Skip to content

Archive for the ‘Risk’ Category

Underestimating a Silent Problem

Tuesday, June 22nd, 2010

Risk. Exposure. Liability. These are words that should be at the forefront of every conversation when a silent problem is identified ( a problem that has been avoided, neglected, gone unnoticed, or been intentionally silenced). The reason being, too often we underestimate the real impact a silent problem can have on an organization, and its share price. For instance, we need look no further than Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Madoff, Toyota, and now BP. In each of these and 100s of other of instances, while the crisis on the surface appeared under control, in reality things were totally out of control. Such can be the impact of a silent problem.

 In a recent Reuters article titled Wall Street Said Buy, Buy, Buy BP Stock As Gulf Crisis Unfolded illustrates how analysts often underestimate the financial impact of disasters that eminate from silent problems. The story states:

As early word of BP’s Deepwater Horizon blowout began spreading, investors panicked. After closing above $60 before the April 20 disaster, the energy giant’s shares plunged almost 20 percent in New York, to below $50, in just two weeks.

It is not hard to understand why. Even then, the out-of-control oil spill in the midst of rich fishing grounds and nearby resort beaches raised the specter of horrific damages and untold potential liabilities.

Yet, nearly to a person, the dozens of securities analysts who followed the British oil giant were unfazed. As BP (BP.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) (BP.L: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) shares continued to drop, most were screaming the same message: buy, baby, buy.

Credit Suisse, which had a “buy” rating on the stock at the time, did not even mention the accident in an April 28 report. The firm upgraded earnings estimates after BP reported strong quarterly results the day before.

A day later, with BP’s shares then down 11 percent, Citigroup’s Mark Fletcher weighed in. He argued that the decline was “disproportionate to the likely costs to the company, even assuming damages can be claimed.” In the same report, he estimated BP’s total share of the cleanup at just $450 million — today, conservative guesses put the figure at $10 billion to $20 billion.

Around that time, Morgan Stanley was among the chorus citing the strong rebound of Exxon (XOM.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) shares after the 1989 Valdez tanker spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska, as a reason to be bullish. “We think the sell-off presents an attractive buying opportunity for investors with medium-term investment horizons,” the firm wrote.

All told, 27 of 34 analysts tracked by Thomson Reuters rated the stock “buy” or “outperform” as recently as May 11. The other seven rated the shares “hold.” There was not a single rating of “sell” or “underperform” among those tracked.

The BP crisis is horriffic. It’s impact will be felt for years, and probably decades. And when we look at the evidence, it was a problem being intentionally silenced, and no one screamed Wolf!

Anatomy Of A Catastrophe

Friday, June 4th, 2010

Michael Roberto profiled the anatomy of a catastrophe over at his blog, and I found it to be insightful and definitely worth promoting. Here it is:

1. Catastrophic failures generally do not have a single root cause. They are typically the result of a chain of errors, mistakes, and small failures.

2. People and organizations often downplay ambiguous threats, i.e. warning signs, that crop out in the days, weeks, and months prior to the catastrophe. (Yes, we too often overlook weak signals starring us in the face.) 

3. Organizations often have cultures that don’t promote sufficient candor and open dialogue. Thus, people with knowledge about critical risks may not speak up about their concerns regarding a potential failure. (This is an area that organizations could easily correct through training and other easily implementable processes.)

4. People with intuitive concerns about certain risks sometimes are dismissed because they lack extensive data to support their concerns.  (It’s easy to dismiss someone under the guise of “You don’t know what you’re talking about.” Most of the time this is correct, however on occassion their wisdom can save the day.)

5. Organizations often overestimate how human and system redundancy they have in place to protect them from catastrophe. (Oftentimes, systems were adequate yesterday, yet insufficient for today’s needs. Finding the time and resources to examine the adequacy of systems and processes is difficult, yet important in a cash-strapped organization.)

6. People often underestimate the probability of what they perceive to be extremely low probability events. (This is where scenario planning can provide insights into the “What Ifs” of your world.)

