This is a courageous journey of exploration from an enclosed world to a world almost without horizons. The enclosure is built by powerful forces defining Karen as a person, what her expectations need to be, in other words, understanding of herself and her place in the world. Even love is defined by others and their expectations.
Karen at least subconsciously knows she needs to find herself in order to find peace in her life. None of this journey is easy.
Even though parts of her world were extremely uncomfortable for her, there is a sort of comfort in knowing these foundation stones can be reliable limits she can rely on. She steadily learns to replace these stones prescribed by others with stones of her own making by learning her own foundation stones are more reliable because, being of her making, they hold value intrinsic to herself, to her own self-awareness.
Add to this a highly successful career in a very demanding profession, one that requires constant reflection and introspection, constant analysis of her clients, her partners, herself and the dynamics of these often large and diverse people in a given group, and it’s a wonder she finds the time and energy to grow herself.
Yet grow to independence she does.
This is an astonishing story of courage, growth, coping and discovery with total honesty and candour that makes understanding accessible to her readers.
I highly recommend all read this deeply personal and moving autobiographical, dare I say, highly educational story. I look forward to Karen’s next work.
Thursday, September 14, 2017
Friday, September 1, 2017
Rating Banks
From the Globe and Mail:
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/top-business-stories/fitch-rates-canadas-banks-as-among-the-highest-but/article36142950/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_source=Top%20Business&utm_type=text&utm_content=TopBusiness&utm_campaign=141940658
The recent financial crisis clearly demonstrated that a bank is not simply a bank. Some banks fared quite well, while other banks either failed or required massive taxpayer bailout. What were the differences among them ?
It strikes me that bank rating agencies do examine each bank's mix of bank business by type, thereby characterizing each of the banks it reviews. At the least, a rating agency examines the mix of debtors of a given bank by type of debtor, for instance, consumers, businesses or governments. They go a little deeper by examining the mix of consumer debt comparing between credit card debt, personal line of unsecured credit and mortgage debt.
It seems that generic comparison between and among banks is a sensible approach as it uses a common benchmark against which to judge one bank against its peers. It does this by giving each bank's strength as measured by the relative amounts of each given type of business in its mix.
However, perhaps an additional test is required to be able to differentiate the most effective banks from the least effective banks.
That additional test would require a generic business processes effectiveness benchmark against which to judge a given bank against its peers. It seems highly likely that the differences between and among banks that was demonstrated in the financial crisis might well lie in the differences of the effectiveness of their respective business processes. There are probably many recognized methodologies for measuring financial institution business effectiveness. One internationally recognized methodology might be ISO measure of total quality management.
In any case, what ever methodology a rating agency employs must be common to its assessment of bank effectiveness for all of the banks it assesses. That methodology must also be transparent. In this way investors, bank clients, perspective investors and clients and public policy makers alike have some means of determining a given bank's effect on the public good.
Additionally, if all rating agencies employed this approach, even if they did not share methodologies among them, that would help us all understand the validity of each agency's analysis and its value to us.
Such a test may have uncovered, for instance, the Wells Fargo false account fiasco before it became the dramatic problem it did. It may also have uncovered a financial institution's inability to track bundled and rebundled mortgages back to the source mortgage transaction, which inability underpinned much of the cause of the financial crisis.
So what I'm wondering about is the usefulness and the relevance of the Fitch report on Canada's banks. There is no doubt these ratings are more useful than no ratings at all. But, is it possible that two banks with identical Fitch, or other agency, ratings could, when compared for business effectiveness, in fact be dramatically more or less effective respectively one than the other for their clients, their investors and the public good?
I expect the answer is, "Yes, significant differences in effectiveness could be found between and among banks with identical Fitch et al ratings."
I therefore suggest that Fitch and the other bank rating agencies develop such an effectiveness test to greatly improve the utility of their ratings for all with the need to use them.
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/top-business-stories/fitch-rates-canadas-banks-as-among-the-highest-but/article36142950/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_source=Top%20Business&utm_type=text&utm_content=TopBusiness&utm_campaign=141940658
The recent financial crisis clearly demonstrated that a bank is not simply a bank. Some banks fared quite well, while other banks either failed or required massive taxpayer bailout. What were the differences among them ?
It strikes me that bank rating agencies do examine each bank's mix of bank business by type, thereby characterizing each of the banks it reviews. At the least, a rating agency examines the mix of debtors of a given bank by type of debtor, for instance, consumers, businesses or governments. They go a little deeper by examining the mix of consumer debt comparing between credit card debt, personal line of unsecured credit and mortgage debt.
It seems that generic comparison between and among banks is a sensible approach as it uses a common benchmark against which to judge one bank against its peers. It does this by giving each bank's strength as measured by the relative amounts of each given type of business in its mix.
However, perhaps an additional test is required to be able to differentiate the most effective banks from the least effective banks.
That additional test would require a generic business processes effectiveness benchmark against which to judge a given bank against its peers. It seems highly likely that the differences between and among banks that was demonstrated in the financial crisis might well lie in the differences of the effectiveness of their respective business processes. There are probably many recognized methodologies for measuring financial institution business effectiveness. One internationally recognized methodology might be ISO measure of total quality management.
In any case, what ever methodology a rating agency employs must be common to its assessment of bank effectiveness for all of the banks it assesses. That methodology must also be transparent. In this way investors, bank clients, perspective investors and clients and public policy makers alike have some means of determining a given bank's effect on the public good.
Additionally, if all rating agencies employed this approach, even if they did not share methodologies among them, that would help us all understand the validity of each agency's analysis and its value to us.
Such a test may have uncovered, for instance, the Wells Fargo false account fiasco before it became the dramatic problem it did. It may also have uncovered a financial institution's inability to track bundled and rebundled mortgages back to the source mortgage transaction, which inability underpinned much of the cause of the financial crisis.
So what I'm wondering about is the usefulness and the relevance of the Fitch report on Canada's banks. There is no doubt these ratings are more useful than no ratings at all. But, is it possible that two banks with identical Fitch, or other agency, ratings could, when compared for business effectiveness, in fact be dramatically more or less effective respectively one than the other for their clients, their investors and the public good?
I expect the answer is, "Yes, significant differences in effectiveness could be found between and among banks with identical Fitch et al ratings."
I therefore suggest that Fitch and the other bank rating agencies develop such an effectiveness test to greatly improve the utility of their ratings for all with the need to use them.
Thursday, July 20, 2017
81% of the World's People Hold Canadians in High Esteem. Why?
People Hold Canadians in High Esteem. Why?
The World Economic Forum reports 18,000 people of 25 countries have good things to say about Canada.
“These countries have the most positive influence on the world” Keith Breene World Economic Forum July 7, 2017
As Barry Ritholz in his blog “The Big Picture” on July 16, 2017 said in his reporting of this finding, “Interesting: Source World Economic Forum.”
Interesting indeed!
The Ipsos Reid poll actually asked which country has the most positive influence globally.
I’m sure that requires some unpacking in understanding the respondents’ understanding of the terms “positive”, “influence”, “globally”.
Fascinating that 81% of people of 25 different countries viewed Canada and our influence favourably.
This suggests to me that people across 25 different countries have some agreement about what positive, influence and globally mean. The one term that I find truly interesting is “positive”.
I take that to mean that Canada is bringing about changes, leading the world in directions they want to go.
As a Canadian, that makes me a little proud. I might be prouder still if I knew what specifically it is that people of the 25 countries think makes Canada’s influence positive.
You see I think these people also want us keep up the positive influence. Indeed I want us to continue to be a positive influence.
Would be so much easier to meet that obligation if we knew what constitutes positivity for them and us.
The next step seems to me to ask people, including Canadians, what specifically we think Canada is positively influencing in order to help us understand why people think Canada is a positive influence.
Michael Klein
The World Economic Forum reports 18,000 people of 25 countries have good things to say about Canada.
“These countries have the most positive influence on the world” Keith Breene World Economic Forum July 7, 2017
As Barry Ritholz in his blog “The Big Picture” on July 16, 2017 said in his reporting of this finding, “Interesting: Source World Economic Forum.”
Interesting indeed!
The Ipsos Reid poll actually asked which country has the most positive influence globally.
I’m sure that requires some unpacking in understanding the respondents’ understanding of the terms “positive”, “influence”, “globally”.
Fascinating that 81% of people of 25 different countries viewed Canada and our influence favourably.
This suggests to me that people across 25 different countries have some agreement about what positive, influence and globally mean. The one term that I find truly interesting is “positive”.
I take that to mean that Canada is bringing about changes, leading the world in directions they want to go.
As a Canadian, that makes me a little proud. I might be prouder still if I knew what specifically it is that people of the 25 countries think makes Canada’s influence positive.
You see I think these people also want us keep up the positive influence. Indeed I want us to continue to be a positive influence.
Would be so much easier to meet that obligation if we knew what constitutes positivity for them and us.
The next step seems to me to ask people, including Canadians, what specifically we think Canada is positively influencing in order to help us understand why people think Canada is a positive influence.
Michael Klein
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
