A Human GoogleWhack - Is there one?

Some time ago Dave Gorman coined the term "googlewhack" which as a two word google search that returned a single find/answer. He then wrote a book, made a TV series and built a website about following up on these unusual items.

In another train of thought, I considered my name to be relatively unusual (though not unique!) and I suspect my parents did too when they christened me. I ocassionally google my name as in this modern world it is useful to know what others my find should they google you and remain surprised at how many people there are with the same name. Indeed in my field of work and locale there are probably four or five.

Now this has pluses and minuses. On the downside you could be tainted by the behaviours and internet record of others while on the upside you can, at times, get lost in the crowd too.

So I had a thought. Is there a person whose name is so unique that the only person thrown up on a google search using that name is them? Now the test would not be quite so elegant as the google search is likely to return multiple references, but if they all related to one person......now wouldn't that be interesting and unusual.

Just think, a single search would tell you all there is that has been indexed on the internet about that person!!!!

There would have to be some rules such as no contrived names that have been legally created. Instead I think two components of family name, by birth or marriage and we could accept double barrelled names, and given name, either as christened or as commonly known professionally. The search would need to be in parenthesis to ensure

Do you think that there is such a name or list of names?

Postscript: I have now found two such names!

After the rain comes the sun!!

I was out walking our dog earlier and was struck how much better the world looks with a blue sky and the sun out and warm on my face. I took a moment to look around and just enjoy the vibrancy of the colours and lushness of the vegetation.

It seemed to be exceptionally green and fresh and I realised that this is probably the result of the incredibly wet April that we enjoyed(?) followed by the warm and sunny weather that is now upon us. Only with the combination can the outcome be so good. And only if we are prepared to take the time and open out eyes can we appreciate it.

I have added a couple more photographs from our garden to illustrate how lucky I am to be here and now.

 

Now I just need the weather to stay until the weekend. My wife and I plan to head up to Oxford for the final day of summer rowing on Saturday and the other thing that goes well with sun is a big glass of Pimms! Cheers!! - Pics to follow.

Why does everyone drive the same car as me these days?

About a year ago my wife and I were in a car dealership looking to change our family car. It would be a unexciting, but roomy family saloon. As we stood waiting for a test drive another vehicle drove past; one I honestly do not remember seeing before. It was a hard top cabriolet (as opposed to a rag top)and just the sort of thing we would need to replace our second, "fun" car.

I enquired about the car and discovered that in fact production of the car had just stopped and the remaining cars were on sale at a substantial discount - happy days!

That is how we bought our Foed Focus Cabriolet as shown in the picture. Of course as soon as we drove it on the road we started seeing the same car, albeit in different colours, all over the place. Our sensitivity had been heightened and now we registered what had been right in front of us for some time including in front of two houses down our own road.

The reason I mention this is because last night I gave a talk about how we need to change the we do change as the world becomes more complex and demanding. I have felt for some time that I was somewhat alone in my concern that unless we do something better/different/smarter our levels of success will fall, but in preparing for last night I became aware of considerable debate around the subject in different quarters. Material I had not noticed before

One realistaion was that there have been quite a lot of related discussion threads on Linkedin. The number and quality seems to be rising and is probably an indicator of rising dissatisfaction and interest in answers.

I also note that while there has been a call for greater regulation in response to the JPM CIO debacle and the continuing issues around Greece, but at least some are now recognising and arguing that the default "industrial" approach is not helping and more of it won't make any difference other than burden the economies.

It is probable true that there has been discussion around for some time, but that I was only sensitised whilst preparing for my talk. It could also be that the time for this debate has just come and my observations are coincidental, but I suspect that is the lesser reason.

The point of this post was to capture the power of sensitivity and the way it opens one's eyes. I will continue to worry about and agitate about change, but more broadly there is a broader lesson for me. That is to remember that if something is becoming important to me, I should look for ways to heighten my sensitivity in order that I can be more observant and absorbent of other related intiatives and discussions - this should be a great help in eventually finding better solutions.

Credit where credit is due!!!

 

For once I am not talking about the financial crisis when I headline with "credit", but rather wanted to draw out two examples of good service I have received.

The first illustrates the power for first impressions, particularly good ones and the second shows the value of putting things right well if you do get it wrong to start with.

