Christmas has passed, marking the mid way point of another winter vacation and the conclusion of two great nights of debate with the extended family. Christmas eve was devoted to the virtues and problems of wikileaks, religion, foreign policy, Canada's involvement in Afganistan, and the motivations behind joining the army. Christmas day however centered largely on one topic, the financial crash and the gross immorality of investment bankers.
Before I resign myself to the idea that my years ahead will be spent reporting to Lord Vader on how I managed to squeeze $30M out of 5 deals that were not in the underlying firms interest, I think my trade needs me to give it the chance to be moral and just.
My fathers side of the family is composed of many families that have made their living in C level careers in the oil in gas industry. They are in essence a good composition of my future clients, and it's a bit startling to learn how much my future customers might secretly hate me.
Their main gripes center around two issues: the money, and the incentive. On the macro level they feel that the high pay draws away bright minds from engineering, medical, and policy careers that the country needs more. On the micro level they feel that salaries give i-bankers a false sense of superiority and invincibility. Make millions when times are good, get government bailouts when times are bad.
I argue that the money is good because few are up to the task of doing the work. There is no oligopoly in the investment banking world, it is highly competitive on all levels and in all areas. With so much competition, and so much interest in becoming an i-banker, if the workers didn't hold some element of a scarce resource their salaries would be squeezed away to keep the firms margins high. But it is the people who drive the business, and when one person manages to bring in $10M of revenue their salary becomes justified.
What I have more trouble explaining is why the business itself is so profitable. How has the ~3% spread stayed so high if there really is so much competition. The obvious answer is risk, but my uncles seem convinced that the i-banks of today have almost completely eliminated their exposure. I'm sure the next 12 months will shed some light on the issue. If in fact the industry has been able to collude and keep these historical premiums while managing to eliminate the risk (and the costs that come with it) then maybe the industry isn't so "fair". But it's a industry wide phenomena, and one that is admirable to any capitalist as long as there is not some anti-capitalist framework keeping it in place (government relationships, or true collusion). Over time the markets should correct for these non-normal profits and my future paycheck should get a bit slimmer.
The incentives are another issue because they really are a product of the individual i-bankers business conduct. My firm will make money when a deal is done. It will make more money if the deal is big, and it will make more money on more deals. Thus the big incentive is to have i-bankers drive as many big deals as possible. Deals are IPO's, bond issuance's, mergers, acquisitions, consolidations, spin offs, carve outs, and LBO's. It is my uncles contention that i-bankers advise companies to do deals when they shouldn't, and that when the deal is going through the i-banker isn't thinking about the firm, but instead how to maximize their cut.
I think the biggest point of issue is that business men know how to run their business, and if they are good, they know how to run it well. Unfortunately finding oil reserves and getting to them efficiently, doesn't have a lot to do with a bond deal or a takeover. Very smart individuals get caught in a world they don't understand and it's their baby at stake if things go sour. When you don't have a good grasp of the playing field it's natural to feel like its slanted against you. And sadly it is natural for it to be slanted against you. Businesses need capital, and so they need i-bankers, and i-bankers need businesses to need capital. This symbiotic relationship should ensure that neither side screws the other on the macro level because each side can permanently avoid the other on an individual level. If an i-banking team gets a rap for being sleazy and underhanded they won't get business. If a business gets a rap for providing faulty information and trying to screw their bankers, they won't get capital. These 'jungle rules' keep both parties from the extremes, but I would agree that the balance of power is in the i-bankers court. Tough.
Neither of these business realities are immoral. I truly believe that an i-banker that screws his clients, is not long for his job, and definitely not destined for riches in the long term. Like any service industry the client is king, and the i-banker that does right by his clients, will win their trust and lead them through the really bid deals when the time comes.
Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Sunday, November 28, 2010
The Virtues of Finance
There has been a lot written lately about the insider trading scandals in the states, particularly the one involving Raj Rajaratnam and his old hedge fund Galleon Group. I did my 4th year business ethics term paper on Raj, and I have kept an eye on the events as they've unfolded. The big takeaways I've gathered are that: in business it often boils down to intent, and that although painted black and white these scandals are often very grey.
