short termism

I was reading an article about Burlington’s CEO and how he’s happy that he can manage his company with long term goals now that the company won’t be public any more. he won’t have to worry about quarterly numbers, meeting the expectations of analysts and hedge funds, etc. instead he can manage knowing that he has a patient, long term owner in Buffett and Berkshire.

similarly, there was another article about shareholder activism and it painted some hedge funds as some sort of heroic figures trying to unlock shareholder value for the greater good of humanity when fact of the matter is that most of them just want to make a quick buck in as little time as possible.

this makes me really wonder about the whole point of wall street/bay street. I thought the idea of capital markets was to provide capital to businesses that needed it to grow. but somewhere along the way, have stock markets not just become casinos where bets are placed on whether a company will meet the consensus, will it beat its guidance or not? I don’t think real businessmen who run private businesses worry too much about quarterly numbers like the managements of public firms.

does it bother you too? isn’t there something wrong with the picture when managing capital and playing the stock market becomes such a lucrative profession that ppl leave real professions and enter this line of work because the risk/reward is so much better in finance than it is in fields like engineering, science, teaching, etc?

Re: short termism

to address just one part of your post about companies going public, it rally depends on the manner of going public, if they are bought by private equity groups, the question is does the private equity group want to hold on to the company or get profit, in general that means they toss out the mgmt team, bring in their own people and on paper goal is to make the company more attractive for an IPO so they get a good return on their investment. However it becomes a question of topline and bottom line, and there are many cases where the topline has not increased as fast as they want so measures are taken for bottom line with massive cost cutting, some of it needed in terms of consolidating operations and infrastructure, contracts and procurement, and improving efficiency, but in other cases the same 'short termism' comes into play where a lot is cut, R&D takes a hit, and products with lower margins are killed, investment into under performing products to make them more profitable is a longer payoff horizon so its not done. processes are six-sigma'ed to death, and outsourcing is rampant.

Many times the numbers look great from an EBIDTA perepective, but you really have to look under the hood what is happening. these issues of inadequate investments comes to haunt the companies in a few years, similarly there has to be a certain level of excess capacity to focus on growth and innovation, when cost cutting gets to barebones and overloaded resources, you dont have the skills/expertise available to have the luxury of doing so.

There was a good study on performance of companies bought and sold by groups like blackstone etc, i will have to dig it up. The problems I noted are not anomalies.

and the mgmt team that is brought in, they collect their payoff and go somewhere else to do the same. but that is what they are really paid to do, better IPO when company goes public.

I agree with your view on short termism, but just wanted to point out it may even be more of an issue with private companies or companies that have gone private with a plan to go public again

that's a very good point and I get what you're saying. there's a difference between a Warren Buffett taking over a company and a KKR/Blackstone, etc taking over a company. this is not to say that Buffett runs business like a charity. but at least he thinks with a long term pov. and these private equity firms just flip businesses.

yes, I understand that if there is fat then it needs to be trimmed and if the company is being run into the ground by entrenched management, then someone outside will come in and shake it up. but there is a difference between a Jim Pattison/Buffett, etc taking a stake in an undervalued company and making noise if need be and a Icahn/KKR, etc taking a company over. the former also want to make money but think like businessmen and realize that a business it not just EBITDA, margins, etc. the latter just want to make a quick buck imo and don't do much for the good of business and society, imo.

at the end of the day, all these private equity/lbos, hedge fund types, etc are all cut from the same cloth and just contribute to the quick buck culture. but how sustainable is this? can a society really function and prosper if people instead of making real products and providing real services all become professional money managers read sophisticated gamblers? Charlie Munger made a comment about this... that eventually the easy money will stop flowing on wall street and eventually ppl will go back to making money the old fashioned way - by working hard instead of doing lbos, gambling on stocks, etc.

I guess I'm not making much sense... if I really wanted to articulate all my problems with the industry, it would be a huge rant. as someone who works in the industry, loves it and wants to make a long term career in it, I still feel disappointed with how many, many aspects of it are run.

Re: short termism

and that's also a very good point of needing to look under the hood. there's a famous money manager in Canada who was hailed as the greatest money manager of North America just a few years ago. now mutual funds are supposed to be safe, etc, due to lack of leverage. but if your fund manager is buying microcaps and smallcaps that are leveraged to the hilt in their capital structure, even though the fund might not have borrowed money and leveraged its positions, leverage is built into the portfolio inherently because of the risks the manager is taking in his positions.

this fund manager calls himself a disciple of Templeton's. and yet the more I study him and his moves, he looks like nothing but a gambler to me. he claims to uncover value, all I see is him trading aggressively in microcaps. he claims to do his own original research. well when does he ever have the time to do any research when he's busy trading stocks around?

there's got to be something wrong when investors who're supposed to understand the merits of a business and invest accordingly become closet leveraged traders. and then, there are the ridiculously high MER. but that's another one of my beefs that I won't bother with here. argh... this industry is so messed up.

and in a way, it's our fault. at the end of the day everything starts with our money - the public that buys ETFs, mutual funds, etc. refuse to pay ridiculously high management fees to glorified gamblers and see how the easy money slowly dries up throughout the money chain for everyone on the sellside and buyside.

