How will the banks ever recover our trust?

How will the banks ever recover our trust?

May 7, 2018 | Customers, Governance, Leadership

Over the last decade, banks, and other financial institutions have spent billions, I have no idea how many, but guess multiples,  on telling us they are our friends, there for us, reliable, trustworthy, yada, yada, yada.

That investment has gone.

Poof.

Billions gone in a puff of Royal Commission smoke.

Then the stinky smell of the smoke is intensified by the APRA report into the CBA, released on April 30th, which is critical of the internal management and governance of the CBA.  While the CBA has been in APRA’s gun, there is now no reason to believe that the others are not similarly tainted. Just look at that doyen of financial rectitude, AMP for evidence of that.

I am not sure how much we all knew before all this came about, as most of us seemed to know at some level we were being screwed by the financial institutions, but the extent has come as a surprise, even to the most cynical amongst us.

If the boards of all financial institutions are not deeply concerned with these issues, they should be, in fact I would contend they are not doing their job if they are not.

Which opens two key questions:

  1.  How they can possibly recover the trust of their customers and the community?
  2.  In the absence of that trust, what alternatives do we as customers have?

So what is it that the financial institutions need to do to earn back our trust, and once earned, keep it. Trust has to be earned, it is never just given.

  • Transparency. Until we are able to see all the squalid details of the financial business model, be able to make informed choices, and have the current bunch of directors acknowledge their individual and collective failures, we will never trust them again. Probably the only way forward is increased regulation, or perhaps a more meaningful application of the existing regulations. A change to mandatory fee for service rather than commissions throughout the industry would remove the cause of much of the dishonesty at an operating level. Trust is impossible without transparency.

 

  • Communicate relentlessly. Having something of value to say, and saying it consistently, in many different ways is essential. This does not mean more fluffy advertising, and competitive product pitches attacking us from every angle. It means that we, the customers, have to be able to understand the value that is added by our financial institutions, and the cost of that value.

 

  • Measure the right things. Every business has financial objectives to meet, but confusing those financial objectives with the behaviour that delivers them is a bad mistake. In the end, the financial results are the outcome of a whole range of activity and behaviour, which when right will deliver the results. The old adage that you get what you measure almost always applies, and the financial institutions have been measuring the wrong things.

 

  • Manage behaviour and build a new culture of service.  Ensuring that behaviour is consistent with a revised set of values that will apply is essential. These should evolve from the Royal Commission report and the need for every business to be able to define its purpose. The boards have a big task in front of them to change the cultural norms that drive behaviour.

 

  • Be prepared to  be wrong. When a mistake is made, and we all make them, admit it openly, while adding what you have learnt from the experience, and what you will do in the future as a result. The sight of various board members setting out to absolve themselves of responsibility is a very bad ‘look’ and should not be tolerated by us as consumers, or the regulators.

 

  • Take responsibility. Responsibility and accountability seem to be sadly lacking at present, and this needs to be reversed. Hopefully, it will evolve as part of the cultural renewal I optimistically forecast.

 

  • Be human. The pace of change has outrun our collective ability to absorb it. Automation in the name of efficiency is fine, until the automation removes people from the equation. People deal with people they know like and trust, so there is a real challenge for  the banks. Be known, liked and trusted again.

 

One of the structural problems the industry has to face is a very human one. We all want something for nothing, and nothing usually means we would rather pay more, but not see the payment to avoid feeling the pain. The result of this is the generation of hidden commissions, and sliding scale charges, rather than fee for service.  Commissions wherever I see them change behaviour, create a short term financial incentive, that is their purpose, and usually become a part of the status quo. In most cases, and certainly in the financial services industry, this practice is not in the best interests of  those who ultimately fund the commissions. The whole financial services business model is based on commissions, which is like building a skyscraper on quicksand, bound to unravel at some point.

Oops, I think it is unravelling!!

To the second question, the options we have as consumers: currently none. There are many alternatives, many touted differentiators, but in essence they are pretty much the same, it is just the details of the business models that vary a bit. However, malfeasance such as we are seeing has a way of adding fuel to the innovation fire, and I suspect there will be options opening up very quickly that deliver some if not all of the characteristics that will build trust from outside the traditional financial services industry. This will certainly give the regulators a headache, and boards something beyond their current horizons to think about.

I wonder if many of the legacy businesses will still be around in their current form in a decade? I doubt it very much. However, the point should also be made that it is the people who run and govern these businesses that are to blame, not the institutions themselves. The financial institutions play a vital role in our economic and social lives, and are indispensable, unlike those running them, many of whom should be dispensed with forthwith, without any form of golden handshake.  Indeed, many should be thankful they will not be measured for striped suit and a modestly furnished suite at Silverwater.