7. Cognitive biases often distort managerial judgments, contributing to catastrophe. (I would also add that the emotional connection to judgements and decision-making often distort the outcome.)

If and when the BP Story slows and investigations into “What Really Happened” begin to emerge, the storyline will resemble that of Toyota, the financial crisis and numerous other stories. And the conclusion will be, “This too was preventable.” The technology to prevent it was present. The warning signs were present to take precautionary steps. The resources and conviction  to move forward is what was missing. Hopefully, some day we will learn the lessons of Silent Problems.

Toyota’s Who Is No. 1 Challenge

Friday, January 29th, 2010

Everyone knows the challenge Toyota Motor Company is facing with sticky gas pedals. We know that Toyota and its dealers have suspended manufacturing and sales of the affected models. We know that millions of current owners are greatly concerned about the cars they drive to work or use to transport their family. We know that a design fix has been made by Toyota’s supplier CTS, and it is shipping. We don’t know who will receive the limited resource (the new pedal design) first.

So here is Toyota’s Who Is No. 1 Challenge.

The Factory Scenario: If the factory receives the parts first, production facilities can be restarted, 1000s of employees will move back to a normal work schedule, and new cars can be shipped to dealers and ultimately purchased by consumers.

The Dealer Scenario: If the dealers start to receive the updated pedal assemblies first, they can begin installing them on cars in their lots, which will enable new car sales to resume. In turn, plants will remain idol and cars currently in use will remain at risk.

The Customer Scenario: If the customer is the top priority, new pedal assemblies will be shipped to dealers and cars with defective pedals that are currently in use can be repaired, thereby satisfying the needs of the existent customer. In this scenario, plants remain idle, and new cars on dealer lots aren’t available for sell.

The Modification: Toyota and its supplier CTS is talking about providing a modifaction kit for cars currently in use. This would allow updated pedal assemblies to be used by the factory and dealer installs on new cars currently sitting on dealer lots. Will customers be truly satisfied with a so-called fix?

Which scenario will Toyota pursue? Which scenario should Toyota pursue?

It’s a tricky question, because it gets to the crux of “Who is No. 1.” If Corporate Profits are Number 1, factories will receive the assemblies and a few might leak through to the dealers. If the Dealer is No. 1, dealers can begin moving stagnant inventory and keep their sales staff productive. If the Customer is No. 1, consumers will feel valued and might be forgiving.

Now let’s take one additional piece of information into consideration, this being Toyota’s Mission and Values Statements.

Mission Statement

“To attract and attain customers with high-valued products and services and the most satisfying ownership experience in America.”

Vision Statement

“To be the most successful and respected car company in America.”

 

With everything now on the line. Which next step should Toyota pursue? I believe their next step will truly determine whether or not they live their Mission and Vision Statements.  I believe it will define Toyota’s future success, or decline. Unfortunately, it could have all be avoided.

What do you think? Which demand point should recieve the new pedal assemblies?

Tiger Woods vs. Toyota Motor Company

Thursday, January 28th, 2010

What do Tiger Woods and Toyota Motor Company have in common?

a. Both have throttles that can stick open?
b. Both were No. 1 before their fall?
c. Both have had their images and brands severely bruised?
d. Both held silent problems that eventually surfaced with a vengeance?
e. All of the above?

The answer of course is “All of the Above.” Okay, “a.” was maybe a little off base, but I’m certain you catch my drift. However, there is no doubt that Tiger and Toyota are equally guilty of b, c and d.

Over the past year, I’ve repeatedly stated in this blog that Toyota has a serious problem relative to the “Silent Problems” (problems that are being avoided, neglected, going unnoticed, or being intentionally silenced) inside its organization. And as is the case with silent problems, if not dealt with early, they will emerge with a vengeance, which is exactly the case with Tiger Woods and Toyota.

Today, a story by Tom Krisher (AP) titledd “Can Toyota rev back from crisis?” gets to the heart of silent problems as relates to Toyota. Krisher writes,

Crisis managers say the issues with the pedals likely surfaced early on at lower levels of the organization, but no one wanted to deliver bad news to the boss.