Re: short termism

I am in tune with you on this.

back in the day the focus was on dividends, buying stock u were partial owner of the company and entitled to portion of profits in form of dividends. when that got into frequent sells based on all kinds of factors, then yes you are making money on the stock value .. of course people shorting things did not help.

Funds have huge power and I suspect that they can manipulate markets to some extent anyways.

I am not a huge proponent of regulation in general, but while we addressed this issue in a case study, our premise was of a minimum holding period for any stock which would really slow down speculation significantly. going to your point about not just long term view by ppl running businesses, but also investors.

and yes I agree buffet holding to a company and growing or maintaining it is diff than KKR or blackstone six sigma-ing it to death by some former GE folks, thats who it usually is :) seen it too many times..

exactly... that makes me wonder about two more things...

I'm not a tax expert. but my understanding is that in the US there are two different cap gains taxes based on your holding period. and of course, the long term cap gain tax rate is lower than the short term one. as I said, I'm not aware of the details but this sounds like a great way to encourage some long term thinking. in Canada, there was talk about the govt introducing rules that would allow investors to not pay cap gains if they rolled the money over in six months' time. eventually it didn't pass because the govt would have lost too much tax revenue. it's kind of sad that the govt actually benefits hugely from encouraging this casino type environment. anyway, I think in Canada too I would love to see a long-term cap gains tax rate that is lower than the short term rate. something like if you've held a stock for 2 years or more, you get taxed less on disposition.

the other thing is... that this six sigma stuff and these GE managers... now I don't have my MBA so pardon my ignorance about the details about six sigma etc. but I think the last couple of years have shown up some of these great GE managers for what they were - process tyrants. I don't have an entrepreneurial bone in my body which I regret. but I used to look up to these guys. but when the tide went out a lot of them were swimming naked to quote Buffett. look at Hank Greenberg. or his Canadian counterpart to an extent - Dominic D'Alessandro of Manulife. a prudent businessman who had most of personal wealth tied in his business would never have run it the way these two former media darlings did. if you read the accounts of what they were doing and what almost killed both AIG and Manulife, that was certainly not good management.

it's really tough to separate the ghorays and gadhays in this business. I guess that's why someone said that the biggest secret to Buffett's phenomenal success apart from his business sense is his ability to get a good sense of people.

forget about manipulation man... which of course goes on. why do the options of certain securities start seeing huge volumes shortly before some sort of a merger announcement comes out?

the thing that gets to me is the huge number of fees you and I pay to these banks. they have a hand in my pocket all the time. if I go buy a mutual fund share, I pay the mutual fund a management fee which is ridiculously high as it is. if the fund makes 10% and I'm paying 1% (which is a cheap fund) to the manager, I've given away 10% of my money to the guy. that fund manager goes and buys/sells some shares. he charges me for the commission that he pays to the big broker/dealer. but the kick in the pants is that not only is the fund manager paying the guy an explicit commission of 2-3 cents per share (which is ridiculously high) but if he wants to buy an interlisted security, chances are that the broker/dealer is making money off the exchange rate too. the dealer is making money off EVERYTHING. and that money goes to pay these ridiculously padded and undeserved bonuses.

and all this comes out of the investing public's pocket - directly or indirectly.

Re: short termism

to keep it short

1) this entire fund management structure is lame and yes this fees are annoying it a shame that competition has not really out much of a dent in the fees structure

2) these process tyrants, sorry, I have worked with a number of them, and they dont know jack, I may be committing blasphemy against the six sigma tribe, but in majority of the cases it does not do jack..I mean yes focus on reptitive processes automate them, reduce error rate, increase first pass yield and all that crap, BUT..it can not be at the expense of long term growth and sustainability. The usual mantra is that oh we will do this to free up funds to reinvest into innovation and growth..umm sorry not buying it.

I have been witness to excel gymnastics to get senior mgmt get their bonuses. A couple of years ago, massive cuts were made, and people were overloaded just about in time to hit ebidta numbers for bonus payout. pretty shameful.

