Posts Tagged ‘Economics’

A pathologically bad businessman

December 15th, 2009

It’s not a scam, it’s just a badly run business. The owner is trying to make it grow too quickly.

The fact I had to hang up my phone by putting a box of staples on my disconnect button was the first clue… I had no handset, and there were no spares – despite five or six more base units in a drawer at the rear of the office. Also, despite being a telemarketing call centre, nobody had thought to get a scrubbed phone list from the Do Not Call Register. We ended up just calling people from the phone book. My apologies to anyone on the register that I did call.

The computer system seemed second hand and poorly set up. Much of the software appeared to be pirated. My own computer was a Pentium 3 with a side panel missing and no word processing or spreadsheet software. The network had not been set up properly and staff were not using the server as central information storage. The wi fi access point hadn’t been secured, and anyone passing could gain access. Email wasn’t functioning, and even if it was the staff weren’t aware of their account information. The decrepit printer would whine when printing, and smudge the top of the page.

On my second morning, the sales manager resigned. He walked out without notice, appalled at the situation in the office. Little did I know he was setting an example for me to follow two weeks later. On the bright side, I swapped my computer for his – which was intact and came with an apparently pirated copy of Microsoft Office.

We had less than happy customers calling to find out where their orders were. Many reported they had been fobbed off repeatedly, being told that it would be in the next week or two. Many said they had called up before and been told someone would call them back, but nobody had. On Friday one customer who had lost patience and cancelled called to ask where the refund of her deposit was. I couldn’t tell her, but said I would try to find out and get back to her. When I asked the administration officer, I was told she couldn’t be refunded because there was no money.

Financially the company is spread very thin. The first week I was there contractors downed tools because they weren’t paid. I was fortunate, and did get paid for my three days work to that point. Last week it was worse… The Thursday pay didn’t happen at all. The money simply wasn’t there. Contractors downed tools again, and I was tempted to do likewise. A desperate scramble saw part payments in cash to some, including myself. The remainder of last week’s salary has now appeared in my account, though I’m going to be pleasantly surprised if I see payment for the part week I completed before walking out.

Yesterday I heard that a payment that the company was about to receive had already been allocated in its entirety to stock acquisition. It won’t be going to salaries or providing refunds to those customers that have requested them. I fear that tools will be downed again on Friday. I don’t know how many times that can happen before contractors walk away permanently.

Some customers have received their orders and do seem happy. Many others haven’t , and are rightfully angry. Despite this, there really is potential for the company to succeed, but only if it consolidates its local position before expansion. To do this it needs sound management. It needs planning and organisation. But these are things it lamentably lacks. Pressure needs to be brought on the owner to slow his expansion plans, and concentrate on service delivery.

The owner has been in this situation before, but hasn’t learned from past mistakes. He is building a business without foundation, its walls built on sand. The slightest shake and they will come tumbling down.  The capital required to provide service at the same time as expanding the business quite simply isn’t there.

With his mind set on taking the operation national, the owner is, in my opinion, dooming it to failure. Instead of becoming a small success, his desire to be a huge success will likely see him fail again.


Update: I was pleasantly surprised to find my salary was paid. I am, however, unchanged in my opinion of the owner or the wisdom of leaving.

On rebates

December 14th, 2009

Events in my professional life have had me thinking about government rebates. At present the Commonwealth Government and other agencies have stimulus schemes that offer to reimburse expenditure on reducing electriicity use. Homeowners can end up getting a selection of goods at little or, commonly, no cost to themselves.

Homeowners, knowing that the government will reimburse them whatever price they pay are less likely to seek value for money. Should a company inflate its prices in order to “chew up as much of the rebate as possible”? While unethical, it certainly seems financially sensible to do so.

As it presently stands, the rebates give little incentive to the householder to seek good value for money. Companies can inflate their quotes but keep it under the rebate in the hope the customer won’t care. This is particularly problematic when there’s no need to provide evidence that multiple quotes were sought. It’s a transfer of money from the taxpayer to the proprietors of the businesses, and reduces the multiplier effect of stimulus spending.

A better scheme, if the government does choose to provide rebates, is to cost share. For every dollar spent by the customer, the rebate provider should put in a dollar, or some multiple. This gives the customer more incentive to shop around for a good price, as they share the cost of a bad price with the rebate provider. The stimulus money would then have a higher multiplier effect and the economy would be better off.

While in general I support the idea of government intervention in the form of stimulus spending and think reducing electricity use is a good idea (both environmentally and to reduce future need for electricity infrastructure), that spending needs to be spent in such a way as to have as high a multipler effect as possible, both to stimulate the economy as much as possible and to achieve good value for many for the tax payer.

This rant has been triggered by two weeks working for the worst employer I have yet experienced. Organisation and planning were words not in the company dictionary, and the intent to inflate prices and work around rules was explicitly discussed. Things got so bad that staff weren’t being paid, refundable deposits couldn’t be refunded to unsatisfied customers, and everyone was massively stressed.

Anyway, I’m now looking for work again. If there’s someone looking for an administrative worker who likes organisation, planning and ethical conduct, email me!

Redefining the working week

July 26th, 2009

Scientific American reports:

As government agencies and corporations scramble to cut expenses, one idea gaining widespread attention involves cutting something most employees wouldn’t mind losing: work on Fridays. Regular three-day weekends, without a decrease in the actual hours worked per week, could not only save money, but also ease pressures on the environment and public health, advocates say.