 

Cartoon credit once again to the great Hugh McLeod at Gapingvoid.com

6 essential questions from the devil

6 essential questions from the devil

May 4, 2018 | Governance, Leadership, Management

Having a ‘devils advocate’ around you is one of the most productive relationships you can have in a complicated enterprise. Such a relationship enables the stripping of any position held back to its core, removing the bias, preconceptions, and power of the status quo, but leaving room for intuition born of domain knowledge, experience, and most importantly, data.

You should seek out and nurture such relationships.

The most successful commercial relationship I have had was with a bloke to whom I reported for a long time, in two different businesses. Vigorous ‘conversations’ took place as a natural part of determining the best course of action to take, the best allocation of limited resources, with each testing the positions taken by the other.

The eventual outcome was more often than not, one that would not have emerged without such a process, although we both knew who held the power of veto, and from time to time, it was used.

I was reminded of this relationship recently in a conversation with a client who had reached a conclusion I thought was absolutely wrong. It was based on flimsy information, the opinion of someone whose opinion in this matter was in my view skewed by some unfortunate and irrelevant bias, and a reverence for the status quo which appears to me to be destructive.

I went through my standard list of  ‘Devils questions’ to no avail. Tell me what questions I should have asked on top of those below in an effort to help him consider the real merits of the decision he was about to make.

  • What is the source of the data you are quoting? Without a reliable, robust and repeatable data source that stands up to scrutiny, an ‘insight’ based on it is just another opinion.
  • How did you get from the ‘data’ quoted to the ‘insight’ you appear committed to? I like to see logic chains, definable cause and effect, when gathering insights from data, and am wary of leaps of faith that do not have the authority of logic and experience.
  • What biases have you have built in from your background and experience? Nobody is immune from some level of built in bias, a good devils advocate holds up a mirror to them.
  • What other options could there be based on the same data? In most situations, there is more than one way to interpret and leverage data, opinion, experience, and outside knowledge. Playing the ‘options game’ as a part of a conversation is a very useful tool.
  • How do we test the insight without betting the farm? These days the ability to test has been multiplied a thousand fold by the digitisation of everything, it is no longer wise (if it ever was) to bet the farm. The scientific method rules!
  • What will you do if you are wrong? Learning from mistakes, and applying the learning is the basis of improvement, and without an inclination to learn from mistakes, you will be destined to repeat  them, usually for  the same reason they were made in the first place.  In addition, answering this question almost inevitably opens up other options for consideration that may not have been adequately considered, or completely missed in the conversation.

Devils can be very helpful when used well, but they also have the power to be destructive, so be careful with whom you dance.

 

8 ingredients for  an idea stew

8 ingredients for  an idea stew

May 2, 2018 | Change, Innovation, Strategy

Ideas do not emerge from nothing, despite the hype, they do not just appear in the shower. They are always a product of a process, conscious or unconscious that connects and curates thoughts, knowledge, ideas from other domains, that can be used in a different way, connected where there was not pre-existing connection, and that have a hook of some sort that does something new. As J.M. Keynes observed:  ‘The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones’

Ideas evolve and like any evolution require a set of conditions that encourages individual survival, evolution over time, and eventually success for a very few.

There are 8 ingredients to an idea stew.

Allow Prep time.

Every stew has a base, a foundation upon which the variations can be built. While the base is often obscured, it is nevertheless critical. Taking your time to determine just what you have available for  the stew, that will meet the objective, and then organizing the ingredients in the right amounts to be added in a sensible order with any necessary ‘sub-assembly’ being done will improve the outcome. Your idea stew is built in the same way, on a solid  foundation with research, and the results of previous trial and error to hand. The more work you put into the prep, the better the outcome usually is.

Have a pot.

To create a stew, you need something in which to hold the ingredients as they cook, each ingredient influencing the others, and the outcome. Making a great stew without the resources necessary, the time, access to ingredients, the right implements,  and obviously a kitchen, is pretty challenging, next to impossible. While you do not necessarily need the top of the range, you do need enough to manage the process with some degree of control and efficiency.

Have a deadline.

Usually when preparing a stew, it is for something specific. Dinner tomorrow night, for the weekend when the neighbors come over, or standby for the freezer.  Creating an idea stew is no different. The presence of a deadline, perhaps counter-intuitively, creates tension, pressure to get things done, and it focusses attention on the details so things do not get left undone.

Have a picture of the outcome.

The stew you are cooking has to serve a purpose, it has an audience, and the audience shapes the stew. Just as you would not put a pile of chili in a stew your young kids will be eating, you need to ensure that the ingredient in your ideas stew are consistent with the sort of outcome you are seeking.

Be prepared for diversity.

