Last Friday the Committee of European Banking regulators (CEBS) published the long awaited results of its stress tests into the region's leading financial institutions. The tests revealed that seven of the 91 European banks had failed to meet the capital requirements.
Even before the test results were published, many market commentators had concluded that the tests were pointless and unlikely to achieve very much. The whole endeavour was not exactly helped by CEBS' website failing its own stress test and crashing just as the results were published. Who said the Europeans can't do irony?
Many critics have pointed to the low capital ratio required to pass the tests and the fact that all the tests relied on data supplied by the banks and verified by their local regulator. Grave uncertainty has also arisen surrounding the consistency of the methodology - with implementation of the scenarios depending to some degree on the local regulatory authorities. It has also been hard for analysts to ignore the fact that the criteria were not only less onerous than testing already conducted by some regulators, but also than some of the banks' internal worst-case forecasts. So, the 'adverse' scenario is not really all that adverse: it assumes only a slight output contraction and market losses on government debt, but no actual sovereign default scenario.
However, the fact that investors still seemingly mistrust capital adequacy rules and that these tests have been branded by many as neither uniform, transparent nor stressful enough, may ultimately not matter that much. The clearest sign that the tests have set the European banking industry on the path to recovery will be seen in interbank lending and the capital markets – if these do not improve then Europe will have to think again.
SS
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Monday, July 26, 2010
Three barrels full – BP
The latest furore which has spouted forth from the well that is the BP PR machine is going to take just as long to clean up as the black mucky mess which continues to wash up onto the shores of the Gulf of Mexico. The three doctored images which were uploaded onto BP's Gulf of Mexico response homepage this week have arguably caused more damage than some of the many other gaffes that have dogged BP's PR efforts since the first announcement of the oil spill in May.
In fact, BP has single handedly violated almost every rule of successful public relations, starting with the first one, which is to 'tell it all and tell it first', they then quickly broke the second which is to 'allow only the well trained and polished spokespeople speak to the media and public'. The problem is not that there are mistakes and crises (there always will be and there is no way around this – especially with something as hazardous as deep-water drilling). However, not all crises have to mean job losses, careers ruined, staff illness, environments destroyed and international condemnation. The problem in BP's case is the challenges came from the poor handling of communications from the start, which are in essence, self inflicted wounds which have continued to cause injury long after they've been made. PR in this instance seems to have been used as a band-aid rather than a tool for getting the right messages out to the right audiences in a clear and simple manner. Public relations isn't about exaggeration and manipulation, it's about communicating the public what is going on within a company in a controlled manner.
As a result, BP is now fighting a PR firestorm on all fronts, from peeved shareholders, to the outraged local community who have had their livelihoods put on hold and in danger, to the US government, to vocal national and international environmental groups and to employees and health and safety unions. They are also fighting fires from the inside, trying to manage and keep a lid on its internal communication channels (including the management of some of its renegade spokespeople). This includes its (current) Chief Executive, Tony Hayward, who bemoaned recently, 'I want my life back' – hardly the positive PR message that BP is trying to communicate to the world audience who is watching the disaster with the grim fascination of a car wreck they can't tear their eyes away from. In fact, it must feel like a touch of déjà vu for BP's head of communications Andrew Gowers, former editor of the FT and also the man who incidentally manned the PR at Lehmans Brothers during their collapse.
The images, which have sparked the increase in criticism, include the cut and paste doctoring of two images of the Houston control room where BP staff are monitoring the leak and one from inside a helicopter over the Gulf. It's called into question one of the consistent messages BP has been trying to drum home – transparency. Many are now jumping on BP's alleged lack of transparency as an attempt to continue to manipulate versions of the truth months on from the initial disaster. BP has since now gone on the front foot to post both original and fake versions of the photos on flickr which hasn't appeared to lessen the condemnation any further.
