A blog which discusses the topics which are interesting, intellectuality stimulating and relevant.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Banking on Loyality to sail through Tough Times ?
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
LMN Vs Nimbooz : Where one wins over the Other
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Tata to Launch Nano On March 23
For all the people who are waiting to book their cars will have to wait a little longer as the bookings for the Nano -- the world's cheapest passenger car -- will begin in the second week of April. The company confirmed that the Booking process and other details will be announced at the time of launch.
Tata Motors had originally planned to launch the Nano in the fourth quarter of 2008. But, it had to relocate its factory in the eastern state of West Bengal in October, but west bengal's loss became Gujrats gain.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
You Tube Vs Hulu : Hulu Who?
In one sense this turned out to be correct. YouTube went on to dominate web video as measured by the number of videos that users watch (5600 m in Dec 2008 ).
Its social and even political importance is hard to overstate. From “Obama Girl” videos and tutorials about tying shoelaces or folding origami to Yoga and aerobics instruction, YouTube has changed lives. But there was a catch. Advertisers, by and large, will not touch user-generated content with a barge pole. Its quality is variable, to say the least; its content occasionally off-putting. No brand wants to be near it. And much of it is illegal—pirated from large media companies and uploaded by fans. Media giants, led by Viacom, were suing. So there was a threat of costs and no promise of revenues. YouTube is undoubtedly a phenomenon, but it is not a business.
So others showed up hoping to fill that gap, but the question was, did a need exists where a website could host user-generated content as well as professional videos. Does this website need to aggregate the content of many media companies or to be an outlet for just one?, question on consumers online behavior was also imminent, Would people prefer to download films or television shows to their computers, then transfer them to their iPods, as Apple was betting? Or would they prefer “streaming” a video just once? or would they insist on watching videos inside their web browsers? Would they pay to watch, or would advertising provide the revenues?
Almost every permutation has been tried. From Amazon to Apple, from Netflix to Joost, from ABC to CBS’s TV.com, companies old and young started serving videos over the internet.
Into this mess a with a new idea of “video sharing obtained from professional partners”, Hulu was born .
Today, even though advertising is destined for a depression, Hulu appears to have clarified much of the confusion. It is not clear how much revenue or profit Hulu is making, but it seems to be successful by any measure. Although Hulu is still far behind YouTube, in the number of hits, users have been flocking to it, watching 216m videos in December. Just as importantly, Hulu’s inventory for advertisers appears to be sold out. So Hulu is in the rare position of being able to increase inventory (through new content and more views) and make money from it. Hulu now has more than 100 advertisers, including big brands such as McDonald’s, Bank of America and Best Buy.
Hulu is not a “me too” brand, it does not copy YouTube in a sense that Hulu has only professional content, and not the contents uploaded by users, this is the fact that it has earned brownie points with the advertisers. Hulu currently offers content from more than 110 partners.
Hulu’s has achieved monetary success by supporting streamed video with advertising, rather than charging for downloads, Hulu’s ads are few and short, with a subtle countdown timer that makes them even more bearable. In some cases viewers can even choose which ad to watch, so it is more likely to be relevant to their interests.
It is too early to declare Hulu the winner, But for the moment it appears that YouTube proved that people would watch videos online—whereas Hulu is proving that advertisers will foot the bill.
Ref: The Economist
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
What is the difference between a recession and a depression?
A search on the internet suggests two principal criteria for distinguishing a depression from a recession: a decline in real GDP that exceeds 10%, or one that lasts more than three years; for example America’s Great Depression qualifies on both counts, with GDP falling by around 30% between 1929 and 1933. Output also fell by 13% during 1937 and 1938. The Great Depression was America’s deepest economic slump (excluding those related to wars), but at 43 months it was not the longest: that dubious honour goes to the one in 1873-79, which lasted 65 months.
Japan’s “lost decade” in the 1990s was not a depression, according to these criteria, because the largest peak-to-trough decline in real GDP was only 3.4%, over the two years to March 1999. Since the second world war, only one developed economy has suffered a drop in GDP of more than 10%: Finland’s contracted by 11% during the three years to 1993, mainly thanks to the collapse of the Soviet Union, then its biggest trading partner.
