Category: finance | 은행업

Finance is a really odd section for me to have. I don’t come from a finance background, I have no interest in fin-tech. Yet it makes its appearance here on this blog.

When thinking about this category, I decided to reflect on why its here. It’s usually where curated content sits, rather than my own ideas.

The reality of life in the west is that everything has become financialised. As I write this as people think about web 3.0, they are thinking about payment systems first and working about utility later. This implies that the open web we know won’t be part of the metaverse in terms of ideas or ethos.

Instead of economic growth consumer spending depends on different ways of creating credit. Its no accident that delayed payments finance company Klarna is the biggest thing in European e-commerce at the time of writing this page.

Back when I started writing we were heading into the financial crisis of 2008, the knock on effects of that could still be felt a dozen years later and was a contributing factor to Brexit and Trump victories. The ‘occupy’ movement was catalysed by the financial crisis and then turned into something else. For instance it became a pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong.

We had the implosion of financial brands like Lehman Brothers and the Royal Bank of Scotland. This created a lack of trust in business, the media and the government.  We are still seeing that play out today, from cryptocurrency to conspiracy theories and a lack of trust by the public in experts.

  • Who is Gary Winnick (and why I am writing about him?)

    You may not know Gary Winnick, but at one time the fund manager who looked after your pension probably knew his name.

    For over two decades, Gary Winnick worked at the sharp practice end of capitalism. In the 1980s he worked with Michael Milken Drexel Burnham Lambert (Drexel) selling junk bonds. These were used to finance some of the most savage slash-and-burn management takeovers in modern history.

    Here’s a simplest version of it

    The ability of a company to get credit to grow depends on a number of factors including market sentiment towards the company, its industry sector and its credit rating. Junk status when a company is viewed to have fallen below investment grade material by a credit ratings agency such as Standard & Poor or Moodys.

    A bond is piece of paper that can be bought and sold like a company share, however it is really an IOU, a company sold the bonds to raise money and promised to pay a set amount of interest on that money and repay it at a set time in the future. They are used by companies and governments to borrow money (you may have heard of them mentioned as gilts or t-bonds, in the UK premium bonds are a government loan but with the interest divided out via a lottery selected by a computer called ERNIE), government bonds are commonly used in a portfolio as a low risk strategy or to hedge against interest rate declines.

    From a practical point of view junk status means that credit becomes more expensive, the company is considered to be a higher risk loan. Consequently, companies seeking credit and having junk status generally had a low share price and relied more on the bond markets to provide their capital requirements. Investors generally seek a higher return for higher risks so bonds from junk status companies (junk bonds) are also known by the more benign name of high-yield debt.

    Anyway, somewhere along the line some bright spark (possibly Milken himself) realised that just because a company had junk status, it did not mean that it would disappear overnight. Many large household names and solid industrial performers had junk status, because they were steady but unspectacular performers. This meant that there were bargains to be had. Investments providing high returns because of an unfair high risk status. Junk bonds became the new HOTNESS.

    The outcomes

    – There was blood in the water and Milken was eventually prosecuted for massive corporate fraud, after Ivan Boesky ratted him out rather than take the full rap on a number of insider trading charges

    – Many companies were gutted by modern-day robber barons who borrowed money to buy companies, and then paid back the debt through the placement of junk bonds and asset stripped the company. Books that outline this include Barbarians At The Gates

    – Savings and Loans scandal – S&L are kind of equivalent to mutual building societies in the UK and Ireland. During the 1980’s, they were deregulated and their money poured into the stock market. This deregulation fuelled a feeding frenzy causing many S&L collapses due to fraud and speculation. Since there were regulations still on what S&l’s could invest in, merchant banks put together complex financial instruments (derivatives – so called because they are derived from something else, like orange juice and pork belly futures in the film Trading Places) that would allow them to get into the ‘high-yield debt’. Initially the idea of these derivatives was to bind just enough government investments like T-bonds (treasury bonds) into the deal so that credit ratings agencies like Standard &Poor would not rate the derivative as a junk status investment. These instruments (known as derivatives) were very arcane and complex making it virtually impossible to understand their true investment value or how they would be impacted by changes in the market. Think of the childrens story The Emperors New Clothes. If you would like to know more read Liars Poker by ex-derivatives trader Michael Lewis. The S&L mess was bailed out by the Fed.