The other day I went to meet with the Director of an agency placing interim managers, called Green Park. I had never been there before and the building where it was located was just a normal multi-occupancy office block in central London. The difference was when I entered the companies suite. The lady behind the desk, Emma Payne, came to greet me with a smile and a warm greeting (words and body language). My needs were sorted in that my wet umbrella was taken, I was asked if I wanted refreshment, seated in a comfortable room and advised of who was coming and that they were on their way.

This may not sound remarkable, but as I have seen too many of these receptions recently I know that the whole package and its impact was exceptional. By contrast another, bigger agency I visited mid-afternoon one day, had an unattended reception desk with just a notice saying to go to a door down the corridor. At the door there were no more instructions and when I enquired someone looked up from a desk, took the name of the person I was due to meet and advised me to go and sit back down near the front door. After that I was treated well by the subsequent people I met, but you can see the difference between the first impressions.

I have subsequently written to Emma and her CEO commenting how welcoming I thought she was and how good an impression it created.

The second is more a story of recovery. I will name the company again as in my opinion they have saved the day and deserve recognition for that; it was Lloyds Bank. I have been a customer for over 35 years and my wife was staff for 13.

A few weeks ago I lost my mobile phone on a rail journey. I can pin down the 5 minutes I lost it in as I changed trains and suspect that it just fell from my pocket. I immediately cancelled the SIM and phone with the company (Vodafone: who also did very well in terms of customer service related to this) and notified the relevant lost property services. I had fair hope that it would be found and returned, though I know that the wheels of the lost property process can take some time to turn.

Three weeks later I was advised that lost property did not have my phone so I looked to my Bank with whom I have integrated mobile phone insurance with my bank account service charge. I phoned, advised of my claim and the basic details which was all lodged and a claim form sent.

This I returned only to be advised by return mail, by the separate(?) company handling the insurance, that as I had not made my claim within 48 hours of the loss (read the small print!), my claim could not be processed. This seemed petty so I wrote back pointing out that I felt I had been prudent and reasonable in my behaviour, not making a claim until it was clear the phone would not be returned. I acknowledged the small print, but questioned how familiar the man in the street woudl be about a term such as that in a product he signed up for years ago?

Once again I quickly received the equivalent of a "computer says no" response citing the 48 hour clause again. This time I wrote directly to Llloyds Bank's Complaints Department, acknowledging the small print, but pointing out my longstanding business with the Bank and my prudent and reasoanble behaviour.

The response took a couple of days longer, but yesterday Harriet called me from the claims handling group, advised me that they have accepted my claim, needed a little more information which I provided and within 4 hours of the first call, I was advised that a new phone was despatched and should be with me within 1-3 days.

While I do not have the phone yet, I do feel that Lloyds Bank saved the day. Of course it shouldn't have happened that way, but when you do need to fix something, do it quickly and well and a lot of the lost ground can be recovered!

A Shareholder Spring For Risk Management?

I was at a meeting last night supporting a friend who is trying to get some finance industry working groups together, groups that will bring their experience to bear on the key issues facing our business and our economies.

I won't steal the thunder as it is early days and the group needs time to formulate its thoughts and construct its messages. The two interesting areas for consideration are the unexpected consequences of regulation that is inteneded to reduce risk, yet in its hastey formulation and rushed implementation creates new and different risks and the second is the question of enterprise risk management ie if and how one can manage risk holistically across the business rather than in silos and pockets.

Both seem to be good areas that can benefit from the combined experience and wisdom of the group.

What struck me, and maybe I am just late to this party, but how great a conflict there is between the management of P&L and the management of risk.

In the latest deacle at JPMorgan it appears that Jamie Dimon instructed his Central Investment Office to "take more risk" and generate more income with the surplus of client deposits the bank was holding, yet when they do and they make a loss as they have done, it was not his fault. How does that work.

Of course there are some that seem to think that managing risk is the elimination of loss, but that seems rather naive. The bigger the risk the greater the possible deviation from the standard - both ways - positive and negative. To me risk management should be about protecting, as far as is possible, an institution from developments (usually losses) that would be catastrophic and precipitate the end of that organisation.

Can someone who is driving and heavily rewarded on growing P&L really be objective about managing the related risks. It is always hard to prove a double negative, so who could one be rewarded for correctly and prudently avoiding something that did not happen during the period in question? Measuring share values and money in the bank is so much easier.

So where am I going with this?