Emerging economies, however, have been much more depression-prone there have been no fewer than 13 instances in the past 30 years of a decline in real GDP of more than 10%. Argentina and Poland were afflicted twice. Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand all suffered double-digit drops in output during the Asian crisis of 1997-98, and Russia’s GDP shrank by a shocking 45% between 1990 and 1998.
Before the 1930s all economic downturns were commonly called depressions. The term “recession” was coined later to avoid stirring up nasty memories. Even before the Great Depression, downturns were typically much deeper and longer than they are today .One reason why recessions have become milder is higher government spending. In recessions governments, unlike firms, do not slash spending and jobs, so they help to stabilize the economy; and income taxes automatically fall and unemployment benefits rise, helping to support incomes. Another reason is that in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when countries were on the gold standard, the money supply usually shrank during recessions, exacerbating the downturn. Waves of bank failures also often made things worse.
But a recent analysis by Saul Eslake, chief economist at ANZ bank, concludes that the difference between a recession and a depression is more than simply one of size or duration. The cause of the downturn also matters. A standard recession usually follows a period of tight monetary policy, but a depression is the result of a bursting asset and credit bubble, a contraction in credit, and a decline in the general price level. In the Great Depression average prices in America fell by one-quarter, and nominal GDP ended up shrinking by almost half. America’s worst recessions before the second world war were all associated with financial panics and falling prices: in both 1893-94 and 1907-08 real GDP declined by almost 10%; in 1919-21, it fell by 13%.
The economic slumps that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union and those during the Asian crisis were not really depressions, argues Mr Eslake, because inflation increased sharply. On the other hand, Japan’s experience in the late 1990s, when nominal GDP shrank for several years, may qualify. A depression, suggests Mr Eslake, does not have to be “Great” in the 1930s sense. On his definition, depressions, like recessions, can be mild or severe.
Another important implication of this distinction between a recession and a depression is that they call for different policy responses. A recession triggered by tight monetary policy can be cured by lower interest rates, but fiscal policy tends to be less effective because of the lags involved. By contrast, in a depression caused by falling asset prices, a credit crunch and deflation, conventional monetary policy is much less potent than fiscal policy.
Monday, January 26, 2009
whoppersacrifice @ Linkedin : Perfect example of Technology in Marketing
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
How Would Walt Disney Market in 2009?
As companies try to get their voice "out" in the overcrowded, fragmented, 24x7, blog-filled, multi-dialog, Mad Money Cramer kind of world of 2009, executives need to think carefully about their core stories to customers, employees, and investors—and to use all relevant media to orchestrate the message across the global information network.
In that spirit, I'd like to outline what I think are the core principles that we can all learn from Disney:
1. Know the story is king. Humans like to read about humans and whether you are selling CAT scanners, or auto insurance, every message must have a story that resonates with the human condition at its core. Almost all great stories have ancient roots.
2. Utilize the newest technology to tell that ancient story in a new way. For example, if your firm serves businesses but does not have a marketing message that can be consumed over a BlackBerry then you're behind; if you serve consumers and don't have applications in the Apple App Store, you're out of touch.
3. Coordinate the message across the media. When you leave Disneyland you stroll down a Main Street populated with dolls, and shirts, and hats, and media that all are linked to the wonderful experiences you just had. In today's fragmented world, executives must reinforce key messages by having multiple, consistent, coordinated touch points for the same idea.
4. Have the courage to innovate. Walt Disney initially funded both Disneyland and Disneyworld out of his own pocket, and then sold them back to the corporation because they did not want to take the first risks. Be braver.
5. Ride your uniqueness. Disney received enormous press coverage and accolades because he was doing new things. For example, if you have a direct sales force, what new stories have you given them so they can market themselves on Facebook or LinkedIn or over the BlackBerry? How have you helped them tell a great story about your firm and its services? If you do it, they will talk about it and the media will report on it.
6. Stay on message. With Disney, you only had to see the Castle to conjure up the entire set of thoughts and dreams.
Provided by Harvard Business—Where Leaders Get Their Edge by John Sviokla
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
How would the Maytas acquisition have helped Satyam
A week before when Satyam's Raju announced that Satyam's intented to buy Maytas , the idea was booed by all and sulty, but looking at the mess now it would had been really benefitial if the deal had gone through.
