Posts Tagged ‘Change’

How can a company have £24bn bad debt when its turnover is £23.9bn?

Friday, February 26th, 2010

Hi, news today of Lloyds TSB Group figures say that it has made a loss of £6.3bn.  Slightly better than the previous year of £6.7bn loss.

Yet, behind these figures it seems Lloyds TSB has bad debt of £24bn, on a turnover [annual total income] of £23.9bn.

What’s going on?

Bad debt is defined as:

Accounts receivable that will likely remain uncollectable and will be written off. [from investorwords]

So in its dealings Lloyds TSB has got into deals where now it is going to [in all probability] write off the equivalent of a years revenue [probably its highest years revenue to date].

According to the BBC article on the issue:

The bank blamed the massive losses on commercial property loans made by Halifax Bank of Scotland (HBOS), which it took over at the start of last year.

It said these “impairments” were 21% lower in the second half of 2009, and would continue to see a similar rate of improvement throughout this year.

‘Impairments’ sounds like a vast understatement when £24bn is to be written off.  Their shares only fell 5% this morning.

Is this what the financial sector is getting away with?

I say getting away with, because it feels as though people are becoming inured to such problems…even though it is often the tax payer and consumer who end up funding this.  Lloyds TSB [+HBOS] got bailed out to the tune of £17bn in 2008.  Their market capitalisation went from nearly £60bn to £18bn and the government [tax payer] bailout resulted in a share in the bank of about 43.5% [BBC article 19 Oct 2008], yet all the tax payer did was, in effect, allow them to make decisions leading to £24bn in bad debt.

Inured means ‘to habituate to something undesirable, especially by prolonged subjection’.  [freedictionary]

Just to put it into context, the decisions of HBOS/Lloyds TSB that resulted in bad debt of £24bn is the same amount the UK government and local authorities spent on the UK’s transport systems in 2009.

Yes, I realise that it is not necessarily as simple as that.  Perhaps someone from the finance sector will make it more clearly complex for me.  For example: it’s not clear how much the total loan value was and whether the £24bn is a small percentage of the total loan value or not – that would be interesting to know.

The bottom line is that a public listed company whose market capitalisation was £25.5bn in 2008 [HBOS] seems to have gone into loan deals that have gone bad to the tune of £24bn.  A sum equivalent that UK government spends on all UK transport in one year.  A sum not much greater than the tax payer bailout of HBOS/Lloyds TSB.

In terms of human behaviour, the issues that spring to mind include:

  • What were the decision making criteria and drivers in providing loans?
  • What concepts of risk and risk assessment, and relevant economic context, were used?
  • Who were checking these, and ensuring that the loans were appropriate?  [I'd guess people were financially  incentivised for securing loans though that's only a guess].
  • The public seem to be inured to such news…what does that mean in terms of influencing change?  Does inertia in a social system mean problems are likely to re-occur? [hint on the 2nd part - yes, it does].
  • What is the impact on tax payers of such inurement and of the continuance of the existing system largely unchanged?  [largely unchanged because if you're inured to it the incentive for others to change their behaviours is small].
  • When will people come to realise that unless you are part of the solution, you are part of the problem?  Being part of the problem means that you reinforce it passively or actively [being inured to it is passive reinforcement - acceptance].
  • What is it within the world of economics and human nature that has got us to this point – where debt of such proportions is accepted, as are the behaviours that lead to it?  If I’ve missed the news, and it’s not accepted what tangibly is happening to ensure it never happens again?

Yours impassioned on a Friday afternoon,

Finn

PS: I realise that if your system is in meltdown then it all spirals out because there is not enough money for people to pay their loans etc at the taxpayer/consumer level.  Yet:

  • Tthe UK government, and other nations, shoved money into the system – where has that gone?
  • Come to that, where has the original money gone?  [mmm - am I showing a commoners lack of grasp of economics? or is the distribution of that money that is the problem?  or is it that fake money, 'debt', was forming an enormous house of cards?]
  • “The UK economy grew by 0.3% in the final three months of last year, faster than previously estimated.”  [BBC: 'UK economic growth revised up to 0.3%']

The number one reason for the pace of life in 2010

Saturday, January 23rd, 2010

Hi, I recently commented on environmental sustainability and referred to the pace of life in the ‘modern’ world.