For instance think about the whole purpose of hedge funds. Their goal is to achieve returns above the market return. If they are able to do this with less risk then they have just disproven either Semi-Strong Form (SSF) or Weak Form efficency (ie. are they arb, valuation, or trading based). Market crashes aside, the market seems to be fairly SSF efficent, and so any hedge fund manager making ground must be cheating.
Galleon group had expert panels. This seems like an obvious must to a firm whose strategy is valuation. Talk to industry participants about where they think the industry is going, and then tailor your investments accordingly. If industry expert A says "I think that the semi conductor industry is ready for a comeback, data warehousing is going to bring in a huge demand force. If I were you, TriQuint would be a hot buy right now - they are really poised to sell into data warehouse demand.", then that's pretty above board advice. But what if expert A is telling you this and his firm is a data-warehousing firm, who is about to make a big play for a TriQuint. A lot shadier. This is were it can come down to intent, and the court gets to decide your motives, not you.
In finance this is painted with a much broader brush against the whole industry, and I experience it in conversations all the time. People on the capital side of the business are seen as the fat cats, who care about nothing except personal gain. Why?
Umm what do you do exactly?
Focusing on investment banking, I think it gets it's reputation for several reasons. First it's confusing. The general public has very little concept of how a investment banker adds value. It's easy to think you understand what an astronaut, firefighter, tax accountant, surgeon, does in a day, or how a car company makes money. Even trading seems somewhat understandable, but what in the hell do those i-bankers do to make 6 figure salaries right out of college? The average joe either just envisions an open excel spreadsheet, or a golf course. They don't see any output, there is no product, it's just really really hard to think of what the work is.
When I began talking to my parents about roles I was considering, or where I landed, I saw first hand the difficulties in explaining the business. Now that we've switched over to Skype to ease the international phone bill, I can literally see their eyes gloss over when I talk about how I plan on valuing a target oil company for a Chinese bidding firm.
Now my laymen one liner is: "I attempt to put a price on a really large business by predicting, as accurately as possible, how much it will make from now to forever." or if I'm feeling quippy "I price the future", "I value things that are hard to value", and if I'm trying to pick up, "Come back to my place and I'll tell you what you're worth" (bet she's not imagining the excel filled night I am....).
Okay so how does this help anybody?
Or put bluntly by a friend, "explain to me why you're not increasing world suck". This is a bit harder to defend because you do hear about situations when you can be forced between a moral choice and a profitable choice. I conceed this point, but I'd point out that every job has the ability to hurt society from time to time. Think car mechanic. Sometimes your mechanic may overcharge you for the work, or replace things that don't need replacing. This is because there is a large information asymmetry - you know nothing about your car. The thing is some mechanics will do it the right way, and they'll quickly be recommended by their customers, so although you may know nothing about your car, you do end up getting to know who is a good mechanic. The mechanic may add to world suck everyonce in a while, but too many fraudulant transactions and he's lost his business.
It has to be the same way in the business world. If someone is going to pay me, I have to be helping someone. I see the M&A i-banking role contributing two things. The first big one is information. Through my days toiling at the office I am creating information where none existed, I am lessening the information asymmetry between the bidder and the target (or on the issuance side the investor and the company). A creator of knowledge is a pretty good thing to be, and although I'm not curing cancer, I may be contributing to the process that gets the money to the person who does. And this is the second big point. Investment banking let's people invest. My team is tasked with lining up good ideas that need money, with money that needs good ideas.
I may not be producing energy efficient solar cells, rice bags for the poor, or biomedical advances, but I am part of a system that lets those things happen, and without that system, none of those things would be possible. The catch is every once in a while, I may inadvertently (or maybe even knowingly) help line up capital for an idea that is not a net good for society. My defense is that these idea's need demand, and people don't pay for what hurts them. Sometimes they do, but they do it unknowingly. I argue for the system to work, these bad idea's, bad mergers, bad companies, must be few and far between, because if they were common consumers would lose trust. When you lose trust, you lose consumption, which leads to layoffs, which leads to depression. We all work around the principle that everyone is contributing to society, not taking away from it. It's a sound principle and it guarantees virtue in every profession if it holds.
