At this moment economists of well known resources world wide come with their adjustments (and similar explanations) on Japanese economic growth (GDP) expectations for 2011 and beyond, including currencies and other leading indicators.
Now the damage, the delays and the recovery will have an impact, here is no disagreement. The question here is what this will do to your economy and business?
Some say it is too early to tell and adjust modestly, others heavily correct their forecasts downwards of Japan or other countries. Probably the truth will be somewhere in the middle but what are you going to tell your management or stakeholders? Following a heavy paid opinion in case it goes wrong?
If Japan is a key country to your business or Japanese firms are competing it will be helpful to access reliable data and to integrate them efficiently at any corporate level. Now who can deliver that? What resource outperforms others about Japan? What fits nowadays in your budgets?
Let us not tell each other stories and fairy tales about forecasting. There is no resource (or economist) able to tell you what exactly this impact will be in the short, long term, in size, in dollars or yen or in your industry. It is all guessing, constantly adjusting and no one will afterward tell how wrong they were.
Some professionals do not care and rely blindly on that brand name provider where paying the price seems of lesser concern. As corporate pays the employees follow without benchmarking or doubt. A too common vicious circle of business - market intelligence with no tangible synergies or contribution.
Others tell their planning, market intelligence, finance or other data teams to search on internet looking for more (free) information about Japan. Here extra labor costs and outdated info seem not questionable because it is for free. Sure!
When knowing all the alternatives, what is your price for reliable economic data of Japan and the effects globally? What is your tool or provider? Do you care about quality, synergy and fees when using macro parameters?
If so, please contact me because on Tuesday the 5th of April we will release our new monthly edition of Major Economies, including the last changes of 25 selected national and international institutions for 10-15 key Japanese macro parameters (2-5 year forecasts).
Key differences with other alternatives; hard to beat average forecasts, more cost / time savings and faster ROI. Is that welcome in this business climate or not?
I´d be pleased to inform you how to get this Japanese update without charge. Thanks in advance!
Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta corporate finance. Mostrar todas las entradas
Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta corporate finance. Mostrar todas las entradas
jueves, 24 de marzo de 2011
martes, 19 de enero de 2010
We do not want to change!
Do we follow people or strategies?
Perhaps a better title but the result is the same. Managers or / and business leaders upfront are excellent promoters of their own skills and responsibilities but when it comes to changes in their setting the interest suddenly drops.
It is like their strategy is cut off during a conversation or meeting. As long as it is in their own interest they are willing to cooperate. The interest does not depend on what is good for those who pay them.
In fact the following example is a good reflection of following people as a strategy:
Networking tools such as LinkedIn often ask you to respond to a discussion or survey set up by a direct contact or member of a similar group of interest (which is necessary to participate).
Recently here was asked to share in one word what kind of manager or business leader you are.
You will not be surprised 99.9% of the responses were positive and clearly overstating the reality of a person´s own objective reflection .
When all these people are really top managers and apply to their own positiveness the world nowadays would look different or at least better.
Sure, these responses come often from middle management while the real higher management is not active or hardly active at sites like LinkedIn. It also gives to these surveys a kind of Facebook image. I am nice, do you want to be my friend?
In fact they are doing all the same; calling for changes (after being criticized) but not making critical decisions to avoid personal damage (read less income or corporate power).
We already know that for centuries but the fact the middle management copies this behavior of not making changes is disturbing. You have nothing to win but all to loose?
All these managers are send to expensive trainings and courses but when it really matters they often do not decide or change the status quo.
They talk about budget cuts, restrictions, fusions, mergers, reorganizations and other excuses to postpone purchasing your services while sitting in the safety zone.
Why would I risk your service and make a more serious attempt?
I would say because it benefits you and your company but it seems they are not inspired (enough).
Inspiration normally leads to becoming an example to others, open minded, stronger, better informed, prepared and willing to contribute and overall to win.
When not being open for changes you will loose, not win. Still people have the tendency to claim a win while not changing anything. They even believe they can inspire others.
What is said or sad then is that it is too risky to make a change, so they prevented a loss. Really?
Often here is added that when changing for example an external provider of services the work to be done to complete this change is already seen as a loss (of time).
The administration, informing the involved employees, answering questions about the decision and the follow up to complete the new setting; it is all not worth it!