    Global Crossing

    Gary Winnick parted company with Michael Milken before Drexel flamed out and set up an unspectacular investment company called Pacific Capital. In the mid 1990s, Winnick saw the telecoms gold rush and founded Global Crossing.

    The telecoms goldrush came about due to a number of factors:

    – Deregulation allowing competition in the telecommunications sector

    – The rise of the Internet created an increased demand for new networks

    – Sustained economic growth in the developed world and a collapse in some emerging markets and Japan meant that there was too much money chasing too little investment opportunities. Gary Winnick raised and destroyed some 20 billion USD. Much of which would have come from pension fund managers in the US and Europe, or was invested into similar companies like Worldcom or RSL Communications (RSL COM).

    – Companies pay to get their credit evaluation from the likes of Standard & Poor and Moody

    Grow and the profits will come became a mantra for bankers, VCs, analysts and business leaders due to cheap capital and as a way of keeping the castle in the sky; making it exceptionally easy to sell in a new business strategy

    The telecoms market came apart because:

    – Too much telecoms capacity was supplied as companies rushed in to profit from the gold rush. Global Crossing and its peers built out network capacity first and thought about getting customers later

    – Technology, competition and excess supply drove down prices to make the industry less profitable

    – Many of the companies had the same disease of corporate corruption and creative accountancy that occurred in the 1980s in S&L and junk bonds; inflating the value of deals, booking sales before the money was in (when is a sale a sale is a question that has been of interest to accountants for years) or fabricating them as inter-carrier deals

    – Accounting techniques were shockingly useless allowing Winnick and Co to distort reality

    – Equity analyst hyped stocks that they privately admitted were dogs

    – High yield debt was being used to finance a low-yield industry

    – Much of the growth was promoted through equipment-vendor financing, which allowed the likes of Lucent, Nortel and Cisco to bill higher than normal growth-figures and artificially inflate share prices. A friend of mine who was a telecoms analyst at a brokerage in the city of London at the time of the bust was afraid that Cisco would get severely damaged because of vendor financing. He outlined an allegation that new IP-based carriers were being set up by people close to the Cisco channel, financed by equipment for equity as part of a glorified Ponzi scheme to inflate the value of Cisco

    In Global Crossing, Winnick managed to extract his own position two weeks before the firms lawyers stopped internal share trading due to the companies terminal financial decline. Winnick is back in court this week and you can read all about it here. Many see Gary Winnick as a criminal, he sees himself as a business visionary. More on telecoms here and finance here.

  • Five star living

    Trendwatching is back with a pattern that they call five star living, where property developers and high-end resort or hotels sell a home away from home to the super dumb but loaded.

    They put a whole pile of luxury living brand experience about it, but what they are seeing is the window dressing not the trends in five star living. Five star hotels are capital intensive and unless you have high occupancy all the time, expensive.

    Apartment complexes can draw on the service aspects of five star hotels; but farm off a lot of the capital risk to apartment purchasers and still charge them for premium rate services. Five star living is about hotels hedging their bets in a post-September 11 world. I realise that this is a less romantic and stylish explanation of this trend, but its all about the money.

    Mandarin Oriental have built suites in their Hyde Park hotel which would be a great example of five star living. Luxury brands like Giorgio Armani have extended into interior design to try and capitalise on this trend in combination with luxury property developers. 

    You also have people like the Trump Organisation extending themselves from real estate into hotel services and tourism in the opposite direction with its golfing themed resorts. More five star living related content here.

    Apple spoof product lifecycle article which can be found here. Its funny because there are a lot of underlying themes which are close to the truth as consumers see it.

    Finally, the New York Times have got a great interactive presidential election guide that they are going to keep updated. So go to this link, have a play and bookmark it until November. Interactive data like live dashboards in business allow you better understand the data. It makes for shareable content and is sticky in nature. 

