Confronted to the speculation we observe in financial markets, I began a series of columns on the ravages of financial capitalism. In the first, I demonstrated the harms of speculation, especially the relationship between it and the economic and financial crisis raging on the planet since summer 2007. In the second, I talked about the birth and evolution of capitalism and oft he stock market, and compared two forms of investment in a high tech company. In the third column, I presented the financing needs of companies involved in technology. In this fourth and last column, I will introduce a new mode of economic organization to focus on, responsible capitalism.
To be beneficial to all mankind, development, technological or otherwise, must be based on a new paradigm called responsible capitalism, a concept we have already discussed in 2007 in Consommation et luxe. We define responsible capitalism as a socio-economic system based on free circulation of trade, business, industry and finance, in a perspective of respect for the interests of all stakeholders: the ordinary citizen, the State, financial institutions, businesses themselves their customers, employees, suppliers and investors.
Derived from the very world that gave birth to it, that of business, responsible capitalism is part of an evolution of capitalism, from Venice’s merchant capitalism to industrial Revolution’s industrial capitalism in the XIXth century, the to modern day financial capitalism (For these three forms of capitalism, see K. Galbraith, The Economics of Innocent Fraud, Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004, p. 8.).
Aware of their responsibilities in society, more and more business men and women can only subscribe to a more humane vision of commercial, industrial and financial practices. To those who might think me naive, keep in mind that I have worked in the business world for over 25 years and still am very much involved in it; I can assure you that it is not populated solely by gangsters, swindlers, tyrants and speculators. As evidence of this, I present organizations such as BSR (Business for Social Responsibility), «A leader in corporate responsibility since 1992», whose mission is to «work with business to create a just and sustainable world».
Amongst the most fervent advocates of responsible capitalism, there are also influential politicians such as Nicolas Sarkozy and Barack Obama. Thus, during the campaign that led him to the presidency of France in 2007, Nicolas Sarkozy proposed a «family type» capitalism, based on more human values, which is within the context of social responsibility we have described: «I believe in the creative force of capitalism, but I am convinced that capitalism cannot survive without ethics, without respect for a number of spiritual values, moral values, without humanism, without culture. […] Capitalism must serve a certain idea of man. I believe in the ethics of capitalism. I do not accept, nor do thousands of entrepreneurs, for paid work and entrepreneurship to be violated by the excessive remuneration and privileges benefiting a small minority of CEOs. I do not accept that, around the world, for reasons of pure profit, some people toy with employees and plants as one moves pieces on a board game. […] I will reinforce «family type» capitalism. »
One must admit, even without outrageously speculative practices, the nature of the stock market is forcing companies to engage in a race for profitability, which often forces them to make decisions contrary to harmonious long term development and some contrary to the interests of their employees and customers. From its initial public offering of shares (IPO), a company loses some of its freedom of action and is from then on subject to the profit demands of mutual fund managers, large investors and speculators. This denatures the company, which explains why Guy Laliberté has always refused to list his company on the stock exchange. Cirque du Soleil would probably not be what it is today if the company was publicly traded, because Mr. Laliberté would not have had the flexibility to choose its partners, artists, shows, and more. I also believe that we must see in Toyota’s recent setbacks the effect of a race to profitability, which had a negative impact on the quality of its products.
Some CEOs of large companies refuse to follow the whims of investors. Thus, here's what Nick Hayek, CEO of Swatch, said on March 21, 2009 further to a decline in earnings of the company he heads: «For a company listed on the stock market, announcing a decline in profit, a10% reduction in the workforce can bring the share value back up. Such is not the case in our company. There will be no layoffs or reduced investment at Swatch. We accept having diminished earnings and not to be the darlings of the stock market. » Refusal to play the stock market game to appeal to investors is a good example of responsible capitalism.