Perhaps the lesson or message that is most important to members of the UK financial services industry is that no one is immune. But regardless of the type of incident, if PR is used well and effectively, the damage can be limited. For as long as most can remember BP has always been viewed as an untouchable financial giant with most of the media coverage largely centring on its share prices and presence as a an international conglomerate. It has now suddenly and spectacularly spiralled into a reputational death spin which could only be described as a PR director's worst nightmare and has seen nearly every aspect of its business criticised on the back of a protracted and seriously damaging oil leak at one of its facilities in American waters.
BP is to up their neck in this mess and there's no telling where the next gaffe or possible reprieve will come from. The only part which is clear is that somewhere along the way PR policy got put at the bottom of the to-do list.
JH
In fact, BP has single handedly violated almost every rule of successful public relations, starting with the first one, which is to 'tell it all and tell it first', they then quickly broke the second which is to 'allow only the well trained and polished spokespeople speak to the media and public'. The problem is not that there are mistakes and crises (there always will be and there is no way around this – especially with something as hazardous as deep-water drilling). However, not all crises have to mean job losses, careers ruined, staff illness, environments destroyed and international condemnation. The problem in BP's case is the challenges came from the poor handling of communications from the start, which are in essence, self inflicted wounds which have continued to cause injury long after they've been made. PR in this instance seems to have been used as a band-aid rather than a tool for getting the right messages out to the right audiences in a clear and simple manner. Public relations isn't about exaggeration and manipulation, it's about communicating the public what is going on within a company in a controlled manner.
As a result, BP is now fighting a PR firestorm on all fronts, from peeved shareholders, to the outraged local community who have had their livelihoods put on hold and in danger, to the US government, to vocal national and international environmental groups and to employees and health and safety unions. They are also fighting fires from the inside, trying to manage and keep a lid on its internal communication channels (including the management of some of its renegade spokespeople). This includes its (current) Chief Executive, Tony Hayward, who bemoaned recently, 'I want my life back' – hardly the positive PR message that BP is trying to communicate to the world audience who is watching the disaster with the grim fascination of a car wreck they can't tear their eyes away from. In fact, it must feel like a touch of déjà vu for BP's head of communications Andrew Gowers, former editor of the FT and also the man who incidentally manned the PR at Lehmans Brothers during their collapse.
The images, which have sparked the increase in criticism, include the cut and paste doctoring of two images of the Houston control room where BP staff are monitoring the leak and one from inside a helicopter over the Gulf. It's called into question one of the consistent messages BP has been trying to drum home – transparency. Many are now jumping on BP's alleged lack of transparency as an attempt to continue to manipulate versions of the truth months on from the initial disaster. BP has since now gone on the front foot to post both original and fake versions of the photos on flickr which hasn't appeared to lessen the condemnation any further.
Perhaps the lesson or message that is most important to members of the UK financial services industry is that no one is immune. But regardless of the type of incident, if PR is used well and effectively, the damage can be limited. For as long as most can remember BP has always been viewed as an untouchable financial giant with most of the media coverage largely centring on its share prices and presence as a an international conglomerate. It has now suddenly and spectacularly spiralled into a reputational death spin which could only be described as a PR director's worst nightmare and has seen nearly every aspect of its business criticised on the back of a protracted and seriously damaging oil leak at one of its facilities in American waters.
BP is to up their neck in this mess and there's no telling where the next gaffe or possible reprieve will come from. The only part which is clear is that somewhere along the way PR policy got put at the bottom of the to-do list.
JH
Friday, July 16, 2010
AIFM – a ticking time bomb?
For some in the investment industry the Alternative Investment Fund Managers (AIFM) directive is just another layer of unnecessary legislation clogging up the headlines. However, for a large portion of fund managers and investors this directive could have destructive effects on the way they conduct their business.