Why so much money?
I haven't developed a good explanation to this yet. I'd still pursue finance if it paid a fraction of what it does; I'm made for the trade, what is more fun than predicting the future! Finance is my plan A,professor B, and helicopter pilot plan C. After that I would start thinking about professions that were "jobs" that could pay for other things in life I enjoy, but for now I'm looking for a career that is the life I enjoy. Chris Rock explained it this way.
So why the money. Well economically it should be because supply of the job is much higher than demand. But this isn't true, thousands of people apply to 1 opening, statistically each applicant has 0% of getting in, the wage should be dead low, because if you don't want it the firm can just give it to the next applicant. Before we ditch economics lets drop the assumption that every applicant is the same. Maybe out of the 1000 applicants, there are only 50 that could do the job? I don't know the answer to this one, but I'm sure it plays a part of the story, there are 4 rounds of interviews after all.
The hours need to be factored in as well. If you are working 90 hour weeks for 51 weeks a year, you are making under $22.00 an hour. Averaging a 90 hour a week is a bit steep, but I'd wager most i-bankers are making less than $30.00 an hour before bonuses in their first 2 years.
And let's not forget what employers are asking for here. Quants with presentation skills. It's not that hard to find a very well spoken university grad from a liberal arts degree. It's not that hard to find a quantitatively sharp university math major. It is hard to find someone who has both. Many business students are good speakers, decent on the business skills but lack the fundamentals in statistics. I-banking is high powered sales, you need the best of both worlds if you are going to solve and explain business combination investment problems.
The Image
I'll admit, I've read the blogs (for example the leveraged sellout), and seen the movies (Wall Street... the first one), and I can concede that those with less than admirable intentions may flock to the profession of i-banking. But I will say that I plan on leading a life of virtue (maybe a bit on the Ayn Rand side of the definition sure), and after speaking to my to-be team in the interview rounds I'm left with the impression that they do as well. It's never like the movies anyways...
For instance think about the whole purpose of hedge funds. Their goal is to achieve returns above the market return. If they are able to do this with less risk then they have just disproven either Semi-Strong Form (SSF) or Weak Form efficency (ie. are they arb, valuation, or trading based). Market crashes aside, the market seems to be fairly SSF efficent, and so any hedge fund manager making ground must be cheating.
Galleon group had expert panels. This seems like an obvious must to a firm whose strategy is valuation. Talk to industry participants about where they think the industry is going, and then tailor your investments accordingly. If industry expert A says "I think that the semi conductor industry is ready for a comeback, data warehousing is going to bring in a huge demand force. If I were you, TriQuint would be a hot buy right now - they are really poised to sell into data warehouse demand.", then that's pretty above board advice. But what if expert A is telling you this and his firm is a data-warehousing firm, who is about to make a big play for a TriQuint. A lot shadier. This is were it can come down to intent, and the court gets to decide your motives, not you.
In finance this is painted with a much broader brush against the whole industry, and I experience it in conversations all the time. People on the capital side of the business are seen as the fat cats, who care about nothing except personal gain. Why?
Umm what do you do exactly?
Focusing on investment banking, I think it gets it's reputation for several reasons. First it's confusing. The general public has very little concept of how a investment banker adds value. It's easy to think you understand what an astronaut, firefighter, tax accountant, surgeon, does in a day, or how a car company makes money. Even trading seems somewhat understandable, but what in the hell do those i-bankers do to make 6 figure salaries right out of college? The average joe either just envisions an open excel spreadsheet, or a golf course. They don't see any output, there is no product, it's just really really hard to think of what the work is.
When I began talking to my parents about roles I was considering, or where I landed, I saw first hand the difficulties in explaining the business. Now that we've switched over to Skype to ease the international phone bill, I can literally see their eyes gloss over when I talk about how I plan on valuing a target oil company for a Chinese bidding firm.