On December 3, 2008, the United States, columnist Ray Williams published an article in which he argued that the current business paradigm was no longer viable, encouraging entrepreneurs to adopt responsible capitalism. Capitalist societies have initiated evolutionary transformation of who we are, what we value and how we behave. This requires social and environmental responsibility, to which CEOs must actively participate. This transformation requires a model that focuses on more than the sole profitability (bottom line) objective. It considers a creation of wealth that adds personal, social and ecological gains to the bottom line. (R. Williams, «CEOs need to adopt responsible capitalism», Financial Post, 3 décembre 2008)
US President Barack Obama’s position fits into this perspective. For instance, in a speech pronounced on February 24, 2009, he defended a vision of capitalism in which prosperity benefits to all. Although he did not himself named this new capitalism, others have done for him, Responsible Capitalism. Williams goes on saying that President Barack Obama’s speech was peppered with phrases and ideas outlining his vision of his government's responsibility to not only promote a strong economy, but also to ensure that ordinary people were taking advantage of this economy . He [Obama] has not yet fully articulated his economic philosophy, and has not given it a name either. But we can see in this speech outlines a new approach that could be called "responsible capitalism" in contrast with the "crony capitalism" of the Bush era. […] More accurately, he redefines the meaning of a "healthy business climate" — a widely shared prosperity for workers, an economy that creates good jobs, allows access to the middle class to the poorest, provides first rate schools, decent health care, and housing that families can afford, while protecting the environment.
President Obama also criticizes abuses, including those of the industry and the financial world; in his opinion, government must exert tighter control in these areas.
In short, the need for a reform of capitalism no longer need to be demonstrated; countless leading actors agree on the need for international collaboration to define actions to take, world economies being so interrelated that unilateral action by one country would have no effect. To put in place measures to curb speculation, on raw materials for instance, must necessarily involve all major states.
Showing posts with label stock market. Show all posts
Showing posts with label stock market. Show all posts
Monday, March 15, 2010
Monday, February 15, 2010
Link between stock market speculation and corporate bankruptcies
Confronted to the speculation we observe in financial markets, I began a series of columns on the ravages of financial capitalism. In the first, I demonstrated the harms of speculation, especially the relationship between it and the economic and financial crisis raging on the planet since summer 2007. In the second, I talked about the birth and evolution of capitalism and oft he stock market, and compared two forms of investment in a high tech company. In this third column, I present the financing needs of companies involved in technology. Of course, these findings also prove accurate in other sectors of economic activity.
I have already outlined the fact that today technological development requires massive injections of capital, available only to States and major financial players, such as banks, mutual funds and a few wealthy investors, amongst whom we find both entrepreneurs and speculators. Small technology companies are struggling to find capital for their development; they rely on state subsidies, bank loans, venture capital and a few private investors. When they reach a certain size, they seek to get listed on the stock market through an IPO; from then on, they are subjected to the dictates of investors demanding an increased profitability year after year. Failure to deliver will cause their shares to be dumped, their capitalization diminished and their development compromised.
Several flourishing companies have disappeared over the years. Even large companies, sometimes listed on the stock market for decades, are vulnerable; some have collapsed, their shares sometimes dropping from hundreds of dollars to a few cents. Consider Norton Telecom (Nortel) a jewel high-tech company in Canada. Market speculation is perhaps not the only culprit in Nortel’s bankruptcy, but it is a major factor. Without the excessive demands of some large investors with respect to a short-term excessive profitability, business decisions made by management would probably have been different; they would have been better suited to a more harmonious long term development of the company. Companies, technological or otherwise, should not have to finance through the stock markets and see their business decisions dictated by a handful of speculators who care only about their own short term profit, often at the expense of the company itself.
What other avenues might there be? I have already said that technological development can take place in a capitalist type economic organization, while remaining beneficial to society as a whole. However, to remain the privileged method of economic organization, capitalism must transform, be associated with State imposed social measures, and above all eliminate, or at the very least restrict, speculation. This new paradigm is already emerging in the form of responsible capitalism and new values; in my next column, I will present its broad outlines.
I have already outlined the fact that today technological development requires massive injections of capital, available only to States and major financial players, such as banks, mutual funds and a few wealthy investors, amongst whom we find both entrepreneurs and speculators. Small technology companies are struggling to find capital for their development; they rely on state subsidies, bank loans, venture capital and a few private investors. When they reach a certain size, they seek to get listed on the stock market through an IPO; from then on, they are subjected to the dictates of investors demanding an increased profitability year after year. Failure to deliver will cause their shares to be dumped, their capitalization diminished and their development compromised.