Ten hours a day, four days a week? Hmmmm… With an hour’s travel each way on the bus, I would be leaving at 7am and getting home at 7pm. Then again, a long weekend every week might be nice.

Defence vs everything else

June 27th, 2009

George Monbiot opines on a possible way for the UK to save some money:

At the end of 2003, the Ministry of Defence observed that “there are currently no major conventional military threats to the UK or NATO … it is now clear that we no longer need to retain a capability against the re-emergence of a direct conventional strategic threat”. So why is most of this ministry’s budget spent on retaining a capability against the emergence of a direct conventional strategic threat?

To read the MoD’s spending stats is to read the accounts of a lost world: a faraway land where threats and funds are unlimited. Its PFI service charges (£1.3bn) exceed the entire budget of the department of energy and climate change. The department for international development could be funded twice over from the MoD’s budget for capital charges and depreciation (£9.6bn). Property management sucks up £1.5bn a year, consultants and lawyers £470m, bullets, bombs and the like, £650m.

What does it give us? Our wars make us less safe. We would be better protected from terrorism and global instability if the UK’s armed forces stopped going abroad to make trouble. No one in office can produce a coherent account of why this money is needed: the ministry’s budget is sustained by the greed of contractors and nostalgia for imperium long passed. We could cut defence spending by 90% and suffer no loss to our national security. Instead, the MoD has just dropped its spending on climate change research. This accounted for a quarter of the Met Office’s climate programme.

I wonder if there isn’t something in that for Australia too. Read the whole post, and Monbiot’s other essays.

Barney Frank, the US Democrat Senator came out with a nice related comment when talking about Republican arguments against cutting funding for the F-22 fighter:

These arguments will come from the very people who denied that the economic recovery plan created any jobs. We have a very odd economic philosophy in Washington: It’s called weaponized Keynesianism. It is the view that the government does not create jobs when it funds the building of bridges or important research or retrains workers, but when it builds airplanes that are never going to be used in combat, that is of course economic salvation.

Stiglitz on the economic situation

April 4th, 2009

Salon.com has a brief interview with 2001 Nobel Prize winning economist and former World Bank chief economist Joseph Stiglitz. He’s not entirely optimistic:

Many people are comparing the financial crisis to the Great Depression. Will it really be that bad?

It’s going to be bad, very bad. We’re experiencing the worst downturn since the Great Depression, and we haven’t reached the bottom yet. I’m very pessimistic. Governments are indeed reacting better today than during the global economic crisis. They’re lowering interest rates and boosting the economy with economic stimulus plans. This is the right direction, but it’s not enough.

Another particularly relevant question after the regulatory failures is:

The leaders of the 20 largest industrial nations are meeting in London this week to discuss the regulation of financial markets. Will the meeting be successful?

I’m skeptical. The American government does talk a lot about stricter regulation of financial markets. I doubt that it’s serious, though. The Americans have always been masters at changing a supposed regulation measure into further deregulation.

Stiglitz also has an Op Ed piece in the New York Times discussing the why the Obama administration’s bank bail out plans are a lousy deal for the American tax payer. In summary:

… the Geithner plan works only if and when the taxpayer loses big time.

Bankers gambling on G20 protester deaths

April 2nd, 2009

The Guardian reports:

At Coq d’Argent, the restaurant atop the salmon-coloured building at Number One Poultry, next to Bank station, two traders were angry that the police didn’t seem to be making any arrests. “The demonstrators are goading the police and hitting them, but they aren’t arresting anyone,” said one.

“I’ll make money if they arrest more than 140,” he said. Traders, he explained, were putting spread bets on the number of arrests – with the quoted spread on Bloomberg at 130-140. They were also paying out on deaths and if more than 20 protesters were injured in horse charges. The riots, they said, were only a minor inconvenience: “We’ve been in this morning, made a lot of money and now are chilling out.”

Fortunately they aren’t dumping people’s savings into these bets… yet. It wouldn’t be that far away from AIG’s Credit Default Swaps. Actually, it may be better.

A brief explanation of poor economic decisions in the US

April 1st, 2009

Paul Krugman, in discussing the news that the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation took millions of people’s pensions out of safe bonds and put it in the stock market just before the crash, points out that

the Bush administration, like many conservatives, was under the spell of the following pseudo-syllogism:

  1. The stock market captures the essential spirit of capitalism.
  2. Capitalism roolz!
  3. Therefore, stocks will go up.

AIG explained and exposed

March 27th, 2009

Matt Taibbi has an extremely interesting article at Rolling Stone that discusses how the current financial crisis came about. Previous reading had made me aware of a fair bit of the information, but this article adds a lot of background and explains things well.

There is a reason it used to be a crime in the Confederate states to teach a slave to read: Literacy is power. In the age of the CDS and CDO, most of us are financial illiterates. By making an already too-complex economy even more complex, Wall Street has used the crisis to effect a historic, revolutionary change in our political system — transforming a democracy into a two-tiered state, one with plugged-in financial bureaucrats above and clueless customers below.

Read the article at http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/26793903/the_big_takeover/print

Thumb twiddling? Looking for something to read? (Linkfest)

March 10th, 2009

A few things that have caught my eye:

Jon Stewart gets stood up

March 8th, 2009

A CNBC reporter, Rick Santelli, was invited to appear on Jon Stewart’s Daily Show after Santelli had filed a story from amongst Wall St traders in which he mocked the suggestion of financial relief for home owners.

After Santelli chickened out and cancelled, Stewart was left with some time to fill: