URGENT: Stock Market Crisis Could Plummet if European House Not in Order

Trust is the currency of wealth.

Stock markets this week or month could free fall. We really could be plunging into the Great Depression Mark II.

And, it is Europe’s collective of national leaders fault.

Here by regions are some history and, then signs of what may happen.

Australian Stock Market

I live in Australia.

For a long time I have held the view, and expressed the view that the true value of the Australia stock market is 4,500 points. I predicted the fall in October 2007, and shortly thereafter the bottom as 4,500.

3,700 to 3,800 was the range I gave as the ‘overshoot’ with true value of the index at 4,500.

I also have not changed this prediction over the last few years.

Right now, this prediction is stable. Unless Europe falls. And then we are in my view looking at 1,700 points. Or in an armageddon 100 points. Yes 100 points.

Normally this would be so unlikely as not to warrant discussion, but Europe is serious.

USA Stock Market

Although not published my analysis of the true value of the Dow Jones is 9,500 to 11,500. I still think this is the case.

It has been my view that both are likely to move sideways, and not up.

The Dow(n) Jones however would move up, if the USA was left to it’s nascent recovery I started seeing in October 2011 this year.

Here I see a rise. Unless Europe falls. Then black hole like 5,000 maybe down to 3,400 or so.

Armageddon — I don’t know. Perhaps not as low because South America is more significant, and so is Canada — so trade can continue. If I was selecting a range 500-700 points for 1 year.

Note that, once again, economic armageddon is not permanent. As recovery (assuming benign leadership) almost always recovers.

Assuming Europe doesn’t really mess up.

1930s USA stumbled, Europe kept it down

Europe has form here. It was the British currency decisions, and removal of gold backing in part that created the darkness of the Great Depression.

Arguably, the punitive nature of war debts in Germany (inflicted by France and Britain) — really plunged the continent into darkness.

And it was the massive debt of the foolish World War I that Europeans refused to pay (default on debt again) — that really worsened the crisis of the 1930s. It’s often forgotten that Germany, France and Britain did not pay their full war debts to the USA.

Without a European debt black-hole the free market system of the USA recovers. Quickly.

Asia

Is dependent on Europe then USA, Canada, Australia (and ultimately trade with each other). So take out the biggest slice (Europe) and the it’s like losing a third of your income before the flow-on effects. Europe is more than the E.U.

So, let’s say – blood bath on the Asian stock markets if European debt show rolls into the abyss.

Europe

Europe arguably caused the Great Depression with their own internal issues, and inability to resolve long-standing cultural rivalries.

It was the removal of the gold standard (or at least the way it was done) and those war debts — that largely caused the Depression to reoccur in the early 1930s.

Both were based on a nationalist not a ‘love thy neighbor’ sentiment. Both decisions were based on transferring the problem, and dealing with other countries in a win-lose mindset.

As I argued in 2007, this makes no money for no one. The British, of course, never learn this lesson and persevere in a zero-sum mentality. Other Europeans are hardly much better (although arguably some European responses are protective.)

Europe what I said

So in our Innovation Cities Analysis Report, I have maintained a prediction from 2009-2011 that Europe will continue to function. It will resolve the debt crisis. Europe (and the E.U.) will do the right thing.

Fire-walling the debt, defacto de-valuation, debt haircuts, banking bailouts, and other measures should work. I remained optimistic, based on believing that the common market/EEC, E.U., Euro and to some extent Lisbon, had rendered Europe as ‘pan-European’.

Either view will win — the pan-European view, or the nasty nationalistic view.

But as it seems now, this positive view may simply not work. Mainly because the Europeans won’t (once again) let it work.

European History

And as usual, the realpolitik and elitism of Europe that led to Versailles, and before that the Napoleonic Wars rears its head again.

Commerce is based on trust. And it seems once again nobody in Europe trusts each other, and each country is still too busy trying to give their rival economic powers the short end of the stick.