Several flourishing companies have disappeared over the years. Even large companies, sometimes listed on the stock market for decades, are vulnerable; some have collapsed, their shares sometimes dropping from hundreds of dollars to a few cents. Consider Norton Telecom (Nortel) a jewel high-tech company in Canada. Market speculation is perhaps not the only culprit in Nortel’s bankruptcy, but it is a major factor. Without the excessive demands of some large investors with respect to a short-term excessive profitability, business decisions made by management would probably have been different; they would have been better suited to a more harmonious long term development of the company. Companies, technological or otherwise, should not have to finance through the stock markets and see their business decisions dictated by a handful of speculators who care only about their own short term profit, often at the expense of the company itself.
What other avenues might there be? I have already said that technological development can take place in a capitalist type economic organization, while remaining beneficial to society as a whole. However, to remain the privileged method of economic organization, capitalism must transform, be associated with State imposed social measures, and above all eliminate, or at the very least restrict, speculation. This new paradigm is already emerging in the form of responsible capitalism and new values; in my next column, I will present its broad outlines.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Speculation: The origins of capitalism and the stock market
Confronted to the abuses that we witness daily in the world of finance, I began last week a series of columns on the ravages of financial capitalism. In the first, I demonstrated the harms of speculation, especially the relationship between it and the economic and financial crisis raging on the planet since summer 2007. In this column, I’ll talk about the birth and evolution of capitalism and oft he stock market, and compare two forms of investment in a high tech company.
Mumford situates «the birth of capitalism and the transition from a barter economy - facilitated by a local and variable currency – to a monetary system with an international credit structure (Mumford, 1950) », in the fourteenth century in Northern Italy. Regarding the stock market, he tells us that «two centuries later, existed in Antwerp, an international stock exchange intended for speculation on vessel armament in foreign ports and on currency. » Others trace the birth of this financial institution at an even earlier time. Some, for instance, report the existence of «courratiers» (ancient form of the French word courtiers), brokers, in Paris in the twelfth century, «concerned with managing and regulating the debts of agricultural communities on behalf of the banks» in France, then for the exchange of state debts by Lombard bankers in the thirteenth century. A first stock exchange is said to have existed in Bruges in the fourteenth century. According to many, According to many, the term «bourse» (stock exchange) origins from the name of the Van Der Beurze (De La Bourse in Walloon) family, the house in which Bruges commodity traders met. However interesting, all these socio-historical references are however little importance in light of speculation, inherent to the stock market.
On this subject, Mumford wrote «international stock exchange intended for speculation »; his use of «stock exchange» and «speculation» within a short sentence and of the adverb «intended» to link both terms and point out the purpose of this financial institution, demonstrates the indissolubility he sees between «stock exchange» and «speculation». Mumford goes on to say that with the advent of financial capitalism, «all business took an abstract form. They did not deal in goods, but in imaginary futures and hypothetical gains (Mumford, 1950). » He continues with the mining industry, stressing that the expansion of operations and use of machinery using the latest technologies of the time, required an injection of capital that the workers could not provide: «This led to the admission of associates who brought capital instead of work: they were silent partners [...] This capitalist development was further stimulated as early as the fifteenth century by the rampant speculation on shares. Landowners and merchants practiced this new game (Mumford, 1950). »
This said, to base human and technological development on a capitalist form of economic organization does not inevitably entail speculation. This practice is not inherent to capitalism, but to human greed; of all times, it has been the doing of a few. It has now reached dizzying heights; creating no real wealth, it only allows a handful of individuals to get revoltingly rich to the point of destroying the system that allowed them to accumulate their wealth. It could be otherwise.
Consider two $100,000 investments made in high technology, the first in a small startup company involved in software development for data security, and the second in a mutual fund speculating on the prices of metals, a critical resource in computer manufacturing. For purposes of this comparison, assume that two investments are worth $ 500,000 after 5 years and that both investors liquidate their respective investment, cashing in a profit of $400,000. Both these investments were equally profitable and will receive the same fiscal treatment, i.e. a tax on only 50% of the capital gain. However, which of these two investments has been most beneficial to society? Which has created real value?
