arrangements are the victim of a crass zero-interest rate policy forced on us by clueless politicians (and applauded by equally clueless economists and media pundits). Basically they bought insurance which did not pay off - would interest rates have gone up no-one would complain, much less be willing to hand his winnings back to the banks. And outright fraud? Dare we mention Mr. Madoff and numerous US-based investment scamsters onereads in the press on a regular basis? And what about the victims of the MF Global collapse?

Bill Winters - harsh critique of UK bank reform proposals

"Bank overhaul 'may leave UK rudderless' if new crisis hits" reads the headline of the report about his evidence to the Treasury Select Committee (Daily Telegraph).
We could not agree more as we have repeatedly argued that overcomplicated 'Solutions' to the problems of the banking sector are no help, and more (expensive) 'studies' even less so. A few simple solutions are glaringly obvious: higher capital ratios on interbank lending and derivatives, funding that in its majority (90%?) matches the maturity on both sides of the balance sheet. No PhD, MBA etc required to implement or monitor this.

Hewlett-Packard - one poor Acquisition after another

Hewlett-Packard could easily become Exhibit Number One for any future case studies about the dangers and pitfalls of hastily concocted acquisitions. When common sense takes a leave of absence and megalomania takes charge of a CEO's desires nothing can stand in the way. An army of (sycophantic and conflicted) advisers is nothing but a rubber stamp and the board - full of well sleepy 'worthies' that are appointed by the CEO and for the CEO - are not providing the necessary checks and balances. The same can be said for the (mostly institutional) shareholders who are not given half a chance to properly question the proposed transaction.

UK Bank Bailout Money may never be recovered?

Opine the Solons sitting in Westminster. While this may not be a firm prediction but just a way of garnering a headline (CNBC) in the media it speaks volumes about the incompetence among 'lawmakers' (and the political class in general). Why should major banking institutions such as Lloyds TSB and Royal Bank of Scotland be beyond repair? If that would be the case one should start an orderly dismantling now. Maybe the raft of well-intentioned but often counterproductive regulation is intended to achieve just that. But then it would be better to admit this rather than trying to gain political capital with irresponsible statements. There is no reason why both banks should not be worth a lot of money in a few years time, maybe not as much as the taxpayer has put in but close to it at the very minimum.

BoA manager on wrong track

If it would not be printed in black and white I would believe that this initiative comes from a third-rate bucket shop (Bloomberg). That the equity sales staff at Bank of America Merrill Lynch (BAML) has reportedly been set a quota of 30 client meetings each month smacks of sheer desperation but also of a complete lack of trust between management and staff. This augurs badly for the future of BAML.

Commerzbank wins right to appeal UK bonus ruling

This headline made me look up the details of the original court case in which a large group of employees in the former Dresdner Kleinwort investment bank were vindicated in their claim that the bank should honor its promise of a guaranteed bonus pool. This amazing quote made by Stefan Jentzsch in a town hall meeting in the winter of 2008/09 makes you wonder what goes on in the heads of Commerzbank management when he said.....".. both Martin Blessing and Michael Reuther are men of honour who will stick to the bonus commitments already publicly made. Also I could not understand how and why, for what no doubt will be just a small economic amount even if it happened, they and their senior Commerzbank management collectively would wish to destroy their reputation as trustworthy leaders ..". No further comment required I think. The irony is that it was sheer folly for Commerzbank to buy Dresdner in the first place - but in that respect the management found itself in good company as Lloyds and Bankamerica entered into similarly suicidal bids at roughly the same time when they purchased HBOS and Merrill Lynch respectively.

Rating Agency reform- new idea but not enough

John Carney (CNBC) makes a new suggestion when he writes that rating agencies should not receive non-public information. While this may be a useful step in the right direction he does not explain why the shift to a different payment model would not be appropriate. The current system of having the issuer pay for the ratings is not only fraught with conflicts of interest, it is also expensive as usually more than one agency has to be hired thus duplicating effort and expense - and in many cases a third agency gets its pound of flesh. Agencies might be less profitable but this reduction in cost is only appropriate in the current climate of austerity. If the Value Line Investment Survey can achieve a long history of excellent service to the investment community there is no reason why there should not be enough demand for rating services that have to be paid by the investor. Does the financial community really want for the dead hand of bureaucrats in Brussels and elsewhere to get involved by dragging its feet and hoping that the current state of affairs can continue?

UBS Top Management feathers it's nest (again?)