How would the Maytas acquisition have helped? Satyam would have paid at least Rs 5000 crore to acquire the two companies from the promoters (the Raju family). The money was non-existent. So, it would have pretended to pay the money and ended up with the assets (the two Maytas companies). The promoters may have never got paid but that would have served them right. And everyone would have been alright: Satyam would have had assets, real assets on its books instead of non-existent cash; the Raju family would have continued to manage Satyam, but would have been poorer by quite a bit; and investors would have still had their money invested in a halfway decent company.
But again at the end of the day, it all comes to Ethics and in this case the promoters were trying to do unethical thing so that the mess they had created could be covered
Friday, January 2, 2009
$100bn too early or too less ?
For this amount it could now buy:
Citibank $22.5bn
Morgan Stanley $10.5bn
Goldman Sachs $21bn
Merrill Lynch $12.3bn
Deutsche Bank $13bn
Barclays $12.7bn
And still have
$8bn change......with which they could have picked up GM, Ford, Chrysler and the Honda
Friday, December 19, 2008
Ghajni : Creating the Buzz.....
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Should Governments Bail Out Companies ?
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
The Momentum Effect : Book Review
Momentum. Most businesses get it at some point -- the impression that everything they undertake succeeds effortlessly, as if they're being carried along by a tailwind that increases their efficiency and propels them on to exceptional growth.
Some hold on to it. Most don't. Slowly, imperceptibly, the tailwind turns around and the momentum disappears, without anyone quite realizing what has happened. The company is still growing, but not as strongly as before, not as efficiently. Everyone's maxing out, but it seems like there's molasses in the works. Sound familiar?
Sooner or later, it hits you in the face. Imagine you are meeting up with a senior analyst whose opinion counts with some of your company's biggest investors. You think you're on safe ground -- after all, your company is doing better than the competition. But the analyst is in full gimlet-eyed, illusion-killing mode. "That's nothing to crow about," she says. "Yeah, you've got reasonable growth, but it's nothing exceptional. You're a safe bet, nothing more.
What's In it ?
This book sets out to answer one question: How can we find a way to deliver continuous, exceptional growth, year after year? By exceptional, I mean exceptional relative to expectations: growth that sets you apart. In some high-technology markets, this might mean 60%. In others, 6% might really stand out from the crowd if the market average is just 3 or 4. What I am talking about is growth that puts serious distance between you and your competitors.
After all, grind is what most businesses endure. Most firms that manage to deliver growth do it the hard way. Measures that improve profitability often hold back top-line growth, while measures that drive revenue growth require investments that can drag down profitability. As one foot starts to run, the other starts sinking in the mire. It's devilishly hard to get the balance right and break free: It seems that all you can do is keep pushing. Companies have to push sales forward with big marketing investments while at the same time harrying their employees to become more productive and nagging their suppliers and partners for better deals. Pushing is hard work -- it's exhausting and it churns through resources.
According to the book "There just has to be a better way than this.". The performance of some firms when observed closely suggested that, under certain conditions, there existed a phenomenon whereby growth could be achieved more efficiently. The disproportionately higher growth these firms delivered hinted at some hidden energy driving their growth -- an energy that seemed to feed on itself without the need for excessive resources. Their progress has been natural, highly efficient, and realized with almost frictionless ease. Because they were not held back by the sheer weight of resources others were employing, they were able to get some speed up. They had momentum.
According to the authors if momentum is powering a firm's success, then its relative marketing spend should be decreasing, Contrary to conventional "spend money to make money" wisdom, the authors argue that firms with momentum achieved superior growth while spending a relatively smaller percentage of their revenue on marketing than those pursuing the traditional "push hard" methods.
Pushers, Plodders, and Pioneers
The authors have divided the firms into three groups according to how their marketing behavior could be described: Pushers, Plodders, and Pioneers, since the logic was to study the effects of extremes in marketing behavior, the three groups were divided in a 25:50:25 split.
For eg.
The Pushers were those companies that pushed their businesses hard in the traditional way, seeking to drive sales through aggressive increases in relative marketing spend.
the Plodders were the firms grouped around the middle of the sample.Their marketing-to-sales ratio remained more or less constant for 20 years. These middling firms stayed in the safety zone of past behavior and took no drastic action one way or the other.