Now my laymen one liner is: "I attempt to put a price on a really large business by predicting, as accurately as possible, how much it will make from now to forever." or if I'm feeling quippy "I price the future", "I value things that are hard to value", and if I'm trying to pick up, "Come back to my place and I'll tell you what you're worth" (bet she's not imagining the excel filled night I am....).
Okay so how does this help anybody?
Or put bluntly by a friend, "explain to me why you're not increasing world suck". This is a bit harder to defend because you do hear about situations when you can be forced between a moral choice and a profitable choice. I conceed this point, but I'd point out that every job has the ability to hurt society from time to time. Think car mechanic. Sometimes your mechanic may overcharge you for the work, or replace things that don't need replacing. This is because there is a large information asymmetry - you know nothing about your car. The thing is some mechanics will do it the right way, and they'll quickly be recommended by their customers, so although you may know nothing about your car, you do end up getting to know who is a good mechanic. The mechanic may add to world suck everyonce in a while, but too many fraudulant transactions and he's lost his business.
It has to be the same way in the business world. If someone is going to pay me, I have to be helping someone. I see the M&A i-banking role contributing two things. The first big one is information. Through my days toiling at the office I am creating information where none existed, I am lessening the information asymmetry between the bidder and the target (or on the issuance side the investor and the company). A creator of knowledge is a pretty good thing to be, and although I'm not curing cancer, I may be contributing to the process that gets the money to the person who does. And this is the second big point. Investment banking let's people invest. My team is tasked with lining up good ideas that need money, with money that needs good ideas.
I may not be producing energy efficient solar cells, rice bags for the poor, or biomedical advances, but I am part of a system that lets those things happen, and without that system, none of those things would be possible. The catch is every once in a while, I may inadvertently (or maybe even knowingly) help line up capital for an idea that is not a net good for society. My defense is that these idea's need demand, and people don't pay for what hurts them. Sometimes they do, but they do it unknowingly. I argue for the system to work, these bad idea's, bad mergers, bad companies, must be few and far between, because if they were common consumers would lose trust. When you lose trust, you lose consumption, which leads to layoffs, which leads to depression. We all work around the principle that everyone is contributing to society, not taking away from it. It's a sound principle and it guarantees virtue in every profession if it holds.
Why so much money?
I haven't developed a good explanation to this yet. I'd still pursue finance if it paid a fraction of what it does; I'm made for the trade, what is more fun than predicting the future! Finance is my plan A,professor B, and helicopter pilot plan C. After that I would start thinking about professions that were "jobs" that could pay for other things in life I enjoy, but for now I'm looking for a career that is the life I enjoy. Chris Rock explained it this way.
So why the money. Well economically it should be because supply of the job is much higher than demand. But this isn't true, thousands of people apply to 1 opening, statistically each applicant has 0% of getting in, the wage should be dead low, because if you don't want it the firm can just give it to the next applicant. Before we ditch economics lets drop the assumption that every applicant is the same. Maybe out of the 1000 applicants, there are only 50 that could do the job? I don't know the answer to this one, but I'm sure it plays a part of the story, there are 4 rounds of interviews after all.
The hours need to be factored in as well. If you are working 90 hour weeks for 51 weeks a year, you are making under $22.00 an hour. Averaging a 90 hour a week is a bit steep, but I'd wager most i-bankers are making less than $30.00 an hour before bonuses in their first 2 years.
And let's not forget what employers are asking for here. Quants with presentation skills. It's not that hard to find a very well spoken university grad from a liberal arts degree. It's not that hard to find a quantitatively sharp university math major. It is hard to find someone who has both. Many business students are good speakers, decent on the business skills but lack the fundamentals in statistics. I-banking is high powered sales, you need the best of both worlds if you are going to solve and explain business combination investment problems.
The Image
I'll admit, I've read the blogs (for example the leveraged sellout), and seen the movies (Wall Street... the first one), and I can concede that those with less than admirable intentions may flock to the profession of i-banking. But I will say that I plan on leading a life of virtue (maybe a bit on the Ayn Rand side of the definition sure), and after speaking to my to-be team in the interview rounds I'm left with the impression that they do as well. It's never like the movies anyways...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)