The customer is no longer king

It seemed to me Goldman Sachs had forgotten the first rule of business stated by the late management guru, Peter Drucker

The Goldman Sachs fiasco should remind businesses the purpose of their existence

Whose business is it anyway - by John Zenkin

I WAS going to write about the rather dry subject of risk assessment this week until I watched the Goldman Sachs congressional testimony on Tuesday night and linked it in my mind with an article in The Economist of April 24 entitled “Shareholders vs Stakehol-ders: A New Idolatry” which deals with the old conundrum of where to focus in good governance: on shareholders, customers or employees.

The reason I changed my mind was that I was shocked to listen to three Goldman Sachs traders being unable or unwilling to answer a simple “Yes” or “No” question from Senator McCaskill of Missouri.
Her question was simple and to the point: did they have a fiduciary duty to their clients, which means looking after their clients’ interest first?

Only one of the panel of four said “Yes”.

The other three hedged their answers to the increasing anger of the senator as she repeated her question.

From the testimony it appeared that all that mattered was that Goldman Sachs made money at the expense of the clients it was supposed to serve, even going to the extent of shorting trades that they had sold to their clients as being good investments, even though internal memos described the assets involved as “shi**y”.

Whether their behaviour was illegal is the subject for the courts, though it certainly appeared that the senators believed strongly that what the traders had been doing was unethical.

As I watched, fascinated by the drama, it seemed to me Goldman Sachs had forgotten the first rule of business stated by the late Peter Drucker in 1946 in his book The Concept of the Corporation that “the purpose of business is to create and maintain satisfied customers”.

What is more, this rule of business was Goldman’s own rule as long as they were a partnership because they recognised that the long-term interests of the partners were to avoid alienating their customers in return for a short-term profit.

What seems to have happened since Goldman Sachs went public is that its employees have been able to look after their own interests at the expense of both customers and shareholders.

This is because the money they were playing with was no longer theirs, but that of other people – their investors and their shareholders.

This suggests that there are limits to how much a company can look after the interests of its employees, especially when they are paid enormous bonuses, apparently regardless of how much pain the shareholders are experiencing (as we have seen in the case of AIG or Merrill Lynch).

It is even more the case when the payout comes from the taxpayer in the form of bailouts.

It seems to me therefore that if there is an excessive focus on protecting shareholder or employee interests at the expense of the client or the customer, the company could put itself at unnecessary risk as far as its reputation and license to operate are concerned.

How soon Goldman Sachs will recover from the damage to its brand shown in the following quote from April 28’s Washington Post is anybody’s guess:

“There was a time when issuers would pay a premium to have Goldman Sachs underwrite their securities, just as there was a time when investors would pay a premium to buy into a Goldman-sponsored offering. Today, Goldman has fully monetised the value of its reputation, and anyone who pays such a premium is a fool.”

I was also struck by the fact that their style of defence bore similarities to those of Exxon in the Valdez case, Shell in the Brent Spar case and recently Toyota when it was found wanting on quality. When customers get upset or when NGOs go after companies, their argument is emotional – designed to be fought in the court of public opinion rather than in a court of law. Legal niceties, technical subtleties do not go down well with people who are looking for memorable soundbites.

What ordinary people want to see is someone who shows emotion and empathy, says he/she is sorry and that he/she will try to do better next time and then there can be closure. Lawyers, with their eye on court cases and damages, advise clients to never say sorry and to prevaricate and obfuscate. This merely increases the anger and frustration of the offended parties.

I have, however, yet to see a company suffer because it has focused too much on serving its clients or delighting its customers.

Perhaps a more correct approach in today’s world is that of the new boss of Unilever, quoted in The Economist article referred to earlier, where he says:

“I do not work for the shareholder, to be honest; I work for the consumer, the customer … I’m not driven and I don’t drive this business model by driving shareholder value.”


·The writer is CEO of Securities Industry Development Corp, the training and development arm of the Securities Commission.

Still at the centre of the world’s news coverage

A range of issues keeps China in its coveted position as the most watchable country.

CHINA’S global profile remains undiminished this week, despite many other issues competing for international headline space.

