Posts Tagged ‘Financial Times’

Reponse to Financial Times, “Bank boards”

Thursday, March 25th, 2010

Perhaps what should be asked is why there is such a small pool to choose from?  Is it because they look inward to the industry rather than across their value chain of delivery? 

 

Often times, wasn’t dissenting advice offered?  Was it ever internalized or processed by the management team?  There seems to be an inner group that continues to dominate boardrooms and executive suites — eve today.  One only has to look at the musical chairs that go on as executives and directors move from one firm to another all within the same industry or sub-niche.

 

Yes, experience counts for success.  Your examples of GS and JPM are clearly noted success stories – but they are success stories that start with strong and visionary CEO’s.   So when we examine governance, the real question is “What role does the board really play and how strong is the management team?” 

 

Are they willing or able to deal with divergent thoughts other than their own?  The board supports the firm, investors, and the management team — their role is not in running the company day-to-day.

 

For the complete FT article, see http://www.ft.com/cms/s/3/f0bdcbe8-3752-11df-b542-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=rss

Response to Financial Times “Housing finance conundrum”

Wednesday, March 24th, 2010

Comments by Mark Dangelo

www.Innovative-Relevance.com

You also need to ask additional questions that both the private markets and government must answer. That minimally includes what guarantees are placed on securitized assets and what level of risk classifications will be assigned to them? Why are the same mortgage bankers who cheered the process leading to housing Armageddon, now being able to benefit from the workouts?

 

How can new firms and people be brought into the macro and micro processes of origination, servicing, and securitization (i.e., the three pillars of the mortgage supply chain) ? Where is the innovation and competition that will benefit the consumers and markets, while letting capitalism do what it has done for generations?

 

I am amazed that even after the problems we have had and continue to experience, that Congress still relies on the same people to testify and provide advice. There are many lessons to learn, but there are few in the markets who are listening…

See full article –> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/3/0df154fe-368c-11df-8151-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=rss

Financial Times Blog Response — Rally shows moral hazard is still alive

Wednesday, March 10th, 2010

Indeed, the moral hazard still remains and looms over all transactions entering and exiting the markets.  Yet, a key challenge lost to the regulators and politicians resides with a comprehensive restructuring of the markets the banks operate within. 

 

More to the point, if we are concerned with the banks, their risks, and the leverage they assume, it must be holistically examined as part of their business operations – residential mortgages, commercial lending, HELOC’s, securitization, insurance, and so on.  Addressing the macro issues and concerns without fixing the underlying micro models and processes of operation is akin to painting a car that doesn’t run.

 

Each of the aforementioned areas is of great concern for US and UK taxpayers.  With cross-border exchanges and operations the norm for the last two decades, the use of “paper” walls of regulation will do little to address the fundamental causes of the market’s dysfunctional behaviors. 

 

Perhaps it is time to “think big, but start small,” while iterating our markets to success?  After all, we have debated changes since 2008.  What really has been done outside of throwing money at the problems?