American businesses are uncertain about Obama's Plans for Business

I commented that I was shocked by my trip to Boston and the lawyers' and private equity's anger with government, particularly as this city would be voters for the current government. (I get tired of the obsession with Obama - it's his team too.) Even the Harvard Business Review online is bringing up "leadership lessons" directed right at Obama--which surprises me. Niall Ferguson, my favourite money expert, was on CNN talking about how American businesses are hoarding cash, not spending. And why would you hire people if you do not know the consequences of cost or maybe new rules around reducing work force and so forth. As I said before, it's a business owners's summit needed, not a job summit.
Anyway, it is clear that there is terrible uncertainty being created by Washington--where they are more lawyers and, apparently, zero business leaders or MBAs. Lack of business appreciation does create a narrower world view and when the goose is unsettled, the goose is not going to lay the golden eggs to pay for all those big union jobs. Washington needs to get to terms with this and fast.
Perhaps CNN was on in Joanna Slater's home too and she writes in The Globe & Mail:
For a clue to Corporate America’s state of mind, look no further than the piles of money stashed under its mattress. Facing an uncertain economic environment, U.S. firms have socked away cash at a rapid clip, amassing a rainy-day fund the likes of which hasn’t been seen in over 40 years. At the end of March, non-financial firms had accumulated a record $1.84-trillion (U.S.) in cash and other liquid assets on their balance sheets, according to the latest figures from the U.S. Federal Reserve Board. As a percentage of total company assets, which include factories and other investments, cash is at its highest level since the early 1960s.

When and where companies decide to use their stockpile will be a key factor in the strength of the recovery. If companies feel confident enough to invest in new equipment or make acquisitions, it will spur economic activity and hiring. If they remain anxious, such decisions will be delayed, dampening overall growth.

Such hoarding can’t go on forever. Companies that keep piles of cash sitting in the bank earning razor-thin interest rates will eventually face the ire of investors, who will demand that the money be put to better use or returned to shareholders. Two options: paying higher dividends or buying back shares.

Here are some of the more interesting comments:

 Companies use to use lines of credit or short term loans for regular operating expenses, so they didn’t need to keep such high levels of cash, but now a great majority of US banks are effectively bankrupt and lines of credit and short-term loans are all but impossible to obtain, even for the largest and most successful companies. This is why companies now must keep a high level of cash just to be able to meet financing needs for daily operations. There is no “EXCESS” hoarding of cash as this article suggests, that is just silly. 

Canadian banks see a huge market for lines of credits to American businesses and this is why our 4 big banks have huge expansion plans for the US. The American banks are dead, they are broke, so Canadian banks will move in to fill a need there. This article is off base. Yes, corporate cash is up. Corporate long term debt is slightly below record highs. This another smoke and mirror article by someone that doesn't do their homework. Corporate America is swimming debt. They have a little more cash in one pocket and a huge liability in the other. Go ahead and cheer for a day or two. It's a mess of debt out there. The party is going to end in tears.

Can we leave it to start ups to rebuild the economy?

Even Linkedin has White House staff posting questions on the public forums asking for advice on how to create jobs. If you could give the government one recommendation to create jobs, what would it be?
If that interests you, I recommend reading this month's Inc magazine; their superb cover story is

 a plan to revitalize the American economy by creating lots of new start-ups. Some of the proposals, such as a offering visas to foreign-born founders, are already generating controversy. There is a the question whether more start-ups would be good for America. In a Bloomberg Businessweek cover story, former Intel CEO Andy Grove attempts to challenge this widely accepted idea. "The underlying problem," Grove writes. "[Is] our own misplaced faith in the power of startups to create U.S. jobs."

Exactly, Andy, start ups can not work in isolated patches. You need the big companies to be the cruise ship and the start ups can be all the harbour services to that cruise ship. By letting these big cruise ships leave the harbour for China, we explicitly miss-out on the next new industry ("but what of the industries we haven't created yet?") when the knowledge and expertise that accumulates in the ecosystem of manufacturers and suppliers is largely offshore. 
Think batteries, solar power, etc. What seems like a sound farming-out-of-commodity-work this year turns into a wholesale ceding of the next step in an industry's development five years down the road. 
I believe Groves is absolutely right that we need to re-think our assumptions about what the link is between what is in the interest of an individual company and what is in the interest of our nation medium-term. 
It is not always natural for many in the business world to have an honest discussion of what kind of society we should aim for - and accept that societies do not build themselves but are build by leaders who have a vision greater than their own economic freedom. It is a discussion we should have. 
Nortel was one of those major cruise ships and should have been given the GM package of bail out money too. Problem was that no one at Nortel believed that they were in such bad shape and no one did what GM did, get together a large group of businesses and go to Ottawa to lobby their case. 
I feel heartened that finally these stories are on front page covers of magazines and that great business leaders are bringing their points to the debate.

Private Equity sees the value in Health Care

The tale of rival Indian and Malaysian bidders for a Singapore-based health-care chain might be described as "same hospital bed, different dreams."

A full-on bidding war for Parkway Holdings Ltd., a successful Singaporean provider of swanky, high-end hospital care, broke out last week when India's Fortis Healthcare Ltd. announced an offer for the shares it doesn't already own in Parkway that values the company at 4.32 billion Singaporean dollars (US$3.10 billion). Fortis's bid of S$3.80 a share tops a partial takeover offer of S$3.78 a share from a unit of Malaysia's sovereign-wealth fund aimed at securing majority control without having to buy the whole asset.

The two offers share one thing in common: a belief that rapidly growing demand for quality health services around Asia represents a unique business opportunity. But the offers from each of Parkway's two biggest shareholders envision different players—one government-owned, another a private-sector industry leader—grabbing the consolidator's position.