Sometimes, someone who may be a great pastry cook, but knows little about stews can bring across something from his discipline that adds something very different to the stew.  While this diversity in the ‘cooks’ often draws comment, the last thing you want if you are looking for a different stew, is to have only those who are used to the current recipe involved in thinking about the options that may be there.

Have a process plan.

Every stew is made in some sort of sequence, separate steps taken in some order, with interdependencies amongst the ingredients. While each step is not necessarily fixed, there are some things that must come before others can be properly done, to get the best outcome. A stew also takes time for the flavor to develop, for the little touches to be added that make all the difference, a pinch of this, a dash of that, all in the context of the plan, to avoid mucking up the result with that little last minute addition.

Creativity: The vital ingredient.

Perhaps a better word is ‘catalyst’ in a commercial context, as there are elements of creativity in all of us. However, for many it has been beaten out by the education we have, the institutions we work for, and at a more base psychological level, some of us are simply not risk-takers, not outside the box thinkers, so are of limited value for creative input. It is in effect the difference between a very good cook, and a chef. Give a great cook a complicated recipe and they will execute it by following both the recipe and the methodology, but give them a limited pantry and no recipe, and many will struggle. By contrast, the chef gets bored with the recipe, and  prefers to experiment. The outcomes are varied, most will be disasters, bit a few will be spectacular successes. Businesses succeed by doing the same things over and over, getting  better at it all  the time. A necessary ingredient of this mix is to get rid of those who cannot follow the process. However, for a business to renew itself, to cook an entirely new stew, it requires those who do not go by the rules, who think outside the box, sometimes outside the postcode. You also need to keep diligent records so that the unexpected great outcome can be reproduced, often a challenge for the creative ones who get bored with the recording when they can be doing. Pity you got rid of them all because they are a pain in the arse to manage!

Ask a friendly customer.

Asking someone you hope might put their hand into their pocket and give you their heard-earned in return for a taste of your stew seems to be a good idea at some point before you commit to the expensive launch. Generally, the earlier the better, and the more informed and critical their opinion of your evolving stew, the better.

A marketers explanation of the difference between an ‘Intangible Asset’ and ‘Goodwill’

A marketers explanation of the difference between an ‘Intangible Asset’ and ‘Goodwill’

Apr 30, 2018 | Change, Governance, Strategy

When you look at a balance sheet, the intangible elements of it are either the outcome of ‘boilerplate’ accounting standards that bear little resemblance to reality, or are the function of a management narrative. Neither is of much use, and both can be destructive.

For example: under the accounting standards, intangible assets are listed on a company’s balance sheet only if they are acquired, and therefore have an identifiable cost, and usually lifespan that can be amortised. Assets developed internally have no place on a balance sheet.

Of course, neither goodwill or intangible assets as recorded have little ’cause and effect’ connection with the share market valuation, which is all about future cash flows.

The Coca Cola logo is generally ‘valued’ in the billions, but does not appear in the balance sheet because it was built internally, rather than acquired. Were a company to acquire Coca Cola, there would then be a value that could be pinned to the logo, which would then appear on their balance sheet. The caveat is that there are mechanisms to place a value on an intangible asset that can be recorded, usually involving independent valuations, but these valuations come with a grain of salt.

A further example. When developing a new product, the outcomes of that effort may be seen as an intangible asset, but it appears nowhere except the P&L, as development expenses. Assume the product is a pharmaceutical product, years in the development, and very expensive, this is a drain on cash flow in the hope that there will be a pay-off. Prior to commercial launch, it has been patented, the efficacy proven, then the patent becomes a tangible asset, as a dollar value can be attached, and the patent is tradeable. The brand name of the new product will become a new intangible asset, not reflected anywhere beyond an implied connection to the value of the patent. Over time if the product is a market success, the value of the patent will increase to reflect the future cash flows that will result from ownership, to a peak, after which the cash flows will be subjected to competition from generic products that will become available as the patent period runs out, so the value is reduced. The brand name has no value in the books, until it is sold, perhaps along with the patent,

The key distinction between goodwill and intangible assets is that the goodwill has been purchased, so has a market defined value. Google paid $12.5 Billion in 2011 for Motorola Mobility, entirely  for the patent library they owned. At the time, Motorola was close to broke, their products which had led the mobile phone market had suddenly become irrelevant when they missed the smart phone revolution. The patents were transferred to Google, who then sold the remaining  hardware business to Lenovo for $3 billion, without the key software patents. On paper, Google took a $8.5 billion loss, but retained the patent library and intellectual capital associated with the Motorola development labs. This gave them greater leverage with the users of Android mobile software, predominantly Samsung, and protection against the relentless patent wars with Apple. A great deal.

Lenovo would have an item on their balance sheet that values their purchases from Google, but there is nothing on Googles balance sheet beyond the  ‘loss’ they incurred in the transaction, which fails to reflect the future value they will derive from the ownership of the patent library.