In the first instance, programmers, salespeople and other employees were hired, thus creating collective wealth; furthermore, these people have paid taxes on their incomes to various government and their consumption has fuelled other economic sectors. The value of the small business has increased from $100,000 to 500,000, a value based on tangible assets, although some proportion may be intangible, such as the software developed. Said software has allowed other companies to protect their data and hence operate more efficiently and securely. We should also not forget the fact that the investor will probably not liquidate his investment after 5 years, especially if he owns the business. Even if he did so, the company would not liquidate its assets; under the direction of a new owner, it would continue to prosper, to hire staff and create collective wealth.
In the second case, we can see only a small positive impact on society; as in the first case, merely the imposition of a tax on 50% of the $400,000 capital gain. Quite the contrary, the impacts on society are rather negative. For instance, the rising price of metals affects the development of several companies, raising the prices of several products they need. If the value of investment increased from $100,000 to $500,000, this gain represents no real increase in value, only an increase in the perceived value of metals, the result of speculation on their price. Is the imposition of an identical fiscal treatment to these two investments fair if one considers the benefits to society? Let’s keep this question open for now ... but we will get back to it.
In my next column, I will discuss the financing needs of companies involved in technology.
Mumford situates «the birth of capitalism and the transition from a barter economy - facilitated by a local and variable currency – to a monetary system with an international credit structure (Mumford, 1950) », in the fourteenth century in Northern Italy. Regarding the stock market, he tells us that «two centuries later, existed in Antwerp, an international stock exchange intended for speculation on vessel armament in foreign ports and on currency. » Others trace the birth of this financial institution at an even earlier time. Some, for instance, report the existence of «courratiers» (ancient form of the French word courtiers), brokers, in Paris in the twelfth century, «concerned with managing and regulating the debts of agricultural communities on behalf of the banks» in France, then for the exchange of state debts by Lombard bankers in the thirteenth century. A first stock exchange is said to have existed in Bruges in the fourteenth century. According to many, According to many, the term «bourse» (stock exchange) origins from the name of the Van Der Beurze (De La Bourse in Walloon) family, the house in which Bruges commodity traders met. However interesting, all these socio-historical references are however little importance in light of speculation, inherent to the stock market.
On this subject, Mumford wrote «international stock exchange intended for speculation »; his use of «stock exchange» and «speculation» within a short sentence and of the adverb «intended» to link both terms and point out the purpose of this financial institution, demonstrates the indissolubility he sees between «stock exchange» and «speculation». Mumford goes on to say that with the advent of financial capitalism, «all business took an abstract form. They did not deal in goods, but in imaginary futures and hypothetical gains (Mumford, 1950). » He continues with the mining industry, stressing that the expansion of operations and use of machinery using the latest technologies of the time, required an injection of capital that the workers could not provide: «This led to the admission of associates who brought capital instead of work: they were silent partners [...] This capitalist development was further stimulated as early as the fifteenth century by the rampant speculation on shares. Landowners and merchants practiced this new game (Mumford, 1950). »
This said, to base human and technological development on a capitalist form of economic organization does not inevitably entail speculation. This practice is not inherent to capitalism, but to human greed; of all times, it has been the doing of a few. It has now reached dizzying heights; creating no real wealth, it only allows a handful of individuals to get revoltingly rich to the point of destroying the system that allowed them to accumulate their wealth. It could be otherwise.
Consider two $100,000 investments made in high technology, the first in a small startup company involved in software development for data security, and the second in a mutual fund speculating on the prices of metals, a critical resource in computer manufacturing. For purposes of this comparison, assume that two investments are worth $ 500,000 after 5 years and that both investors liquidate their respective investment, cashing in a profit of $400,000. Both these investments were equally profitable and will receive the same fiscal treatment, i.e. a tax on only 50% of the capital gain. However, which of these two investments has been most beneficial to society? Which has created real value?