Malaysia's interest in Parkway is clear. It holds 24.1% of Parkway outright through Khazanah Nasional Bhd., the state-owned investment fund, and owns 60% of a Malaysian Parkway affiliate. Parkway also generates 26% of its revenue in Malaysia, which is expected to be a key driver of its future growth, according to a Citi Investment Research report.

Moreover, Parkway offers tiny Singapore's bigger, less developed neighbor a chance to leapfrog into a leading position in high-end health care, an industry the government has singled out for strategic growth. Malaysia already has used government funds in that effort: state-owned oil company Petroliam National Bhd., or Petronas, owns a luxury, "futuristically designed" (as the website puts it) 300-bed hospital in the country's capital, Kuala Lumpur, built two years ago in part to promote medical tourism.

For Fortis, Parkway offers a chance to expand from its base in India across the region. One of India's largest hospital groups, Fortis is run by billionaire brothers of the Singh family that founded drug maker Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. In an email, Fortis Chairman Malvinder Mohan Singh said a combination between Fortis and Parkway would create a "pan-Asian health-care platform" that stretches from the Gulf to Southeast Asia, with both China and India representing big opportunities.

Read more...

Bono Values Private Equity

Elevation Partners, the private-equity firm whose founders include Bono and Roger McNamee, added to its stake in Facebook with a $120 million investment, according to a person familiar with the matter. Elevation bought the shares from equity owners in private transactions and has invested a total of $210 million in the company. The social-networking site, with about 500 million users, is valued at $19.9 billion, according to SharesPost Inc.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/03/BU9B1E8EGF.DTL#ixzz0slHUtFg9

"An Unfair Advantage"? Combining Banking with Private Equity Investing

"Does the combination of banking and private equity investing endow banks with superior information that allows them to identify good prospects and garner superior returns?" asks Lily Fang, Victoria Ivashina, and Josh Lerner from HBR. "Or does the combination bestow banks with an unfair ability to expand their balance sheets, capturing benefits within the bank at the expense of the overall market and ultimately the taxpayers?"
When I first went to meet with all of Canada's Private Equity players, I quickly learned that Canada's banks had tried doing private equity, but have exited this industry. The main reason is that the Bank culture is very different from Private Equity. Banking is about managing risk, while private equity culture requires embracing higher risk than most could stomach.
It reminds me of General Stanley McChrystal's situation who was reported in Rolling Stone to have made insubordinate comments about the USA government. Many of these comments, such as "Bite Me", I have heard a million times from very senior men during my career in finance. 
Many have condemned the General for being light with his criticisms of the top leadership of the USA in front of a reporter. Yet, they would probably mostly agree that McChrystal is very smart and good at his work -cutting edge, in fact. Those criticizing McChrystal would probably even agree that his innovations have reinvented the US military. That is quite an accomplishment for a man who has now been fired for criticizing his boss in the media.
If you did a quick survey, I predict that those who think McChrystal should be fired for his insubordinate (and foolish) remarks are usually working for big companies. They can not fathom making such comments to any media, even a music magazine. I suspect that McChrystal probably thought Rolling Stone would be empathetic to his coolness and repaint the military as a hip place to be, after the Bush years of ridicule. 
Business owners and private equity would be more likely to say McChrystal should have been reined in, but certainly not have lost his job. Private equity and entrepreneurs look past these terse, sarcastic jokes and appreciate if the job is being done very well. Private equity would first ask and look for the answer "yes" to every question:

• Is this warrior of top value to building the military of the future?
• Is this person an innovator? 
• Is he bringing more to the bottom line even as he grates? 
• Does this person challenge authority, but is there value in what he is saying? 
• Could we bring him in and coach him more on how to keep the team working together, and encourage a little less of the Clint Eastwood shots from the corner of the room? 

OK then. You have a good person here, but with a badly misguided PR problem. 
General McChrystal is operating in a very different world than most corporate people. His world requires entrepreneurial thinking and attitude to challenge sacred cows. I can guarantee that corporate behaviour is not going to save lives and it is why the US military has been spinning its wheels because they stifle their true warriors. 
McChrystal's brashness  is his value. His riskier behaviour is change agent behaviour. When the leadership takes out their innovators, a bad message goes out to the rest of the military strategists. Think, but do not speak your mind. It is why innovation does not happen in big corporates. the rest of the people will not stand for it. They stamp it out viciously. 
General McChrystal demonstrates private equity behaviour. His boss, General David Petraeus, is steady at the wheel type of fellow, who tows the line, illustrates more bank relevant culture. And that - in a military story - is why banks should not do private equity.

Read more: 

  Read more at Harvard's excellent article on this: 

INSEAD's Lily Fang and Harvard Business School professors Victoria Ivashina and Josh Lerner examined nearly 8,000 unique private equity transactions between 1978 and 2009, looking in depth at the nature of the private equity investors, the structure of the investments, and the performance of the firms. Collectively, findings suggest that there are risks in combining banking and private equity investing. The results are consistent with many of the worries about these transactions articulated by policymakers. Key concepts include:

• The cyclicality of bank-affiliated transactions, the time-varying pattern of the financing benefit enjoyed by affiliated deals, and the generally worse outcomes of these deals done at market peaks raise questions about the desirability of combining banking with private equity investing.
• These investments seem to exacerbate the amplitude of waves in the private equity market, leading to more transactions at precisely the times when the private and social returns are likely to be the lowest.
• Investments involving both affiliated and nonaffiliated firms appear particularly vulnerable to downturns.
• Some information-related synergies, however, are captured internally by the banks. But banks' involvement poses significant issues as well.
• The share of banks in the private equity market is substantial. Between 1983 and 2009, over one-quarter of all private equity investments involved bank-affiliated private equity groups.

Read more at the National Post