Did Europe learn nothing from World War I and World War II? These were economic wars, as much as political wars.

Surely leaders learnt that scorched earth and bloody mindedness does not work. It did not work in war, and it won’t work in economics either.

It seems the British, French and Germans are too busy thinking of each other’s relative position. Although, as in the 1930s, Britain’s strategy will not work — nobody can compromise to find one that will (instead of whingeing)

Austerity is a failure

Austerity has never worked. And will never work. You cannot (as corporate failures attest) cut your way out of crisis.

But because the creaking machines of state lack the intelligence, foresight and dare I say it — common sense – to really look at the problem honestly, this European buck-passing continues.

I just cannot understand why they let the same old usual suspects (who lack courage) make the same old narrow decisions.

Maybe someone will step-up, and champion the cause of a positive vision, and positive solution to the European debt crisis. But it looks doubtful anyone will have the numbers. Is it time to merge or separate European nations to stop the ridiculous voting record?

Democracy a casualty

And, as if history was forgotten, democracy is suspended and ‘technocrat’ centralists placed in charge. It seems we trust the crowd, as long as they vote for whom ‘we the elite like’.

FD Roosevelt and the Socialist experiment did not fix the USA, nor did the other ‘European’ experiments.

The longer this volatility continues the worse it gets.

And still everyone kowtows to an economic elite, emperors with no clothes. Surely it is time to look to innovation.

Europe can recover (still)

For what it’s worth, Europe can recover, with a similar dose of medicine to the USA, and a co-operative approach amongst neighbours. However, it seems resentment and bitterness, and nationalist lack of trust may win.

And it is trust which is the currency of wealth.

So Europe, don’t (again in my view) plunge us into a mess.

The probability on the first band falls, is shifting to 50%/50% in my view (from 60-70%), and the trend is down.

Europe use your much vaunted intelligence to get us out of one. Because, all you get is a decade until the next crisis. So why waste a decade or two?

Europe. Go to church (or mosque, or temple). Love thy neighbor!

I’ll say it again.

Trust is the currency of wealth.

Europe it’s history calling: Are you listening?

Keep (or start) innovating,

 

Christopher Hire

Christopher Hire is Executive Director of 2thinknow, innovation agency, and publisher of the Innovation Cities Index and Innovation Cities Analysis Report. He predicted the first GFC, dot-com bubble, and owns no shares right now (except through superannuation – which next week he may convert to cash).

LinkedIn: IPOs & Valuations in the Innovation Economy

The big IPO investment news in the innovation economy this week was LinkedIn and its valuation.

Here’s the story in Fast Company and also in Washington Post, Forbes blogs, with interesting take in The Australian and Technorati about LinkedIn.

Fast company set our some P/E maths:

At the $45 per share opening price, LinkedIn stock traded at 46 times its projected 2011 earnings. Anything above 25 and a company is expected to have unusually high growth projections. Either that, or they’re in bubble territory.

The positives on LinkedIn can be seen in the following paragraph from FC:

LinkedIn’s entire business model rests on amassing as many users as possible–particularly top-shelf professionals–and getting them to invest the time in keeping their profiles up-to-date. That’s because LinkedIn makes its nut from selling services to recruiters and advertisers who want to reach the company’s white collar members.

The Australian creates the negative case (many Australians do on U.S. stocks), in short — cheap money, high tide stocks:

The Fed’s super-easy policy, including the about-to-conclude purchase of $US600 billion ($562m) of Treasury securities, was designed in part to perk up riskier investments, such as stocks, with the view to create beneficial effects in the real US economy.

The final price at $104 seems high, after a launch at $45.

I’m not sure about LinkedIn price, but for 2thinknow I can see the investment in the innovation economy — especially exciting SMEs and start-ups — as good news in net trend terms.

It may not be the end of the world today (!) but nascent trends are now starting.

Network Goods & Geo-think

Actually, from my view, LinkedIn is a ‘network good’. I don’t have a view on the stockmarket price itself, but would observe LinkedIn is a key piece of identity architecture on the internet, that can be leveraged. And the internet can be leveraged to change the value of geography.