However, there is a sea change going on. According to research company Ocean Tomo, the proportion of US Fortune 500 companies stock market valuations represented by intangible assets has gone from 17% in 1975 to 87% in 2015.

The lesson here is that the world has changed, so called ‘soft’ assets are now more valuable than the physical assets that accounting systems were designed to track.  Focussing effort on building those soft assets will pay long term dividends, which cannot be readily accounted for in the monthly financial reports.

For most of my client base, the notion of intangible assets is far-fetched, until they come to valuing their business, when a primary asset becomes the relationship they have with their major customers, and how ‘sticky’ they might be seen post a sales transaction. It is this ‘stickiness’ that is a primary driver for the acquiring company to keep the key personnel employed on a pay-out contract based on a period of time and key KPI’s, to better manage the smooth transfer of the relationships.

Header from http://www.oceantomo.com/2015/03/04/2015-intangible-asset-market-value-study/

What does the FMCG future look like?

What does the FMCG future look like?

Apr 27, 2018 | Customers, Innovation, retail

It is easy to be critical of just about anything, much harder to be constructive, and make suggestions about how to  change the things that attracted the criticism.

In my case, I have been critical of the retail gorillas, Coles and Woolworths for some time, specifically their capacity to change what appears to an outsider, to be their strategic priorities.

As a shareholder in both however, (via managed super rather than choice) I have been rewarded by the returns.

So, I am going to stick my neck out and make some observations, in no particular order, and would welcome feedback.

Delivery services.

Busy crowded lives seem to require a delivery service, and Coles and Woolies have dabbled in it with the delivery trucks we now see around. I have not used either, but several acquaintances have, several extensively, and generally just shrug with resignation at the inaccuracy, inconsistency and uncertainty involved, and wonder if it is worth it. Perhaps the order/pick-up combination will be the answer to the ‘last mile’ problem, as most of us have cars.

In the US there is a service called ‘Instacart‘ that appeared to be doing an ‘Uber’ on grocery shopping and distribution. In Australia, ‘Uber eats’ seems to be bobbing up everywhere, delivering from all manner of food service outlets. Shopping and delivering seems to be a small step to take, or just the delivery part after order assembly in store.

By contrast, Kaufland in Germany appears to have walked away from their on line grocery services, citing the costs of the ‘last mile’ making it unprofitable. This is in the face of Ocado in the UK seeming to go from strength to strength.

In summary, a lot of experimenting to do before the best model evolves, but the common element appears to be basket size. Encouraging on line shoppers of any sort to increase the order size makes some of the other problems less important. It is a standard retail metric, and even more appropriate for on line.

Digital marketing development.

Amazon has mastered the art of cross selling and using feedback to overcome the barrier of not being able to see, touch and feel products as you can in a bricks and mortar store. The current on line gorilla catalogues are just that, catalogues, little more. No cross selling, no recipes, no personalisation based on browse and purchase history, no seasonal suggestions beyond the digitisation of the generic  ‘shop now for Christmas’ stuff. With a few digital tweaks, the current catalogues look like the pages of Co-Op ads in the Wednesday afternoon  newspapers that used to be an important part of dealing with the gorillas.

Opportunity waiting?

Store automation.

Amazon has ignited retail with Amazon Go, poking into action all sorts of activity from the usual suspects as well as some unexpected places.

Hema supermarkets are quickly opening stores after 18 months of testing and development in a Shanghai pilot. Owned by Alibaba, the tech in these stores and the levels of service they offer will, or should concern the two Australian gorillas. Alibaba also has a pilot unmanned Tao coffee shop. I wonder at the quality of the coffee, but who would want to bet against that being commercialised?.  Another Chinese start-up called ‘Bingo Box‘ is planning unmanned convenience stores after a (reported) successful pilot in Shanghai taking Amazon Go type technology a step further.

It also seems obvious that there will be automation applied to the routine and labour intensive job of shelf filling, facing up, and highlighting offers of various kinds. Wal-Mart is experimenting with that idea in 50 stores, using robots to check inventory stock weight, location and pricing, and the other US retailers are not being left behind. Kroger is playing with mobile apps, to communicate offers, lists, coupons, and personalised messages, as well as scanning items in store to reduce checkout lines.

Supply chain automation.

Somebody, somewhere,  will apply Blockchain to the entire supply chain for a product. It will be  kicked off by a consumer taking a product from a shelf, being relayed back through the chain, creating production orders, invoices, inventory management, all ending up in an automated Kanban system at the store selling face, creating a genuine demand chain. The technology to do all this exists, in pieces, so putting it together will not be far off.

The only thing certain about the above thoughts is that there are many I have missed.

Photo credit; Mark Stevens via Flikr