“The story just kind of drags on. That’s just deadly for a reputation,” said Brenda Wrigley, chair of the public relations department at Syracuse University’s School of Public Communications. “It just spirals into a big situation that’s probably going to have long-term financial impact for the company.”

In March of 2007, Toyota started getting reports of gas pedals being slow to rise after being depressed for acceleration. Engineers fixed the problem in the Tundra pickup early in 2008.

But troubles persisted in other models, eventually leading to last week’s recall and the plans to suspend sales and shut down six factories while Toyota tries to fix the problems.

The time has come for the concept of Silent Problems to take center stage. 12 months ago, Toyota appeared invinciple, today it is struggling to survive. All because a silent problem inside the organization was allowed to germinate, grow and eventually explode. In the process, billions of dollars of brand equity has been lost. And my guess is, Toyota will never fully recover.

If you’re a business leader or manager, I have a couple of suggestions.

  1. You must read the book Without Warning. It will provide the context around Silent Problems and why they are so dangerous. And the book will provide a path on how to surface and eventually solve Silent Problems.
  2. If you have concerns that Silent Problems reside inside your organization, conduct a Silent Problem Audit.
  3. Get out there and start looking, hearing and questioning - What really is going on that you’re not aware of.  Do the WalkAround.

Today, its easy to focus on strategy, efficiencies and innovation. However, one thing can trump them, this being the Silence that resides in your organization. If it can happen to Toyota, it could also happen to you.

If you have a Silent Problem concern, give me a call at 651-436-3962, I’d be delighted to discuss the process with you further.

GM, Customer Service & Reputation

Friday, December 4th, 2009

If you challenge an individuals reputation, you’d better be ready to get in a fight. For instance, I was recently shown a letter from GM dealer, Tom Sparks Automotive, of DeKalb, IL that was sent out to their customers. Here is what it said:

In keeping with our commitment to inform our customers, we are writing this letter to let you know about some changes taking place, as well as inform some of the misinformation that you might be receiving through the mail from the new General Motors.

After a thorough review of our relationship with GM, we have decided to completely break ties with them, causing us to consolidate operations… We want you to know that contrary to the letters you have received from GM in regard to our service, our trained technicians who have serviced your car in the past can still service your car, with only one exception: manufacturer warranty work…One of the things that we have never compromised on is the service you receive in our repair facility. According to GM’s policies and procedures book, a dealer is not supposed to let the customer know of any problems that your car might be experiencing if the customer is not aware of the problem. Not adhering to this policy the dealer risks the possibility of not being paid for the service by GM…

We strongly believe that GM, through its reinvention process, has forgotten the needs of the customer and that is something we at Tom Sparks are not willing to do… Thank you for your business, and we look forward to seeing you soon. (letter from Tom Sparks Automotive)

Survival is a challenging problem in today’s economy, especially in the automotive marketplace. As GM and Chrysler attempt to reinvent themselves, it’s a place where emotions speak loudly, as this letter demonstrates. But more importantly, everything is escalated when reputation is put on the line. And in the automotive industry, reputation plays an integral role in everything; from sales, to service, to customer satisfaction. It’s what made GM great, and what helped destroy it. However as this letter illustrates, GMs move to expel certain dealers through bankruptcy (although they’re now reconsidering this) has many unintended consequences, especially when a dealer’s reputation has been put on the line.

Bottom Line: Reputation is a critical attribute for every organization. This letter illustrates just a few of the many challenges GM is and will encounter as they attempt to rebuild their automotive customer base. Good luck, you’ll need it.

Structured to go Broke

Monday, August 17th, 2009

The industry is just not structured to modify production in response to reduced demand. The industry is basically structured to go broke.  David Kruse, commodity trading adviser at CommStock Investments Inc.

The above quote came from a Bloomberg article describing the current state of the swine industry. For many years, I worked in agribusiness with direct ties to the swine industry. Starting in the 80s and 90s, the industry transitioned from small herds to the modern complexes, which dominate the industry today. These modern units were designed for efficiency with the goal of becoming world class production entities. And along the way the US pork industry changed, becoming heavily tied to exports, especially Asia. Then came H1N1, and the industry hasn’t recovered yet.

