Category Archives: Economics

Another Headline from the Land of D’oh! Financial Crisis of 2008 avoidable

According to this recent BBC article, which summarized a report from the US Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, Regulators, politicians and bankers were to blame for the 2008 US financial meltdown. Well, duh!

From page 17 of the report:

The captains of finance and the public stewards of our financial system ignored warnings and failed to question, understand, and manage evolving risks within a system essential to the well-being of the American public. Theirs was a big miss, not a stumble.

The only thing the report, and article, got wrong was that the cause of the crisis is the same fundamental cause of the financial crises for the last 30 years. Simply put, it was greed.

  • Greed (by the lenders and the regulators, who wanted to believe the market was strong) led to the tide of toxic mortgages
  • Greed led to reckless actions by executives
  • Greed led to households taking on too much debt
  • Greed led to fundamental breaches in accountability

And while the report may be correct when it states that to pin this crisis on mortal flaws like greed and hubris would be simplistic because it was the failure to account for human weakness that is
relevant to this crisis, the reality is that, despite the repeated financial crises of the past 30 years, federal regulators have yet to put checks in place for greed. And until regulators recognize that they have to be looking for greed whenever markets rise too fast (because that’s what produces unsustainable evaluations and toxic assets) and actually do so, their hubris is going to allow these crises to happen again and again. The boom and bust will repeat until the economy just can’t take it anymore and future historians discuss the fall of the great American Empire along side the fall of the great Roman Empire.

Deferred Spending Isn’t A Recovery

A recent article over on CNNMoney.com on Made in America. Staying in America. reported that a turnaround in the U.S. economy is contributing to the solid fourth quarter profits reported by manufacturers that have been staying afloat by making a killing by selling industrial goods to customers in emerging markets.

As the CEO of Eaton said, people that deferred maintenance eventually have to buy new products. And people who prolonged a product’s life with maintenance eventually have to buy new products. And after two or three years of deferred spending, no matter what efforts are made to keep old machinery working, it’s going to start to break and the organizations are going to have to replace it. This doesn’t mean that there’s a recovery in the works or that demand is going to skyrocket, and acting like this is the case will only lead to the appearance of the bullwhip effect in your forecasting. And that’s not good for anyone.

The economy will recover, but it’s going to be a slow-and-steady recovery this time. Not only is the North America is tired of the boom-and-bust cycle of the past decade, but the jobless recovery and continuing mortgage crisis is going to ensure that it will be a while before exuberance returns to the market. So take it slow. Your supply chain will thank you.

It Truly Is The Great Recession

A recent inforgraphic on “The Great Recession” over on Focus.com really puts things into perspective on how bad the Jobless Recovery really is. As the infographic begins, Americans are suffering the highest figures of unemployment since The Great Depression, and the worst part, there’s no end in sight. Employers are still intending to make do with what they have for as long as possible, even though job satisfaction is at an all time low.

Considering that it will take the US nine more years to recover the jobs lost during the recession at the current rate of job creation, it’s unlikely that the economy is going to bounce back quickly. The end of the recession is going to linger on and when the emergency benefits run out for the 4.04 M people on it, it’s going to be obvious that it truly is the Great Recession.

It’s Good That Asia Is Rising

A lot of people are scared about the rise of China to the 2nd largest producer of GDP and the expected rise of India to be the 3rd largest producer of GDP by mid-century, but I’m not. It’s a good thing. The truth of the matter is that, for the last decade or two, the US share of Global GDP was too high. If a single country controls more than 25% of the GDP, than any significant changes to its economy are going to have drastic ripple effects across the globe.

Look at the recent recession. It’s not only the US that was affected — it was all of North America. Then it rippled across the pond to Europe (as most big multinationals have a big US and European presence). And even New Zealand and Australia felt the tail end of the shockwaves. Only Asia survived relatively unscathed, and only because they had a growing economy that resulted from over a decade of heavy investment by the US (and Europe) before the US recession.

So, needless to say, I was annoyed when I saw a recent article in Atlantic Business that asked if if “the Canadian Economy [is] Weakened by its Southern Neighbor” because only someone with their head in the sand for the last 20 years would think otherwise. Every time the US goes down, it takes us with them. They are both our next-door neighbour and biggest trading partner, with 10 times our population and 10 times our GDP. Canada might be the 10th largest economy in the world, but since 70% of our exports go to the US, if we lose 10% of that because of a major US recession, 7% of our GDP is at risk overnight — as it is for any small economy that is dependent on the economy with the largest GDP in the world — an economy that is roughly 3 times that of the next largest economy.

As Asia rises, not only will it minimize the impact of any one economy on global GDP, but it will start buying from us as well as selling to us, and redistribute the wealth back home. If China was going to control the US share of the economy in the near future, then maybe there’d be cause for concern, but right now, the rise of Asia is a good thing. The balance is going to eventually minimize the risks of a meltdown due to a recession in any one economy, and that is going to provide more stability (and predictability) to our supply chains.

Capital Costs are Going Up. Can Your Supply Chain Handle It?

The McKinsey Quarterly just published a great article on “how the growth of emerging markets will strain global finance” (registration required) that should be read by every CPO who doesn’t work for a mega-corporation with a large cash balance. The article will help them understand what’s keeping the CFO up at night and why the CFO, who already has to deal with Basel III, might be afraid to invest in long-term capital projects (or, at the very least, have difficulty committing the capital).

The article points out that when you combine low savings rates in developed economies, decreasing savings rates in the more mature emerging economies, the increasing expenditures required to support the aging population in developed countries (that will further reduce savings), and the growing need for capital-intensive investments in infrastructure in the new emerging economies, in less than 20 years there will be a significantly greater need for investment in the global marketplace than there will be investment dollars available. When you combine this increasing demand for capital with the looming threat of increased inflation, and factor in the increased risks associated with short-term funding, it quickly becomes clear that interest rates have no where to go but up, especially since these rates are now at their 30-year lows. At the very least they will return to their 40-year average (which is about 150 basis points above current rates), but they could rise even higher.

As a result, capital for supply chain infrastructure investments could soon be in short supply. This means that if your supply chain is aging and needs significant infrastructure upgrades in terms of facilities or vehicles, the last thing you want to do right now is extend end-of-life (planning) too far into the future if a costly upgrade is inevitable. At the very least you want to start planning and analyzing different upgrade cost scenarios that factor in different (potential) costs of capital so that you’ll know how much capital the supply chain upgrades are going to require and at what point it becomes too expensive. Then you will be in a good position to work on securing the capital before it’s too late.

Share This on Linked In