The virtual landscape will reshape the value of the real landscape, in a networked economy.

Innovation Economy tool.

So, there’s a lot of life in LinkedIn yet, irrespective of the stock price. Which puts me in the positive believer camp, as there are many new innovative applications for LinkedIn that have not yet been implemented. Those new applications broaden the value of innovation…

Whilst LinkedIn has been around since 2003, the innovation economy is new and in play.

Keep innovating,

Christopher Hire

Primary causes of GFC: Monopolies not markets

The primary causes of the GFC were not markets and capitalism. The primary causes of the GFC were monopolies and collusion.

(The GFC refers to the Global Financial Crisis — I am so used to the acronym in data, that the blank look I get sometimes when I use it, means I forget not everyone refers to the events of 2008 onwards — Lehman, Bear Sterns, U.S. / U.K. housing bubble — in the shorthand of ‘GFC’)

I have been examining data as an analyst for many years now, either within the walls of business or government, or publicly available data from semi- independent bodies (ABS, OECD, etc.).

I say semi-independent because they do have a ‘patron’ and that patron is people within their respective governments. So the independence of their data is possibly limited by the political masters who foot the bill for that data. By how you ask a question you define how you get the answer. As someone older and cynically wiser in these things from U.K. told me there are “only winners and losers”. Perhaps too true, but perhaps ideologically rather a ‘coal shaft’ statement — just try and find the canary there, let alone a ray of light out.

Causes of the Economic Crisis & GFC

So here’s my hypothesis. It was not shopkeepers and business owners who caused the global financial crisis. It was not mid-size companies or business-farmers (for farming is a business) on the land. And it was not even public servants (who are much maligned and duck for the exits every time an enquiry into their policies in a portfolio is announced, lest a sacrificial lamb be announced too).

Believe it or not some political advisers I have read / heard blame even the herd — for not consuming enough. Blaming the hoi polloi pre-dates the French revolution — and has the convenience of enabling you to extract a fee from those escaping blame. This was evident in the consumption driven recovery (and related Bernanke policies) which never eventuated in the U.S., but which financial analysts loved to talk about.

Sorry folks no independent data supports you in any of these biases in search of data. e.g. U.S. consumption led recovery in 2009-10 where? Agricultural over-supply depresses prices in an age of ethanol subsidies?

Monopolies / bureaucracies caused GFC.

What did act as the root cause of the global financial crisis, was simply this:

A powerful collusion of financial interests, and closing down of markets, which led to the evacuation of capital from productive uses.

The capital fled to government guarantees and safe havens (e.g. gold). Causing a reduction in money in the economy producing something, and funding innovation. Which was the topic of a PBS Newshour special segment during the height of the crisis (and an example of why some public goods like PBS/ABC/BBC can work, just as private goods e.g. Apple, Google work).

Monopoly capitalism is not capitalism.

What is less often commented though is that monopolies act like the worst excess of a controlling government. Monopolies control the price for goods and services, just as surely as government regulation, tariffs or other mercantilist tools.

A monopoly is a business that doesn’t act to maximize profit through operations, but other methods such as preventing market entrants or tax evasion. (There are valid reasons for a temporary or permanent monopoly, but these are fewer than supposed, and that is way too lengthy an issue to get in to here.)

So for example:

  • Enron used financial chicanery. It did not make money out of electricity.
  • Lehman made money out of money-shuffling not capital provision to the economy
  • GM near failure made money out of finance, not vehicles

Businesses that do not serve a useful purpose to a customer (the market) should fail, but are too often propped up by many factors. Right now market darling Apple is not making the best hardware (arguably Nokia is), but Apple is making a ‘whole package’ that markets want.