The buzz among foreign investors is whether it is too late to “enter the Chinese market.” There is a strong implicit element of time for what will soon be, if not already, the world’s biggest market.

China Daily on Monday ran a piece on how opportunities still exist, particularly for SMEs. A consensus seems to be that while doing business in nominally communist China is better than ever because of improvements in institutional frameworks and the regulatory environment, competition from Chinese rivals particularly “tech companies” is getting tough.

The Google-Baidu competition could be an object lesson here. With incentives like the recent 4 trillion yuan (RM1.88 trillion) stimulus package for state-owned enterprises, China’s capitalist ethic is doing well.
The number of private companies grew more than 4,600% to 6.6 million over the past 18 years. Among foreign corporations, 96% of Fortune 500 companies are already operating in China.

Then there is the negative side as well, including that which reinforces negative stereotypes. This often involves Beijing’s attempts to control cyberspace, and what China’s 384 million Netizens may or may not do.

A Bill of amendments requiring Internet companies and telcos to report on users passing state secrets is up this week for its final reading in the National People’s Congress Standing Committee before becoming law. Associated Press reports that the move has already attracted criticism at home and abroad.

Officially, tightening the law on communications use is to ensure greater national security. Among the problems is that interpretation of what is a “state secret” is open to interpretation and abuse, so the law would be arbitrary and draconian.

More legislation attracting controversy this week concerns modifications to the law on the detention of suspects. When police have been required to pay compensation to persons wrongly detained, now compensation applies only to wrongful and prolonged detention beyond 37 days (one week and one month).

There would be no huge claims; sums derive from the average daily wage of a state employee in the preceding year. However, there are provisions for further compensation in cases of police brutality. Such laws may not be the best indicators of social change. A better measure would be the impact of public debate and argument on the policymaking process.

China’s next international extravaganza, following on the 2008 Olympics, is Shanghai’s World Expo that opens tomorrow. Singapore’s Straits Times bills it as the “glitziest and greenest” Expo of them all.

The organisers would make it the most glamorous World Expo yet. But, mindful of critics who would condemn a commercial showcase with doubtful environmental value, Shanghai’s show would also be the most environment-conscious.

For symbolism, there would be the world’s largest solar panel; for novelty, a restaurant would recycle excess food to produce electricity; and for visitors’ convenience, 1,000 vehicles powered by renewable energy would ferry people around the site.

Four large parks would act as “green lungs” while 3,000 inefficient factories have been closed. The Expo, due to run for six months, took nine years to prepare. The environmental aspects alone cost US$33bil (RM106bil), which is twice that of the Beijing Olympics. This indicates something of the scale with which China operates, ever since the Great Wall. Inevitably, the growing clout of a rising superpower would be reflected in its role in major multilateral institutions. Perhaps the most appropriate here is the World Bank, where this week China nearly doubled its voting power to 4.42%.

This places China as third-powerful in the bank after the US and Japan, reflecting its number three position in world GDP terms. That could soon change again: China’s economy is already bigger than Japan’s in PPP (purchasing power parity) terms, and is set to be number two even in GDP terms this year.

Every other country in the 186-member institution had its share reduced to make way for China’s increased strength except the US, which retained its share at 15.85%. But since the world’s largest debtor nation owes so much of its wherewithal to China’s economy, relations among Bank members may have to change further to remain relevant.

MIDWEEK By BUNN NAGARA

In China we trust,again

Will China crash economically?

Capital Talk

CHINA bashing by now must surely be the most popular sport among Western investors, mass media and institutions. China crashing now, China crashing a few years later, China crashing anytime and crashing forever is the mantra.

A mantra is like a hymn. If you chant it endlessly and repeatedly, it gets stuck in one’s head. However, the fact that it may get stuck in one’s head does not mean that it will happen or that it represents the reality.
In fact, a mantra based on superfluous analysis or worse, an inherent bias, would block the real realities from surfacing. An objective analysis of the global economic conditions would show that this is what is actually happening.

With all the high profile, high publicity given to China bashing, all eyes are centred on China in general and its property sector in particular. Will China crash? When will China crash? i Capital’s managing director gets these questions all the time.