The point of this blog posting isn’t about the swine industry and the economic challenges it’s facing. This post is about industries that could be structured to go broke. On the surface this is an absurd concept, since all industries and companies are structured and designed for success. Right? If they weren’t structured for success, from a Darwinian perspective they shouldn’t exist. However, I’m pondering whether the very nature of some industries/companies, predispose them to be structured for failure. What do you think?

I came up with a few idustries that might lie on success/broke fault line.

  1. Biofuels Industry
  2. Mining Industry
  3. Automotive industry
  4. International Shipping Industry
  5. Airline Industry

As I look at this list, some common themes begin to surface. For instance;

  • High fixed cost structure
  • Capacity reduction difficult and costly to achieve
  • Commodity based pricing structure
  • Efficiency tied to volume

In good times, these industries typically perform admirably well, often times reporting record profits. However when the economic outlook turns, their fortunes also turn. Record profits become record losses. Everyone talks about excess capacity, yet capacity reduction is slow and painful. And the return to profitabilty is equally slow and painful.

Bottom Line: Most companies find their way into financial distress due to poor decisions, weak leadership and a changing economic landscape. However, can it be that some industries are destined to go broke? I’d appreciate you thoughts and ideas.

Tata Has A Boo Boo?

Friday, June 26th, 2009

A year ago, Tata Motors bought the Land Rover and Jaguar brands from Ford Motor Company for $2.4 billion. Today, Tata announced their first loss in seven years. The reason. Land Rover and Jaguar. Vikhas Seghal of Booz & Co into perspective (as reported by Bloomberg).

“Turning around Jaguar Land Rover is a Herculean task,” said Vikas Sehgal, a Chicago-based partner at Booz & Co., an industry consultant. “It’s challenging because a company focused on the mass market with basic technologies is trying to turn around a premium marquee brand with complicated technologies and low volumes.”

“The bridge from the Nano to Jaguar XF is probably the biggest that exists in the industry,” Sehgal said. “A $2,500 car and a $100,000 car: no other company in the world has a portfolio that wide.”

From the moment Tata bought Land Rover & Jaguar from Ford, a Silent Problem was underway. Even if the economic downturn hadn’t occurred, numerous challenges were on the horizon. Tata saw opportunity, when they should have taken a second and then a third look. Ford saw a way to shore up their balance sheet, and won.

With the introduction of the Nano, the world’s cheapest car just a month away, Tata Motors had the opportunity to become a dangerous competitor in the marketplace. Instead, they just wasted that opportunity. Their momentum has slowed and now they’re forced to play defence. This is a perilous position to be in.

Yes, Tata had a Boo Boo…

Bottom Line: Acquisitions are filled with potential problems, many of them of the silent variety. In this case silent problems related cultural fit, process & procedures and of “fit” are but a few. A year ago, Tata Motors was on the fast track, today they could easily be destined for the junkyard.

Undervalued - Opportunity or Risk?

Tuesday, June 16th, 2009

Around the world, the term undervalued is gaining strength. There is undervalued equipment, buildings, and land. Buildings can be purchased for less than they cost to build just a few years ago. Businesses are for sale at “fire sale” prices. Today,” undervalued” is beginning to transform many industries.

Opportunity or Risk?

Of course, it depends. It’s somewhat analagous to going to a garage sale. “It’s only a bargain if you can truly need or can use it.” However, here is the fascinating part of the equation. “Undervalued” tends to be a greater opportunity, especially  for small to mid-sized businesses. Companies that are well run and have adequate capitalization can take advantage of destressed assets. But here is the bigger picture to think about, and it falls under the “Without Warning” umbrella.

If a company is able to purchase undervalued assets and put them to work, how does this change the competitive landscape? Can this become a competitive advantage?