Finally, in the remaining quarter -- those firms that were, either boldly or foolhardily, heading in the opposite direction from the Pushers, and decreasing their relative marketing spend. Taking these firms' average marketing-to-sales ratio,
Given the preeminence that marketing spend has among the tools most firms use to drive growth, this is a big, big call. Would these unconventional firms, which we dubbed the Pioneers, discover other avenues to growth, or fall behind as a result of their foolhardiness?
The first clue to the difference in the strategic behavior of these two groups appears in the top-line growth of the Pioneers. Over the 20-year period, using the Pushers' performance as a reference, the Pioneers' revenue growth was 93% better -- almost twice as high. They achieved this massive revenue growth despite decreasing their advertising ratio. And remember: This is in comparison not to underperforming firms but to firms that actually matched the Dow Jones Index.
If we compare the profitability growth of these two groups, we can see that the Pioneers also did much better, with average earnings growth 58% superior to that of the Pushers. A 58% advantage in earnings growth is very impressive, but it is noticeably smaller than the difference in revenue growth. Despite the Pushers' much poorer performance on revenue growth, and the fact that they were increasing their spending on marketing, they managed to claw back some lost ground: Their relative gap on earnings growth is less severe than one would expect. How did they manage that?
They cut down on other costs, especially in manufacturing and R&D. These combined cuts and efficiency economies more than compensated for the increase in advertising-to-sales ratio, and enabled the Pushers to peg back some of the Pioneers' huge top-line advantage when it came to earnings growth. Despite this partial catch-up, there is little doubt about where one would like to invest or work when one compares these two types of companies. The stock market recognizes this: The share-price premium of Pioneers over Pushers -- 80% -- is significantly higher than the differential in their earnings growth.
The bottom line: Although the combination of pushing hard with marketing investments and slashing other costs can deliver growth, the Pioneers' achievements demonstrates that there is a more creative, exciting, and smarter alternative that delivers even better results.
Obviously, it is not as simple as cutting the advertising-to-sales ratio. A straight cut in advertising would almost certainly result in a drop in growth. In fact, our study shows that the momentum-powered Pioneers actually increased their total marketing expenditures in real terms. But while their marketing budgets were increasing, the proportion of their revenue that this expenditure represented was decreasing. In other words, because of the Pioneers' superior revenue growth, their advertising-to-sales ratio was coming down despite the fact that they were spending more.
In a world of increasing competition, marketing resources must also, inexorably, rise. But if they are to create sustainable, profitable growth, these expenditures must be invested in an effective manner. Compared to the Pushers, the Pioneers' increases in marketing investments were more effective: They got superior growth while reducing their marketing-to-sales ratio, thus improving profitability.
The question is: What was improving the efficiency of their marketing investments? This is not simply a case of great marketing, although marketing excellence is a key part of the mix. These firms achieved greater efficiency with their marketing because they found a different path to growth: They exploited the momentum effect. They created specific conditions that ignited an exceptional organic growth that feeds on itself: momentum growth.
The Power of Momentum in Action
Wal-Mart and Toyota are two apparently dissimilar firms. They operate in two different industries and come from different countries and cultures. But they are two of the world's 15 richest companies, and each is number one in its own industry. More importantly, both got there by creating the conditions needed for the momentum effect to emerge. Although one has lost its momentum, the other is still in full swing.
Wal-Mart:
Sam Walton launched his company with a focus on customers. What is remarkable is the way that this customer focus created exceptional growth and continued to power Wal-Mart for many years after it had become a major industry force. Whatever its current challenges -- and there are many -- for the better part of a generation Wal-Mart was a momentum-powered firm.
Sam Walton knew about retail, but his main asset was the fact that he knew about customers. His strength was this: He liked to listen to them and observe them, and he understood their needs. When he started out, he related deeply to a very specific kind of customer -- people like him, people from the United States' rural South.
Walton's customer orientation made him aware of the potential of this region's smaller towns. In 1962, when Wal-Mart was launched, the standard wisdom held that large retail operations could not survive in towns with fewer than 100,000 residents. But Walton decided that this was where opportunity lay, and he deliberately opened stores only in small towns where there was no large-scale competition.
Walton understood that these customers would value his offering, that they would appreciate being able to shop locally, rather than making long journeys to larger towns. He also realized that these shoppers were worth more than they seemed. Although their wallets weren't as full as those of people in large cities, Wal-Mart was able to command a higher share of their spending because there was no competition. The combination of cheaper premises, lower labor costs [and] no competition ... meant that Walton's customers were extremely profitable to service.