I said that I’d let you know what is responsible for this pace of life.  A pace of life that is often felt to be quickening and increasingly ’stressful’.  A pace of life that brings to mind that old phrase: (more…)

Playing for change

Tuesday, April 21st, 2009

Hi, against the backdrop of economic issues and the recently revealed Labour scandal of a seeming smear campaign [just to think Brits were once thought of as gentlemen who played be the rules - okay just once].

Anyway I received a link to (more…)

Life sends challenges…

Thursday, August 21st, 2008

Hi,

Just a brief post picking up on a couple of ideas about self-definition, identity and purpose.  I better point out that the links and some of the references are a bit more esoteric.  For me this is an irrelevance – what’s important for me are the particular quotes and my interpretations of them.

The other day I read Eva Gregory’s ‘Daily Pearls of Wisdom’, a simple and clean presentation of some great sayings about life.  The one that is relevant is:

Life provides the avenue that reveals your true spirit.

Then I got an newsletter from Guy Finley with one of his insights [from: 'The secret that shatters self-limitation']:

As life pours itself out in the stream of passing time, and we run into challenges seemingly greater than our ability to answer — each of these encounters “asks” this question of us:

“Are you willing to change (who you have been) in order to realize a higher possibility of yourself?” And though moments like these trouble us because of their uncertainty, here’s why we should be very grateful for their continuing appearance in our lives: this unwanted experience of realizing our limitations is the only way life can ask us if we wish to go beyond them. So this unknown moment of not understanding (what is to be) is actually the beautiful seed of a new order of our being, providing we’re willing to see it as such.

He goes on to say:

There’s only one way for us to transcend the limitations of our present nature. First, we must see this one great fact: these limitations don’t belong to us any more than the clumsy body of the caterpillar belongs to the butterfly liberated from its husk.  Then, we must act on this new understanding by daring to let go of any part of us that wants us to embrace its limited view of life as our own.

This week has been one where exactly this has happened to me.  A situation occurred that caused me, rather than those around me, to get the kick of an engrained emotional response.  I could have listened and believed this was who I am.  It’s not, it is no more part of me than the pencil sharpener on my desk.

So what did I do?  Exactly as these quotes suggest…I got into it to understand what it was and how it was limiting me.  Then used a little timeline technique [just one of a variety of possible tools] to be able to let it go and thus become someone new…ready for the next challenge on my Way.

 

All the best with all life’s challenges,

David 

PS:  From the esoteric to the practicality of organisational and community life – these too are organisms making thier way in life, and life sends them challenges too.  In the world of working with clients on their organisational behaviour, such challenges crop up with delightful frequency.  The added challenge is that they are not one individual but a hive of them.  The unhelpful self-limitations of the organisation are more difficult to release because they trigger differing responses within the hive – there are more perspectives and other boundaries that serve to constrain rapid Way-oriented and aligned decision-making…and that’s another story!

Ciao ciao

Competition in the UK postal market, war and who suffers

Tuesday, May 6th, 2008

It’s intriguing to read about attempts to change markets.  The UK postal market used to be wholly operated, bar courier services, by Royal Mail/Post Office. 

This market was ‘opened up to competition’ in 2006.  What has happened? 

Firstly you cannot introduce competition, all you can do is amend constraints to trade, introduce incentives or actively create new players in a market.  Whether they compete or not is up to them, both individually as organisations or as a group.  Often, without explicit agreement, they will act in a fashion that reduces competitiveness.  The system will find a point of acceptable equilibrium.  One player will make a tentative gesture and the others respond.  How the others respond determines (more…)