It was also amusing to see mgmt teams at different banks racing to pay back to the govt so they can be bonus eligible :)

Can’t comment on the financial market aspects with any confidence since it isn’t my forte, but wanted to pitch in my two cents about the shortcomings of business practices and methodologies such as six sigma. I’ve only worked on a couple of projects as a six sigma green belt, but have been fortunate enough to realize early on in my career that six sigma can’t be adopted as an enterprise-wide business strategy, contrary to what its often marketed to be.

The sad truth is that once you master a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail... and that’s the case with many six sigma evangelists who fail to realize or admit to the fundamental limits of the methodology. The fact remains that six Sigma is not relevant for developing innovative products or devising long-term corporate strategies. Even companies like Motorola and IBM where six sigma methodologies used to be followed as a religion until the mid to late nineties realized this – albeit a little too late some might contend.

Case in point – while IBM was focused on improving process defects and product quality, they failed to realize that they were building the wrong products. While they were incrementally improving outdated networking products, Cisco was pioneering new products on its way to become a powerhouse in that industry... while IBM was looking at ways to reduce errors in forecasting PC sales, Dell was creating new make-to-order business processes that required little forecasting to begin with.

I guess it does come down to short-termism and functional myopia that can be attributed to the misuse of business practices and methodologies. With a process like Six sigma, no wonder many refer to it as Sick sigma.

Re: short termism

sick sigma... nice, i have to remember that one.

true, how can we do things better, faster and cheaper..

but are they the right things, now, or in future become a whole diff issue.

Re: short termism

^ yep... it might be cliché but it comes down to doing things right (efficiency) versus doing the right things (effectiveness).

financial markets are no forte of mine either. but I would never let that prevent me from forming and airing uninformed opinions... Alhamdolillah...

I have no idea about this six sigma stuff... but I guess the basic message is the same - use common sense over repetitive process.

Re: short termism

common sense aint that common samb... another way I look at it is that while operational excellence demands precision, consistency, and repetition ; innovation is more often a coincidence between variation, impulse, and providence. As you said earlier, people like Buffet are nifty in differentiating between the two situations and in appreciating the need of both disciplines in different circumstances as well as their complementarities in certain environments.

Re: short termism

however lucid, I think six sigma is a tool abused by short term oriented CEOs and their executive suite.

use teh six sigma or LEAN mantra..slice and dice the hell out of stuff..roboticize functions like client service, ops, outsource and offshore reducing costs even if that later results in consumer/customer satisfaction..but short term indicators in ebidta look good..and then they move on..someone else picks up the pieces of loss of market position, innovation pipeline, customer defection and workforce attrition.

its that short termism and the for the lack of a better word pathetic manner in how workforces are treated that when things pick up you will see mass exodus from companies.

Re: short termism

^ totally agree - and that's what I meant to say by six sigma not being an enterprise wide strategy or even one which works in all situations.

Again, if you're looking for a case study, 3M is a good one where the employee morale of engineers and researchers was at an all time low during their six sigma years.

Re: short termism

now here’s a guy who makes sense. tbh, I’ve been much more of a Buffett groupie than a Bogle follower. so haven’t read too much about him. but this is a great interview… and addresses some things we should all be thinking about.


Original Sin on Wall Street - Business - The Atlantic

Feb 19 2010, 9:14 AM ET

John C. Bogle is a huge fan of the Classics.

Bogle, the founder of the Vanguard Group mutual fund company, is one of the dozen or so “Wall Street Elders” (as a New York Times article called them this week) who have backed Paul Volcker’s proposal to re-regulate the financial industry, even as their younger peers have argued against more restrictions.

I spoke with John a couple of months ago, and got a feisty earful about not only Wall Street’s foibles, but also how budding analysts, managers and other market professionals could benefit from more exposure to the writings of Dante, Homer, and the Roman philosopher and statesman, Seneca.

“I think a lot of [the financial crisis] could perhaps have been avoided if our business leaders had a broader vision,” Bogle told me. “I’m skeptical about the narrowness of the business school curriculum. I happen to believe it should have a much greater liberal arts emphasis, and even a much greater emphasis on the classics. The Odyssey will tell you an awful lot about human nature and life, and therefore about business, and societal values. Read the Odyssey. Read Dante’s Inferno. You can also learn a lot by reading Seneca’s essay on the shortness of life or Montaigne’s essay on vanity.”

What makes a study of history and the Classics so important for business?

“It involves critical thinking,” Bogle explained. "It involves some kind of perspective, it involves some ability to think ‘you know, this has happened before and it could be happening again now.’ It would certainly shun the argument that this time is different when the stock market goes to an all-time high. And, as Einstein said, ‘there are some things that count that can’t be counted, and there are things that can be counted that don’t count.’ There’s a lot of terrific stuff out there that gives you an understanding of the broad world in which we live, rather than the very narrow world in which we play our games.