Having just handled the beginning of the mass cull of employees in the most unprofessional way one could think of, the top management of UBS is already reported to be busy to design another dysfunctional and one-sided 'incentive' plan for itself. The fish always stinks from the head downwards and it is deplorable that despite growing disenchantment about exaggerated bonus and compensation plans for the tiny number of employees at the top of organisations the people at the helm of this bank - an institution that owes its survival to the generosity of the great unwashed public, i.e. the Swiss taxpayer - still are not 'on message'.

UBS to cut 10,000 employees

Not only does one have to ask why a large bank all of a sudden finds that it would be necessary to amputate a huge chunk of its operations it is also a step that will in all likelihood lead to even more management problems later on. Management and the Board must have been asleep at the watch for a very long time that such a drastic measure is required to bring the ship on course. Successful firms adjust staffing levels continuously - this is not only much cheaper and efficient, it is also less destructive for employee morale and customer confidence. The way that these 'restructurings' are conducted are also hugely wasteful. While the cost that is bandied about at UBS may include a lot of things that are not related to redundancy payment a large part certainly is. Given the probably inflated compensation levels one can only assume that the pay-offs will also on the generous side. A new top management and/or consultancy firm will probably suggest in a few years time that too much was cut, or the wrong sector was cut and the hiring/firing merry-go-round will enter a new stage. This will - again - inflate costs and lead to a management non-culture of revolving doors where employees are not familiar with each other due to excessive staff fluctuation. After the Adoboli case we all know where this leads to.

Cuts at UBS to take three years

Reads a headline in today's Financial Times. I rubbed my eyes over the time-span that the refocusing of UBS would take if management was really intending to keep to this horizon. In the world of markets and investment a year is already a very long time but planning over three years can only be called wishful thinking - apart from the tremendous uncertainty that it would create in the whole organisation. That three former Merrill Lynch staffers now seem to pull the strings in the key Global Markets division also raises a big question mark. We all know the fate of the once mighty Merrill Lynch after it went through numerous revamps over a period of several decades.

The Great Bank Robbery

While no one will deny that some sales of Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) were not in the customer's best interest (and even that statement is debatable) it is obvious that the UK banking industry is the subject of a populist witch hunt. Intelligent people are not forced to buy any product and in the case of PPI no one can argue that he was 'mis-sold' the product unless he actually tried to claim a payout and was denied compensation in an unfair fashion. There could be an argument about the premium paid but even that can never be reason for a blanket call for compensation as this could lead to the end of a free market system where every purchase could lead to a compensation claim later on if applied in a general fashion. Is this the way to run a banking system? or an economy? No wonder there are serious commentators who predict that the UK will be a Third World Economy by 2014.

Wall Street 'Eat-what-you-kill' System

The claim by the ex-Goldman Sachs staffer Greg Smith should not surprise anyone. Business by definition features an inherent conflict between seller and buyer. While one looks to achieve the highest price possible the buyer wants the exact opposite. Competition (and a dose of ethics) provide the safety valve against the exploitation of customers. The egregious margins achieved in other sectors of the economy - luxury goods for example - could easily also be accused of 'eating and killing' the customers. The lesson that should be learned by all investors - be they small or large individual investors or 'sophisticated' institutions - is that 'buyer beware' is essential when considering to enter into financial transactions, - especially when the other side possibly has an information advantage and is incentivised to exact the maximum possible gain from the counter party.

Citigroup: Shock about exit of CEO

That some employees at Citigroup may be in shock (Financial Times) about the sudden departure of the CEO speaks volumes about the fact that the role of the CEO in today's corporation is vastly exaggerated. While no one would deny that the decision of the leader is critical it does not mean that this is necessarily a good thing as many examples in business (and history) show. Relying on the judgement and predelictions of a single person creates risks that would be mitigated in a more collegial system of leadership.

Goldman: Internal Probe on 'Muppets' draws a Blank

We are not surprised (Financial Times). Who would commit the word to email or voice mail, let alone a printed document? That person really would deserve to be fired - not for the word but for sheer stupidity. But the problem is this: Investment Banking and Securities Dealing are full of products where the interests of the firm and the customer (we avoid the word client on purpose) are directly opposed. But this is the case in almost all businesses. The vendor wants a high price, the customer a low price. A healthy amount of competition therefore is necessary to make sure that customers get the best service. However, this also requires customers that are intelligent and diligent enough to make sure that their interests are served, i.e. do not get taken in by fancy brochures, the image portrayed by the salesman or invitations to ball games and fancy restaurants. One should always be on one's guard when confronted by sales patter but at the same time no firm will be able to survive if it does not control the urge to take advantage of its customers. This requires more than a nicely formulated 'code of conduct'. It requires constant effort from the top of the organisation down through the ranks. It certainly does not help things if top managers of financial firms pay themselves a king's ransom that is disproportionately large in comparison to the pay that those lower down the hierarchy get paid.