The directive effectively aims to establish a regulatory framework for managers of collective investment undertakings which will facilitate monitoring and supervision of systemic risk, increase disclosure and transparency and enhance investor protection. The proposal was introduced on the 29th of April 2009 by the European Commission and came to life through a disturbingly short consultation period. Viewing it as rushed and ill-prepared, the chairwoman elect of the European Private Equity & Venture Capital Association commented that it "will crush venture and other sources of innovation capital". Sadly, venture capital is not the only victim of this directive; increased costs and a reduction in choice and scope of investments will have a far reaching impact. The IMA's Jarkko Syyrila said that "Anyone who has savings, anyone who has invested in a fund, an investment trust, a real-estate fund, everyone who has a pension in Europe – a Greek or German pension fund – will be negatively impacted by this directive."
Commission figures suggest that in the EU alone around 30% of hedge fund managers, managing almost 90% of assets of EU-domiciled hedge funds, will be affected by the directive. However, repercussions are not limited to the EU. Tim Geithner, US Treasury Secretary, stated that the directive could cause "a transatlantic rift" by discriminating against US firms and denying them access to the European market. The US wrote the book on reactionary and protectionist policy, so perhaps the rift that's already well oiled at the moment, will have a direct impact. If Europe legislates first then some feel the US will not exactly be backward in coming forward with their own legislation. Tit for tat.
The directive's progress has been anything but smooth with a litany of delays, postponements, criticisms and antagonism from major influencing parties and institutions along the way. With over 1000 amendments at one point, the directive was eventually passed in May and will be put to a final vote by the European Parliament in the coming months – providing no further postponements.
Jean-Paul Gauzes, the French MEP and AIFM champion, recently replied to the exhaustive criticisms: "I know that most of private equity and hedge funds are perfectly respectable, but there have been some problems, such as in Germany where companies were bought and broken up, which have been very traumatic". I have to admit I'm not entirely convinced by his argument to potentially destroy an industry that last year, in the UK alone, generated over £60bn in tax revenues – perhaps events will turn out to be a little more than traumatic this time.
LB & AVD
The directive effectively aims to establish a regulatory framework for managers of collective investment undertakings which will facilitate monitoring and supervision of systemic risk, increase disclosure and transparency and enhance investor protection. The proposal was introduced on the 29th of April 2009 by the European Commission and came to life through a disturbingly short consultation period. Viewing it as rushed and ill-prepared, the chairwoman elect of the European Private Equity & Venture Capital Association commented that it "will crush venture and other sources of innovation capital". Sadly, venture capital is not the only victim of this directive; increased costs and a reduction in choice and scope of investments will have a far reaching impact. The IMA's Jarkko Syyrila said that "Anyone who has savings, anyone who has invested in a fund, an investment trust, a real-estate fund, everyone who has a pension in Europe – a Greek or German pension fund – will be negatively impacted by this directive."
Commission figures suggest that in the EU alone around 30% of hedge fund managers, managing almost 90% of assets of EU-domiciled hedge funds, will be affected by the directive. However, repercussions are not limited to the EU. Tim Geithner, US Treasury Secretary, stated that the directive could cause "a transatlantic rift" by discriminating against US firms and denying them access to the European market. The US wrote the book on reactionary and protectionist policy, so perhaps the rift that's already well oiled at the moment, will have a direct impact. If Europe legislates first then some feel the US will not exactly be backward in coming forward with their own legislation. Tit for tat.
The directive's progress has been anything but smooth with a litany of delays, postponements, criticisms and antagonism from major influencing parties and institutions along the way. With over 1000 amendments at one point, the directive was eventually passed in May and will be put to a final vote by the European Parliament in the coming months – providing no further postponements.
Jean-Paul Gauzes, the French MEP and AIFM champion, recently replied to the exhaustive criticisms: "I know that most of private equity and hedge funds are perfectly respectable, but there have been some problems, such as in Germany where companies were bought and broken up, which have been very traumatic". I have to admit I'm not entirely convinced by his argument to potentially destroy an industry that last year, in the UK alone, generated over £60bn in tax revenues – perhaps events will turn out to be a little more than traumatic this time.
LB & AVD
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