This winning combination gave Wal-Mart the traction it needed to start building momentum. As the firm mushroomed, it continued to improve all aspects of its operation, from customer service to supply chain and supplier relationships. Eventually, Wal-Mart was able to glean economies of scale in purchasing to achieve its mantra of "Every Day Low Price" (EDLP) and gain further momentum.
EDLP runs counter to traditional retail promotions that lure customers into stores, hoping that they'll also end up buying more expensive products. The famous expression to describe retail strategy in the days before Wal-Mart was "an island of losses in an ocean of profits." It was really an island of bait in an ocean of arrogance and customer abuse. It was akin to duck hunting -- attracting customers the same way hunters attracted wild ducks with decoys.
With EDLP, Wal-Mart turned the relationship with customers upside down. It moved from duck hunting to a vibrant partnership. Wal-Mart's competitors, to their discomfort, failed to understand that, although EDLP was jargon on the surface, it expressed a strong, hidden emotional value deeply appreciated by customers: trust. This customer trust powered the company's growth for decades.
Unfortunately, momentum doesn't look after itself. There is a perception that Wal-Mart slowly began to pay less attention to many of the key drivers of its success -- respect for employees, local communities, and suppliers -- and began to lose its momentum as a result. Momentum is dynamic: Unless it is constantly nurtured, it will ebb away. However, the reward for that unstinting attention can be immense -- it can make you number one in the world.
Toyota:
When asked in May 2007 about the prospect of Toyota becoming the world's number-one car manufacturer, company president Katsuaki Watanabe refused to take even a minute to gloat about beating his competitors. "Rather than think about other companies," he said, "I feel that we must do our utmost to satisfy customers around the world. There is plenty left for us to do." This simple statement, reflecting an unswerving customer focus, demonstrates why companies like Toyota are able to develop a detailed and subtly nuanced understanding of customers -- and why they are able to deliver better results.
It also shows that there is much more to Toyota's success than Kaizen and lean production. That is just the base: its excellence and efficiency at extracting value from its business. It is Toyota's ability to create new, original, and compelling value in the first place that drives its growth. Its secret is its ability to connect totally with customers' sense of self, to create products that are more than mere goods but complete, perfect, and compelling presentations of value. The Prius, for example, offers a package of utterly compelling value to environmentally aware city-dwellers: With its low carbon footprint, practicality for city driving, and celebrity association, it is more than just a car -- it is a statement. The Lexus offers a totally different package of value to a totally different market, but the package is just as compelling, if you are part of its target market.
Consider the contrasting histories of the U.S. auto industry and Toyota. American car manufacturers are among the best illustrations of the limitations of the Pusher's strategy. They have given everything a try in terms of efficiency drives, but although they are now leaner, they are no fitter. They sought to drive top-line growth through expensive advertising as well as sales promotions to generate volume, along with deep discounts to move inventories of finished goods. These expensive tactics were needed to compensate for the failure of their products to really connect with customers.
Toyota, on the other hand, has become the world's largest and most profitable car manufacturer, riding a fantastic wave of momentum. Its success is based on a number of factors, but underlying its achievement is a deep understanding of its customers. First, Toyota proved that it could consistently deliver reliable, impeccably engineered automobiles. Once this crucial plateau had been achieved, it went on to innovate its range with cars that were somehow more than mere vehicles. Models like the Prius and the Lexus range appeared in their showrooms. Both of these cars connect on an emotional level with their drivers' self-image and aspirations -- green and clean for the one, luxurious and status based for the other. This level of customer engagement did not happen by chance -- it was the result of a focused, iterative process that created the conditions under which the momentum effect, and the efficient momentum growth it delivers, could flourish.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Smart Investment
Investment Ideas!
If you purchased $1,000 of Delta Airlines stock 1 year ago, you would have $49 today.
If you purchased $1,000 of AIG stock 1 year ago, you would have $33 today.
If you purchased $1,000 of Lehman Brothers stock 1 year ago, you would have $0.0 today.
But, if you purchased $1,000 worth of beer 1 year ago, drank all the beer, returned the aluminum cans for a recycling refund, you would have $214
So what do you think is a better investment :)
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Post-Diwali fortnight to register 25% job cuts: Assocham
These sectors comprise steel, cement, ITeS/BPO, financial and brokerage services, construction, real estate and aviation to begin with as their promoters are no longer in a position to sustain their operations with existing manpower strength.