In my work I see this often. But unchanging does not contribute and it certainly not helps the one who takes care of your paycheck.
But look around! Where else do you see this happen besides the corporate arena?
Everywhere! In politics from government to city hall, in the media where news is dictated by a few global parents and even in your private setting where it is amazing how Facebook or Twitter influences your life.
Let´s face it. Change is personal and can be done very fast while changing a setting takes ages. Then it is time to change strategies and focus on other people!
Perhaps a better title but the result is the same. Managers or / and business leaders upfront are excellent promoters of their own skills and responsibilities but when it comes to changes in their setting the interest suddenly drops.
It is like their strategy is cut off during a conversation or meeting. As long as it is in their own interest they are willing to cooperate. The interest does not depend on what is good for those who pay them.
In fact the following example is a good reflection of following people as a strategy:
Networking tools such as LinkedIn often ask you to respond to a discussion or survey set up by a direct contact or member of a similar group of interest (which is necessary to participate).
Recently here was asked to share in one word what kind of manager or business leader you are.
You will not be surprised 99.9% of the responses were positive and clearly overstating the reality of a person´s own objective reflection .
When all these people are really top managers and apply to their own positiveness the world nowadays would look different or at least better.
Sure, these responses come often from middle management while the real higher management is not active or hardly active at sites like LinkedIn. It also gives to these surveys a kind of Facebook image. I am nice, do you want to be my friend?
In fact they are doing all the same; calling for changes (after being criticized) but not making critical decisions to avoid personal damage (read less income or corporate power).
We already know that for centuries but the fact the middle management copies this behavior of not making changes is disturbing. You have nothing to win but all to loose?
All these managers are send to expensive trainings and courses but when it really matters they often do not decide or change the status quo.
They talk about budget cuts, restrictions, fusions, mergers, reorganizations and other excuses to postpone purchasing your services while sitting in the safety zone.
Why would I risk your service and make a more serious attempt?
I would say because it benefits you and your company but it seems they are not inspired (enough).
Inspiration normally leads to becoming an example to others, open minded, stronger, better informed, prepared and willing to contribute and overall to win.
When not being open for changes you will loose, not win. Still people have the tendency to claim a win while not changing anything. They even believe they can inspire others.
What is said or sad then is that it is too risky to make a change, so they prevented a loss. Really?
Often here is added that when changing for example an external provider of services the work to be done to complete this change is already seen as a loss (of time).
The administration, informing the involved employees, answering questions about the decision and the follow up to complete the new setting; it is all not worth it!
In my work I see this often. But unchanging does not contribute and it certainly not helps the one who takes care of your paycheck.
But look around! Where else do you see this happen besides the corporate arena?
Everywhere! In politics from government to city hall, in the media where news is dictated by a few global parents and even in your private setting where it is amazing how Facebook or Twitter influences your life.
Let´s face it. Change is personal and can be done very fast while changing a setting takes ages. Then it is time to change strategies and focus on other people!
lunes, 16 de noviembre de 2009
Why the economy can be blamed instead of bad management.
Why the economy can be blamed instead of bad management.
The past twenty months or so and in current corporate reporting the executive branch uses the economic downturn and some pickups in regional economies as arguments for not being able to give full year or quarterly guidance to share and stakeholders.
First of all there is not much they can do about it. These recoveries are fresh and in many countries too small to even call it a recovery. Some countries are excluded but exceptional companies when it comes to avoiding economic risks are hard to find.
So far understandable and the guidance from executives will remain without a clear vision for the time being. This might slightly improve but as limited is this outlook is also the ability to predict corporate results for 2010 and even beyond.
Secondly it seems when it comes to economic risks for many this is still not related to the real economy but only an easy phrase or excuse. Based on first hand communication with several business leaders world wide, especially those with a focus on emerging markets and BRIC markets, improvements or needs of more quality data / information are not a priority (of their management).
Too often professionals using macro for completing market analyzes, for making business decisions, supporting management meetings, doing internal reporting or using the data as a strategic or financial planning tool they rather rely on one source only. In most cases the same source used for industry specific data.
This is very strange and also kind of worrisome. Imagine this is also done for Pension Funds or IT Security. Billions invested in only one stock, for example Walt Disney, a good example when discussing fairy tales or economic forecasts of one source. Using one provider for IT Security will give them a lot of power.