Well it seems that the regulators keep pushing organisations to look at certain risks, despite there being considerable debate about the definitions and overlaps between, market risk, counterparty risk, operational risk, etc, etc. Each accumulate rules and spawns its own culture and structures, costing money that detracts from the net profit - so you can see the tension. There was a comment about optimising regulatory compliance, with the suggestion that some organisations cannot comply with everything - there is so much - so they are assessing the next costs (cost of implementation and fines) and deciding which rules they cannot afford to fail with and which they can. Ironically that process introduces its own risks.

The other piece is that when all this compliance and regulation started in the 1980's ( I was around and remember) those who went into compliance and risk roles came from a business background. They knew how it worked and could operate with that perspective. Now 30 years on we have career risk managers and compliance officers who have never operated in the business - they often lack the nous and nose for the business and see their progression being determined by blind application of the rules.

My epiphany is that most organisations have semi-independent Rumeration Committees looking at the executive pay (they certainly can't self-govern that!) and Audit Committees (to check that they are not ignoring the independent(?) auditors) with a similar separation. Maybe we need to have the Risk element run the same way. While I am hesitant to make another committee, I do think that there needs to be separation and focus for the function, well away from those with the strongest P&L drive.

I doubt that the regulators can make that happen, but maybe the rise in shareholder power and dissatisfaction can. It seems ironic that while the finance industry, both investment banking and asset management is always ready to tell others how best to govern their enterpises they seem reluctant to do it to themselves - maybe major shareholders can?

PS If you are interested in this, standards or market structures do let me know and I can join you up with this initiative.

More Merde?

In The Times on Monday there was a spoof diary of Francois Hollande's first week as the new French President.

I particularly liked the entry for Thursday was as follows:

Jeudi Also, I must forge le new relationship avec Angela Merkel. She and Sarkozy were very close.
“Ve must haff ze unified position on ze European Fiscal Treaty,” she says, on le telephone. “But first, ve must haff agreement on ze successor for ze term ‘MERKOZY’. Ich bin favouring ‘FRANGELA’.”
Non, I say. For this is making me sound like la femme. Nous must do it avec notre surnames.
“MERDE?” suggests Angela.

 I do like that as it seems prophetic!!!!

Deja Vu, Insanity and Caddyshack

It seems that we are in something of a Groundhog Day situation. Once again we are watching a major loss of confidence in the world economy as a result of a major "unexpected" (?) banking loss (ie 2bn - and possibly more - at JPMorgan) and all the renewed speculation of Greece (and maybe other countries) falling out of the Euro as a result of the recent elections, failure to uphold previously agreed arrangements and an impending default.

There seems to be considerable resentment within Greece that their politicians are putting personal interests against the national interest. We can see elements of unrest in France and Germany too..

This all seems to be a recurring situation that has happened in similar shape a number of times over the last few years.

Depending who you listen to or what you read there is a definition of insanity as depicted above. Some say it is Chinese, others attribute it to Einstein. Either way is a certainly worth heeding. Our politicians and regulators appear to be insane.

This is all despite increasing and almost strangling regulation on banks and detailed rules for Euro governments. These seem to ignore or at least ride rough shod over common sense and good judgement. The intent is good and there are those that believe that by regulating more and more one reduces risk, but sadly it doesn't work that way.

In another field, the Theory of Constraint, the foundation is that there is always a limiting factor on the efiiciency and effectiveness of any process and that when you recognise and remove (or at least mitigate) that constraint, another pops up somewhere else the system.

I believe that the same is true with risk; that the work to cap and control a risk that is seen as addressable creates a double, or triple whammy. It distracts resourceby focusing it on the specific areas and limiting the effort applied elsewhere, it means that a new key "risk" develops in a previously unrecognised place and while it creates a false sense of security - until the next time.

It reminds me a little of the arcade game, called something like Bash a Gopher. In the game a series of gopher (desert rodent) heads pop up from holes on the board and the player attempts to bash them down again with a large mallet. No matter how many or how fast you bash them down more pop up and indeed the better you get the faster and more plentiful the gophers become.

In truth it occurs to me that maybe this is more like Caddyshack. In the film Bill Murray plays a groundskeeper on a golf course, battling against a gopher. In the end his obsession in killing the gopher causes more damage to the golf course than the gopher was doing or likely to do.

Now I clearly don't have a magic wand to solve these problems or I wouldn;t be sitting here writing this, but I do believe that we need to look for new ways to address these issues. Just doing more of what we have done before is clearly not working.

If we don't then "the crisis" that will inevitably ensue will force a far less palatable change upon us and that will be painful for everyone! It is a question of act now or ache later.