And it is the gaming nature of Wall Street, in fact, that Bogle finds most objectionable.

“We used to have an ownership society, in all these corporations,” he said. "Ninety-two percent of the stock was owned by individual investors, 50 to 60 years ago. Institutions owned eight percent. Now, institutions own 75 percent of all stock. These are pension funds, pension managers, mutual fund managers, but they’re agents for others, and they’re not honoring their agency. They’re not putting their clients first, their principles first. They’ve ignored their principles, focusing on speculation, rather than investment."

And speculation, as Bogle pointed out, is by definition a loser’s game. “One short-term speculator wins, and the guy on the other side of the trade loses, and the croupier in the middle makes sure that it’s not a zero sum game,” he said. “It looks like Wall Street compensation is going to be very close to its all-time high this year, **for doing WHAT, one asks? For creating a whole lot of ‘innovation’ products that are designed to enrich the marketers and not the buyers, and that’s what the industry is all about.” **

Those might seem harsh words for the founder and former chief of one of the most successful mutual fund companies in America. But Bogle is not the first to castigate Wall Street for its speculative habits.

“Teddy Roosevelt talked about this a long time ago, in 1904, in a speech out in the Midwest,” Bogle said. “He didn’t begrudge wealthy people who create something of value for society. That’s fair enough, that’s the capitalist system. But he looked at the stock market as a casino. And he didn’t think people who were gamblers should be treated the same as people who were creators of value for society.”

Flash forward 50 years. We might still have had an “ownership society” in companies in the 50s, but in 1958, Benjamin Graham–a mentor to Warren Buffett–warned about the growing evil of speculative markets in a speech to the New York Society of Security Analysts. Bogle read me a section of Graham’s speech:

“'In recent years,” Bogle read, "'a new and major element of speculation has been introduced into the common stock arena from outside the companies. It comes from an attitude and viewpoint of the stock buying public and their investors, chiefly us security analysts. This attitude may be described in a phrase: emphasis upon future expectations. The concept of future prospects, and particularly of continued growth in the future, invites the application of formulas out of higher mathematics to establish the present value of the favorite issues. But the combination of precise formulas with highly imprecise assumptions can be used to establish or justify practically any value one wished, however high.

“Given three ingredients of: a) optimistic assumptions as the rate of earnings growth, ‘… seldom realized, I would add …’ b) a sufficiently long projection of this growth into the future’ … which seldom continues, I would add … ’ and the miraculous workings of compound interest, Lo! the security analyst is supplied with a new kind of philosopher’s stone which can produce or justify any desired value for any “good” stock’ … and any really ‘good’ collateralized debt obligation,” Bogle added with wry disapproval.

“Mathematics,” he continued reading, “is automatically considered as producing precise and dependable results. But in the stock market, the more elaborate and abstruse the mathematics, the more uncertain and speculative the conclusions we draw therefrom. Whenever calculus is brought in or higher algebra, you can take it as a warning signal the operator is trying to substitute theory for experience and usually also to give speculation the deceptive guise of investment.”

Quants, in other words, would not have won the approval of Buffet’s mentor. In fact, it seems he would have consigned them to a rather low level of Dante’s Inferno. For Graham wrapped up that particular scathing indictment of speculative investment by saying, “Have not the investors and security analysts eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evil prospects? And by so doing, have they not permanently expelled themselves from that Eden where promising companies, at reasonable prices, could be plucked off the bushes?”

“Yes,” answered Bogle. “And there you have it. Original sin in the financial markets.” He paused. “Somebody ought to spend a little time thinking,” he said, " and **this gets back to the classics, about the role of business in society. It should add value. But the financial business does not add value. By definition the financial business subtracts value. In round numbers, it takes something like $600 billion out of the pockets of investors every year. That’s $6 trillion dollars in 10 years." **

Given all that, it’s not surprising that John Bogle supports increased regulation of the financial industry. “We need to bring long-term investment back,” he told me. “Logic has to prevail in the long run. All these corporations want to build shareholder value. But they define shareholder value by the price of the stock. That’s absolutely absurd. The price of the stock is a momentary, transitory thing that can be reversed in a moment, or washed away or greatly enhanced over the course of years and decades. You’d be amazed how much more difficult it is to raise the intrinsic value of a company than to increase the price of its stock.”

Unfortunately, the 80-year-old Bogle acknowledged, speculation and short-term thinking are “so embedded in our markets that it may be longer than the years I have left on this planet” before any such shift occurs.

As to why speculation is so hard to curb, despite repeated warnings over the years, Bogle once again dug back into a classic for his answer. “There’s a quote by Upton Sinclair,” he replied. “It’s amazing how difficult it is for a man to understand something if he’s paid a small fortune not to understand it.”