Companies are crowded by advisers, especially coming from banks and other financial institutions. Mostly external ones get paid heavily for sharing an opinion that is different from any other. Does this not look familiar when talking about economic opinions? All these opinions from IMF, World Bank, OECD, central banks, governments, corporate economists, experts, gurus etc?
We all know they are all wrong but these same advisers work with institutions which have their own economists. Again each divided about any economic country trend. No one can really outperform because all face the same interference from political, social, demo-graphical or other kind of instability, disturbance or equal phenomenon.
So, why then relying on one source? Or is economic guidance no longer helping the company? Why mentioning economic reasons of slowing down your results or using recovery signals as hope for a short term revival?
A third argument that contributes to blaming the economy, and not taken economic risks (more) serious, instead of blaming management are the claims of having sufficient information or teams doing already economic analyzes.
Does sufficient indicate no other data can be better and therefore ruling out economic risks? Does sufficient cover for bad management decisions? Since when next to your global leadership in the food sector your core business involves macroeconomic research?
And when internal teams do these analyzes should that justify no other analyzes can be better? Justified how? In costs? Savings? Better guidance?
Unfortunately when looking at the above many companies still seem not to worry about economic risks and find it an easy way to blame their bad management. They keep on relying on one provider, they do not care about the quality of available information and do not consider non core business corporate time as a problem for cutting core business time (including labor expenses rising).
The worst of worst is the decision of budget restrictions. No, we are not interested in cutting costs by 90%. Sorry, our management blames the economy, not me.
Too simple would also be the explanation of missing realistic forecasts. Like as no one can make them, why arguing about them? While it is true this pure outlook cannot be given it does not exclude improvements. Especially not when paying too much, spending too much or not benefiting from synergies.
What will these companies do the coming years?
They will keep on blaming the economy for the bad results instead of bad management. They will continue cutting costs but only the easy core ones. Oeps, another restructuring charge. They will reorganize in the hope to attract better managers instead of better instructions. But as budgets will remain under restriction, good people will leave the company, competition benefits etc.
But they mostly will fail because those who do not take economic risks serious by focusing only on core business or do not demand full concentration of its employees on core business and those who believe one source is enough to guide them through rough times will miss a lot of opportunities for improvements.
These opportunities can only be discussed when the decision maker is truly identified, is open minded and is interested in business deals. Not someone who is only interested in his or her own position. Because then we only hear and see the same excuses over and over again, the economy is again blamed for not being able to make a corporate change.
This can easily be measured in labor costs. For every manager, analyst, director or corporate leader monitoring the underlying economic trends of countries of interest a process is needed. Either someone delivers them internally a report or this report is purchased directly.
People do not like reading but most reporting is useless when not using the best tools. Lots of corporate value time is lost when stopping searching for these tools. Every process of macro data is therefore an underestimated cost and time inefficient process when using one source or counting on own research.
On an average at least one hour per week people read about economies. Not to study but just a number or country report. Based on an average corporate salary per year this reaches easily 2,000 US$. Multiplied with an average of 10, 20, 50, 100 or more people, depending on company size, these costs are a waste of assets and valuable time. Big companies loose 100/200K while for smaller 10/20K is acceptable.
Excluded here from better data and cost / time efficient tools are the positive effects on eliminating risks, recognizing better economic trends, better prepared for internal and external meetings, more core corporate business time available and more core corporate budgets available.
Including these last items for missing revenues or miscalculations losses can reach millions.
When that is not of an interest, it is clear why economic risks are not taken (more) serious and why the economy is only used to cover up mismanagement.
The past twenty months or so and in current corporate reporting the executive branch uses the economic downturn and some pickups in regional economies as arguments for not being able to give full year or quarterly guidance to share and stakeholders.
First of all there is not much they can do about it. These recoveries are fresh and in many countries too small to even call it a recovery. Some countries are excluded but exceptional companies when it comes to avoiding economic risks are hard to find.
So far understandable and the guidance from executives will remain without a clear vision for the time being. This might slightly improve but as limited is this outlook is also the ability to predict corporate results for 2010 and even beyond.