  • Cash divide

    The 1990s had a cash divide. A number of years ago in college, I wrote an essay about the role of technology exclusion in society. This internet as a thing was only really starting to get going and we had just changed over the web browsers at the college from Mosiac to Netscape.

    I used to surf the web in 16 shades of grey available on my battered PowerBook 165, when I jacked into the JANET network. Why am I rambling about a geriatric computer and the ‘net before Google?

    Well, I used the web to research my essay and came across an article on the Washington Post about the cash divide discussing a ‘cash ghetto’, increasingly if you had to deal in cash you were on the margins of society. Part of this was down to the laundering of money from organised crime, including the drug cartels. It made sense to move as many people as possible out of the cash economy, but it created a cash divide. The cash divide separated illegal migrants from citizens; criminals from law abiding citizens.

    An article in the Arizona Daily Star, which my RSS feed aggregator picked up talked about the pervasive nature of Visa and MasterCard where cash was once king reminded me of the college essay.

    Visa and Mastercard have moved in alongside cheque cashing services and remittance businesses to bridge the cash divide profitably. Poor people tend to pay more charges than richer members of society.

    You don’t even need to have a credit record or a banking account. There are ways to provide pre-loaded credit cards in the US to bridge the cash divide. From intern payments to staff bonuses can be provided on cards form Visa, Mastercard and even American Express.  Interesting reading check it out. More finance related posts here.

  • The number

    Whilst catching up on my backlog of mails I came across this from CBS Marketwatch on Yahoo! making the number. The number is the consensus that market analysts think that a company will make in a given quarter:

    NOT MUCH SHOUTING GREETS YAHOO EARNINGSYahoo shares (YHOO) got the boot after the company kicked off a fresh earnings season for the online-media group by only just measuring up to expectations, demonstrating what American Technology Research analyst Mark Mahaney called a mantra: “in-line quarters don’t cut it for Internet stocks.”

    Ok, basically what this guy Mahaney is saying that because Yahoo! managed to get their profit for the quarter in line with what a number of market anlaysts expected them to be (based on a guestimate set maybe 90 to 180 days back) then they deserve a kicking.

    Unbelievable, accountancy despite the use of numbers is not an exact science, why?

    • Bills and sales are constantly coming in and out of a company
    • What does a sale really mean? If you sign a 3 year deal for online advertising, should Yahoo! claim that as a sale all at once or claim as the money comes in
    • When is the money in? When you invoice for it, or when it sits in your bank account
    • Is the capital gains made on the building you own and work out of profit?
    • If you had a bumper quarther this time but you know that the next quarter will be soft, should you avoid booking all the sales in to give you an income cushion next quarter?
    • How should you write off the depreciating value of computer equipment, chairs or a forklift truck? There can be more than one way of doing it that will affect the figures

    With this in mind, I would recommend that you read The Number by Alex Berenson, which takes you through the insanity of it all in greater depth.

  • Ugly Americans by Ben Mezrich

    My book of the moment is Ugly Americans by Ben Mezrich. Ben previously wrote Bringing Down the House; a book about a group of maths geeks who take on the Las Vegas casinos by team playing with a gambling system and making a killing at poker.

    In Ugly Americans, Ben turns his attention to hedge funds exploiting the economic collapse of Japan in the 1990s. There are many similarities with the books:

    • They both are written in the same style, paced with a future film adaptation in mind
    • They both alternate chapters of action with ‘expert testimony
    • They both claim to be true, however I have my doubts (names have been changed to protect the innocent et cetera)
    • Both are a ripping read 

    But the polished nature of the read makes me think that its fiction masquerading as truth. And thats why Ugly Americans feels a bit dirty and hard to recommend, despite my enjoying reading it.

    Mezrich feels as if he’s hit his stride with style and format rather like Lee Childs or James Patterson. The idea isn’t the important thing, the truth probably doesn’t matter. Instead Mezrich has a pattern. The key difference to Childs and Patterson is that Mezrich is thinking about the film or TV adaptation from the beginning. It feels cynical. And that’s why the book Ugly Americans feels a bit ugly and dirty for me as a reader. More related content here.