In the first instance, programmers, salespeople and other employees were hired, thus creating collective wealth; furthermore, these people have paid taxes on their incomes to various government and their consumption has fuelled other economic sectors. The value of the small business has increased from $100,000 to 500,000, a value based on tangible assets, although some proportion may be intangible, such as the software developed. Said software has allowed other companies to protect their data and hence operate more efficiently and securely. We should also not forget the fact that the investor will probably not liquidate his investment after 5 years, especially if he owns the business. Even if he did so, the company would not liquidate its assets; under the direction of a new owner, it would continue to prosper, to hire staff and create collective wealth.
In the second case, we can see only a small positive impact on society; as in the first case, merely the imposition of a tax on 50% of the $400,000 capital gain. Quite the contrary, the impacts on society are rather negative. For instance, the rising price of metals affects the development of several companies, raising the prices of several products they need. If the value of investment increased from $100,000 to $500,000, this gain represents no real increase in value, only an increase in the perceived value of metals, the result of speculation on their price. Is the imposition of an identical fiscal treatment to these two investments fair if one considers the benefits to society? Let’s keep this question open for now ... but we will get back to it.
In my next column, I will discuss the financing needs of companies involved in technology.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
The ravages of financial capitalism
Consumption, technology and finance are intimately related; exceeded by the abuses that I witness daily in the world of finance, I begin today a series of columns on the ravages of financial capitalism.
Technological development, the driving force of consumption, is linked to available funding, especially since the 19th century’s industrial revolution; however, it was not always so. In «Consommation et nouvelles technologies — Au monde de l’hyper», a book I published in November 2009, I write: «Capitalism and technological development can exist without the other: "Capitalism has existed in other civilizations whose technical development was relatively low. Technique made steady progress from the tenth to the fifteenth century without needing the nudge of capitalism (Mumford, 1950)." But the nature of current technological development and the speed with which it takes place requires a concentration of capital available only to States and large investors (Ellul, 1990). » A source of funding is needed for technological progress; it can be public or private.
This said, State communism has shown its limits; capitalism has thus proved to be the least evil form of economic organization, despite the fact that it gave birth to the consumer society, then to hyperconsumption, and is undermined by speculation. This is why Robert Rochefort said: «The consumer society is the least evil form of society tested so far (Rochefort, 1995). »
Consequently, as I wrote in «Consommation et luxe – La voie de l’excès et de l’illusion» in 2007: «It is not my intention to criticize capitalism or the stock market as a whole. This mode of financing is necessary for the operation and growth of businesses. » I was then content to denounce the greed of a few large investors that feeds a speculation phenomenon. Two years have passed, and, if I still strongly believe in the merits of one form of capitalism, responsible, my opinion of the stock market has further deteriorated since then, because, more than ever, speculation is raging on Wall Street, Bay Street and all stock exchanges.
Speculation is a phenomenon which is inherent to stock market trading, because it is rooted in human desires for power, money being a form of power. Extremely harmful to our societies, it is responsible for the subprime mortgages crisis, which arose in summer 2007, then degenerated into an economic and financial crisis a year later; speculation is also responsible for most preceding crisis and for the bad reputation that many have made to capitalism: «Later, and more destructive to the reputation of capitalism in the United States, was the visibly insane Florida real estate speculation, the rising corporate and industrial voice and, most important, the stock market explosion of the late 1920s. Then came the world resonating crash of 1929 and, for ten long years, The Great Depression. (Galbraith, 2004). »
Closer to us, take for example high-frequency trading, a practice that is now spreading on Wall Street: « Powerful computers, some housed right next to the machines that drive marketplaces like the New York Stock Exchange, enable high-frequency traders to transmit millions of orders at lightning speed and, their detractors contend, reap billions at everyone else’s expense. These systems are so fast they can outsmart or outrun other investors, humans and computers alike. And after growing in the shadows for years, they are generating lots of talk. Nearly everyone on Wall Street is wondering how hedge funds and large banks like Goldman Sachs are making so much money so soon after the financial system nearly collapsed. High-frequency trading is one answer (Stock Traders Find Speed Pays, in Milliseconds). »
Thus, it is likely that much of the gains on the stock market in 2009 may be attributed to speculation and market manipulation. Such practices create no tangible value, only a hypothetical value based on an imaginary future, hence the creation of speculative bubbles, technological, real estate or other; those inevitably burst sooner or later, causing the usual parade of economic and social problems. Said practices will ultimately destroy our economies and our societies if we do not put an end to them.