Secondly it seems when it comes to economic risks for many this is still not related to the real economy but only an easy phrase or excuse. Based on first hand communication with several business leaders world wide, especially those with a focus on emerging markets and BRIC markets, improvements or needs of more quality data / information are not a priority (of their management).
Too often professionals using macro for completing market analyzes, for making business decisions, supporting management meetings, doing internal reporting or using the data as a strategic or financial planning tool they rather rely on one source only. In most cases the same source used for industry specific data.
This is very strange and also kind of worrisome. Imagine this is also done for Pension Funds or IT Security. Billions invested in only one stock, for example Walt Disney, a good example when discussing fairy tales or economic forecasts of one source. Using one provider for IT Security will give them a lot of power.
Companies are crowded by advisers, especially coming from banks and other financial institutions. Mostly external ones get paid heavily for sharing an opinion that is different from any other. Does this not look familiar when talking about economic opinions? All these opinions from IMF, World Bank, OECD, central banks, governments, corporate economists, experts, gurus etc?
We all know they are all wrong but these same advisers work with institutions which have their own economists. Again each divided about any economic country trend. No one can really outperform because all face the same interference from political, social, demo-graphical or other kind of instability, disturbance or equal phenomenon.
So, why then relying on one source? Or is economic guidance no longer helping the company? Why mentioning economic reasons of slowing down your results or using recovery signals as hope for a short term revival?
A third argument that contributes to blaming the economy, and not taken economic risks (more) serious, instead of blaming management are the claims of having sufficient information or teams doing already economic analyzes.
Does sufficient indicate no other data can be better and therefore ruling out economic risks? Does sufficient cover for bad management decisions? Since when next to your global leadership in the food sector your core business involves macroeconomic research?
And when internal teams do these analyzes should that justify no other analyzes can be better? Justified how? In costs? Savings? Better guidance?
Unfortunately when looking at the above many companies still seem not to worry about economic risks and find it an easy way to blame their bad management. They keep on relying on one provider, they do not care about the quality of available information and do not consider non core business corporate time as a problem for cutting core business time (including labor expenses rising).
The worst of worst is the decision of budget restrictions. No, we are not interested in cutting costs by 90%. Sorry, our management blames the economy, not me.
Too simple would also be the explanation of missing realistic forecasts. Like as no one can make them, why arguing about them? While it is true this pure outlook cannot be given it does not exclude improvements. Especially not when paying too much, spending too much or not benefiting from synergies.
What will these companies do the coming years?
They will keep on blaming the economy for the bad results instead of bad management. They will continue cutting costs but only the easy core ones. Oeps, another restructuring charge. They will reorganize in the hope to attract better managers instead of better instructions. But as budgets will remain under restriction, good people will leave the company, competition benefits etc.
But they mostly will fail because those who do not take economic risks serious by focusing only on core business or do not demand full concentration of its employees on core business and those who believe one source is enough to guide them through rough times will miss a lot of opportunities for improvements.
These opportunities can only be discussed when the decision maker is truly identified, is open minded and is interested in business deals. Not someone who is only interested in his or her own position. Because then we only hear and see the same excuses over and over again, the economy is again blamed for not being able to make a corporate change.
This can easily be measured in labor costs. For every manager, analyst, director or corporate leader monitoring the underlying economic trends of countries of interest a process is needed. Either someone delivers them internally a report or this report is purchased directly.
People do not like reading but most reporting is useless when not using the best tools. Lots of corporate value time is lost when stopping searching for these tools. Every process of macro data is therefore an underestimated cost and time inefficient process when using one source or counting on own research.
On an average at least one hour per week people read about economies. Not to study but just a number or country report. Based on an average corporate salary per year this reaches easily 2,000 US$. Multiplied with an average of 10, 20, 50, 100 or more people, depending on company size, these costs are a waste of assets and valuable time. Big companies loose 100/200K while for smaller 10/20K is acceptable.
Excluded here from better data and cost / time efficient tools are the positive effects on eliminating risks, recognizing better economic trends, better prepared for internal and external meetings, more core corporate business time available and more core corporate budgets available.
Including these last items for missing revenues or miscalculations losses can reach millions.
When that is not of an interest, it is clear why economic risks are not taken (more) serious and why the economy is only used to cover up mismanagement.
Suscribirse a:
Comentarios (Atom)