In contrast to all the dire predictions about China, i Capital expects China’s economy to nicely soft land this year. When the Lehman Panic broke out in September 2008, and almost collapsed the world economy, China was ahead of every other economy in implementing economic expansion measures.

China very quickly bottomed out and pulled the global economy out of its worst conditions (which, of course, no Western country has given China any credit). While the US led the world economy into possibly the worst recession in a long time, China and the rest of Asia quickly pulled the world economy out of a US-created catastrophe (see charts).

As China’s economy recovered quickly and strongly, the Chinese government has subsequently acted very quickly and effectively again. Measures to cool the hot property sector down have already been announced months ago.

China’s government is ahead of the property “bubblet” curve. However, it takes time for the impact to be felt, which is expected to take place in the coming months.

Selected segments of the property sector will cool down but the rest of the economy will still be performing well. China’s economy is huge and a cooling of the property sector will not crash the continental economy.
The decision by The People’s Bank of China not to raise interest rates so far is correct. Why kill the rest of the economy when there is no need to? There are many other effective ways to tackle the property “bubblet”, especially when the cause of the rise in property prices is not low interest rates.

Another unnoticed development that favours China soft-landing this year is that the current global economic recovery is not synchronised. The recovery in the United States is behind that of China and the rest of Asia but it is gathering momentum.

The growth in US exports and the recovery in the industrial sector have led the US recovery. Consumer spending is also recovering and will gather momentum as the US job market improves further. The US housing sector is also expected to contribute positively this year.

As 2010 progresses, the US economic recovery will play a greater role in global economic growth. This is ideal, as it will allow China to turn to other economic sectors for growth while it tackles its property bubblet.
In short, as the US economic recovery gathers momentum in 2010, China’s GDP growth would slow to a healthy, high single-digit rate.

Based on the economic outlook of the United States and China, i Capital sees a benign global economy. Unlike 2006 or 2007, 2010 will see a healthy unsynchronised global recovery. This upbeat view can, of course, be turned topsy-turvy by unexpected events. There seems to be plenty nowadays.

One, while the currency pressure on China seems to have reduced somewhat, the United States is now cleverly turning to other countries and US-dominated global institutions to crack China’s position. Apparently, even India and Brazil are now joining in the bandwagon as prominently headlined on the front page of the Financial Times.

So, although the currency pressure cooker is not boiling over for now, the threat of a trade war needs close watching.

Is China crashing the real worry? Or is the eurozone breaking up the real worry? Actually, an economy that has crashed but that has not been described in this way is the eurozone a.k.a a continent of discontent.

First, it was the PIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain). The budget deficit for Iceland is 14.3%, Greece 13.6%, Spain 11.2%, Portugal 9.4% and China 2.2%. The China bashers say that China’s budget deficit is actually higher because it does not include the local governments. We wonder why the clever Greeks did not think of this simple trickery.

Anyway, the Greek civil servants are on strikes and the budget deficit is running at unsustainable levels. No wonder the Greek economy is not in a sustainable mode. This continent of 35-hour working week but with wages paid equivalent to 350-400 hours of work in China or India is declining fast, faster than what is generally realised or acknowledged.

Greece, supposedly the birthplace of democracy, has transformed itself into a “debtmocracy”. Will China crash, as we all are led to believe, or will Greece be the Sword of Damocles for the eurozone and thus the global economy?

Then, as if Greece et al is not enough, as if an evil spell has been cast on Europe, we all discovered that cash-starved Iceland is actually rich with ashes. Imagine Iceland, more than 1,800km away from London and more than 2,100km away from Germany, taking revenge on the eurozone. Who would imagine that?

The hiatus caused by the volcanic eruption is not small. That a volcano from Iceland is causing so much havoc in the eurozone is symbolic of the very difficult period that this fledgling economic bloc is undergoing.

Almost every economy in the eurozone, including that of the United Kingdom, is in trouble. As i Capital wrote above, this is the reality, this is what is actually happening.

China and the rest of Asia are not crashing. The United States crashed and the eurozone has crashed. Should the East follow the West?

i Capital does not think so although there are many out there who would want to see this happening.
Once again, we have to say, In China We Trust. As i Capital advised previously, “This decoupling is here to stay”.