Speculation and market manipulation, which have flared up after the stock market crisis of fall 2008, will inevitably lead to an even worse crisis, from which Western economies may not recover, if States do not exercise tighter control over these practices.
In my next column, I’ll talk about the birth and evolution of capitalism and oft he stock market, and compare two forms of investment in a high tech company.
Technological development, the driving force of consumption, is linked to available funding, especially since the 19th century’s industrial revolution; however, it was not always so. In «Consommation et nouvelles technologies — Au monde de l’hyper», a book I published in November 2009, I write: «Capitalism and technological development can exist without the other: "Capitalism has existed in other civilizations whose technical development was relatively low. Technique made steady progress from the tenth to the fifteenth century without needing the nudge of capitalism (Mumford, 1950)." But the nature of current technological development and the speed with which it takes place requires a concentration of capital available only to States and large investors (Ellul, 1990). » A source of funding is needed for technological progress; it can be public or private.
This said, State communism has shown its limits; capitalism has thus proved to be the least evil form of economic organization, despite the fact that it gave birth to the consumer society, then to hyperconsumption, and is undermined by speculation. This is why Robert Rochefort said: «The consumer society is the least evil form of society tested so far (Rochefort, 1995). »
Consequently, as I wrote in «Consommation et luxe – La voie de l’excès et de l’illusion» in 2007: «It is not my intention to criticize capitalism or the stock market as a whole. This mode of financing is necessary for the operation and growth of businesses. » I was then content to denounce the greed of a few large investors that feeds a speculation phenomenon. Two years have passed, and, if I still strongly believe in the merits of one form of capitalism, responsible, my opinion of the stock market has further deteriorated since then, because, more than ever, speculation is raging on Wall Street, Bay Street and all stock exchanges.
Speculation is a phenomenon which is inherent to stock market trading, because it is rooted in human desires for power, money being a form of power. Extremely harmful to our societies, it is responsible for the subprime mortgages crisis, which arose in summer 2007, then degenerated into an economic and financial crisis a year later; speculation is also responsible for most preceding crisis and for the bad reputation that many have made to capitalism: «Later, and more destructive to the reputation of capitalism in the United States, was the visibly insane Florida real estate speculation, the rising corporate and industrial voice and, most important, the stock market explosion of the late 1920s. Then came the world resonating crash of 1929 and, for ten long years, The Great Depression. (Galbraith, 2004). »
Closer to us, take for example high-frequency trading, a practice that is now spreading on Wall Street: « Powerful computers, some housed right next to the machines that drive marketplaces like the New York Stock Exchange, enable high-frequency traders to transmit millions of orders at lightning speed and, their detractors contend, reap billions at everyone else’s expense. These systems are so fast they can outsmart or outrun other investors, humans and computers alike. And after growing in the shadows for years, they are generating lots of talk. Nearly everyone on Wall Street is wondering how hedge funds and large banks like Goldman Sachs are making so much money so soon after the financial system nearly collapsed. High-frequency trading is one answer (Stock Traders Find Speed Pays, in Milliseconds). »
Thus, it is likely that much of the gains on the stock market in 2009 may be attributed to speculation and market manipulation. Such practices create no tangible value, only a hypothetical value based on an imaginary future, hence the creation of speculative bubbles, technological, real estate or other; those inevitably burst sooner or later, causing the usual parade of economic and social problems. Said practices will ultimately destroy our economies and our societies if we do not put an end to them.
Speculation and market manipulation, which have flared up after the stock market crisis of fall 2008, will inevitably lead to an even worse crisis, from which Western economies may not recover, if States do not exercise tighter control over these practices.
In my next column, I’ll talk about the birth and evolution of capitalism and oft he stock market, and compare two forms of investment in a high tech company.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)