It’s not that ‘business’ or ‘government’ are bad or good — for this is surely the most naive view of a sophomoric intellect. It is that excess bureaucracy — business and government — and tightly bound balls of string are bad. (Bureaucratic entities acts like tightly bound balls of string that just grow and grow, and when they unravel they tangle in with other bureaucracies).Worsening factor is that government bureaucracy tacitly tends to like to deal with business bureaucracy and business bureaucracy with government. So we have a very tangled web indeed.

When the 2 or more bureaucracies line up against the market to prevent competition (generally for some noble purpose) this is when markets fail. And when I say fail I mean economic under-performance like U.K., Australia or U.S.A. downturns of the past.

Yet ‘central policy’ and ‘co-ordination’ or ‘unity’ is often the proscribed solution of ‘experts’ in reports once you wade through to the final page. It won’t lead to innovation. It didn’t work for Harold Wilson, and Tony Blair’s centralist (and markedly incompetent) policies are partly responsible for the U.K.’s current mess.

Government can enable or disable innovation, but there is no central thermostat determining the ‘innovation economy’.

What’s next for the innovation economy?

There are threats to an Australian economy, and a potential U.S. economic resurgence that can be foreseen based on unemployment, resource usage, labor force, and other data.

But to achieve this success we must not look only at yesterday’s winners and say ‘how can we copy them’? For monopolies — be they government or business — fail. And if they don’t fail small and early, they fail too big.

The answer is innovation — and not some government funded lab. And the U.S.A. is already showing nascent signs of an innovation-led recovery, just like the internet boom or PC-boom or green revolution before it.

Which is why one starting point for many governments is independent and courageous tax reform, and other policy reform, which is so important to the economy.

But innovation is not (in most cases) the billion dollar project. It is far more affordable than that.

If you’d like to learn more about innovation in bureaucracies — with data, planning or training applied to your organization, to help create a process of change — contact 2thinknow

Keep innovating,

Christopher Hire

If you have questions about the innovation economy, ask me here or on twitter — @christopherhire . I’ll post my favorite questions here, and do my best to answer them.

Good branding of an IT team

Meetup is an interesting site. It seeks to move an online socializing function to a local ‘offline’ face to face meet-up.

In other words — off Facebook and let’s go get some beers!

What’s more impressive is the way that they brand Meet-up, which is a New York start-up. Here’s an interesting exercise branding Meet-up’s employment culture versus the big comparator of Google and the GooglePlex.

It’s obviously tongue-in-cheek, but it’s a good way to retain and inspire staff. At least I think so.

What could you do to keep your I.T. team happy  and proud of your culture?

Connect with me via twitter: @christopherhire

IBM Smart Planet take on Innovation

Here’s a link to the IBM Smart Planet article on the Innovation Cities Index — my benchmarking work for 2thinknow. I rather liked the article by Larry Dignan, Andrew Nusca.

I’m posting a little out of sequence here as I update this site, but if you have any further thoughts on anything in it, do let me know. (There are some factual inaccuracies in the comments on the page)

You can reach me on @christopherhire on twitter.

Coffee/tea-houses and start-up density

There have been some interesting points on start-ups and for a long-time the concept of third place, third space, the virtual office — or just the Intel Centrino with 8 hours battery … has been both a vision and an ideal.

Whilst the ‘water cooler effect’ of the office is a soft-bias we all have in life, the data doesn’t (unless neatly designed) show the benefits of working in one office or one cubicle.

Anyway, numerous reports and analysis I have read do show the efficacy of coffee shops and cafes in a) stimulation and b) meeting space service for start-up culture. Of course, this also extends to a corporate … think how many innovative solutions have been created at you work when you go ‘downstairs for a coffee’.

Some of this can be dated back to De Bono, but it goes further than that. Amsterdam and London, with meetings that started financial ventures in the then-equivalent of cafes and tea houses.

Anyway, for 2thinknow Innovation Cities Index and City Benchmarking Data, cafes are part of the metrics.

Here’s a nice Boston Globe interview with Globe’s Innovation Reporter @ScottKirsner I did on the topic, and innovation cities index more generally.