China’s Silent Problem

Thursday, June 11th, 2009

If I were a newspaper boy trying to hawk newspapers on a street corner in New York City, my mantra might be, “Extra. Extra. Read All About It. China’s Exports Off  26.4%.” Yes, that was the news yesterday. China’s exports off 26.4% in May, when compared to a year ago. Now many economists and other smart people will place this under the moniker, “It’s the economy stupid” umbrella. And this might be the case. However, I’m convinced that a bigger problem lies over the horizon, and this problem is “Quality.” This is China’s silent problem. A problem they are avoiding, since much of it lies in the Culturism silo.

Let’s go back a decade or so and why companies started their sourcing frenzy from China in the first place. This excerpt is from Paul Midler’s book, Poorly Made In China.

Concerns about business risk weighed heavily in the decision-making process. What importers needed to know before they moved their business to China was whether the economy was safe. One important contributing factor was a changing perception of China as a low-risk environment.

There were still economies in the world where an importer could wire-transfer funds and find that the recipient and the cash had both disappeared. Importers who came to China were reporting to others that this sort of thing did not happen. Factories delivered the goods, and outright fraud was more rare than in other corners of the world.

Compared with other economies, China came to be seen as a sanctuary. Latin America remained a place where kidnappings by professional criminals was common. In other countries, you could at least count on having your luggage stolen. Vietnam, which was just next door to China—and which had even lower labor costs—was one of those markets where such stories of petty theft were commonplace.

 The common perception on the street at the time was that “Made in China” was due to low manufacturing and labor costs. In reality, “Made in China” was a hybrid of sorts. Low manufacturing and labor costs. And, it was a low risk country from which to conduct business. This “low risk” perception enabled small to mid-size companies to suddenly enter the import - export marketplace with relative ease, and of course low risk.

Today, “Made is China” is still regarded as a place where low manufacturing and labor costs exist. It remains a low risk country from which to transact business and send business executives to. However, it is losing its low risk moniker when it comes to quality. And this is the Silent Problem that is beginning to face importers in the eye. And as the Chinese export market has waned, quality issues are increasing and becoming more visible. From my perspective, here’s why they’re becoming more prevalent. Chinese companies that are dependent on exports are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain financial stability as exports have waned. Therefore, they’ve been forced to cut corners where ever possible, leading to persistant quality problems for many importers. This may be viewed as short term thinking, yet is one where much of the Chinese culture lives.

And this is why China has a Silent Problem of immense proportion. And if it continues, it begins to change everything.

 

A New Problem Being Silenced

Saturday, June 6th, 2009

The past year has been tough, especially on the banking industry. However in recent months, their balance sheets have stabilized and once again started to report profits. I’ve been leery about this dramatic turn around, and now I’m concerned. The banking industry may be intentionally silencing a problem, which is simply one type of silent problem. Bloomberg reports in Bank Profits From Accounting Rules Masking Looming Loan Losses. It states:

“With our capital and assets, stressed as they have been, we can go back to focusing all our attention on managing our business and restoring value,” Citigroup Inc. Chief Executive Officer Vikram Pandit said after Geithner’s examinations were completed. The revival may be short-lived. Analysts who have examined the quarterly profits and government tests say that accounting rule changes and rosy assumptions are making the institutions look healthier than they are…

Citigroup’s $1.6 billion in first-quarter profit would vanish if accounting were more stringent, says Martin Weiss of Weiss Research Inc. in Jupiter, Florida. “The big banks’ profits were totally bogus,” says Weiss, whose 38-year-old firm rates financial companies. “The new accounting rules, the stress tests: They’re all part of a major effort to put lipstick on a pig.”  Further deterioration of loans will eventually force banks to recognize losses that their bookkeeping lets them ignore for now, says David Sherman, an accounting professor at Northeastern University in Boston…

The financial collapse in 2008 was preceeded by years of silent problems that went unnoticed. Today however, everyone is looking for them with a vengeance. No one wants to be embarrassed again. However, just because these issues are now visible, it doesn’t mean that government and the banking industry won’t work diligently to make them silent again. Will the analysts allow it to happen, or will they be the vigilent watchdog we need?

What do you think?

Be the one to see it coming!

The first leadership book to point out the problem, then hand-deliver the solution.

Without Warning - Rondey Johnson

Learn More

Order Info