Key Findings
* HR heads of a majority of the steel, cement, ITeS/BPO, financial and brokerage services including construction, real estate and aviation have drawn up conclusive plans to curtail their workforce by 25 to 30%, announcements for which are likely to come in by early November
* Most companies had wanted to start laying off employees in a phased manner much before Diwali but were advised to defer their restructuring plans
* Companies are thinking of further cutting down on bonus, ex-gratia and other incentives to reward performance
* Companies are also thinking of curtailing perks and perquisites of middle and senior managers as slowdown will continue and CEOs too might be expected to absorb salary cuts
* Manpower recruiting firms have deferred plans of expansion that require additional influx of funds since business houses in the crisis ridden sectors have stopped requisitioning human resource requirement
*The assessment suggests that negative sentiments in these sectors can be turned into an opportunity provided the Reserve Bank of India discontinues with its tight monetary policy and decreases the interest rates by at least 3%
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Marriage of the Competitors : Jet and Kingfisher
Friday, October 10, 2008
The War for the Red Sofa
Now let me tell you about the background first, The DTH business is a rapidly growing business , already biggies like Tata Sky,Dish TV, DD direct are present in the market. Sensing this as an business opportunity Reliance ADAG group also very recently launched its BIG DTH services. Bharti Airtel also had plans to enter in this business and had planned to launch its DTH services in India on 9th October.
Now comes the real story , to generate curiosity amongst audiences Airtel started the teaser Ads showing a Red Sofa, and a caption "see you at home on 9th".
This advertisement started appearing on the national televisions few days back prior to the launch , i.e in the first week of Oct.
But here came the master stroke from the Reliance Creative Ad agency, sensing this empty Red sofa as an opportunity, within a day Reliance launched an Ad with similar settings i.e Red sofa and with the caption "See you at home with 250 channels..."
The Reliance creative ad agency fully utilized the buzz created by the Airtel's ads and was sucessful in associating itself with the "Red Sofa" i.e the curiosity around the teaser ads, as a result Airtel actually had to prepone their launch of DTH services and they started showing their full advertisement with their brand name.
But honestly i feel that the damage was already done, consumers actually took a minute to understand which ad belongs to which company, and initially they all thought that this Red Sofa belongs to BIG Tv only.
Analysing this very closely i sincerely feel that the creative people at Reliance truly got it right, they were able to take a little fuzz out of the grand launch of Airtel's DTH services.
Its True "Marketing is Warfare"
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
West Bengal's Loss is Gujarat's Gain
Monday, October 6, 2008
Nouriel Roubini : “Dr Doom” or Economist at his best
Nouriel Roubini is a professor at New York University’s Stern School of Business, and head of Roubini Global Economics.
Read on for the perfect economic predictions he made :
Just after the sub-prime crisis and before the current global financial crisis emerged or any one foresaw / predicted it he in August 2006, wrote, “The scariest thing is that the gambling-for-redemption behavior…are not the exception in the mortgage industry; they are instead the norm. …If this kind of behavior is — as likely — the norm, the coming housing bust may lead to a more severe financial and banking crisis than the S&L crisis of the 1980s. The recent increased financial problems of…sub-prime lending institutions may thus be the proverbial canary in the mine — or tip of the iceberg — and signal the more severe financial distress that many housing lenders will face when the current housing slump turns into a broader and uglier housing bust that will be associated with a broader economic recession.”
Roubini went on to say, in 2006, “One cannot even exclude systemic risk consequences if the housing bust combined with a recession leads to a bust of the mortgage-backed securities market and triggers severe losses for the two huge GSEs (government-sponsored enterprises), Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” Talk about prescience. To add on he had also predicted the failure of Bear Stearns, Its amazing but he also predicted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will eventually bite the dust, and today they are nationalized.
The story doesn’t end here , read on , a bit earlier, in July, Roubini had said that Lehman Brothers would need a buyer: it soon did, but didn’t find one, and is now bankrupt. He didn’t stop there. He predicted in July that Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley would also not survive as independent firms. Lo and behold, Merrill Lynch is now set to be owned by Bank of America.
Surprised , yes we all should be , the crux of the matter is that when Roubini talks, people should listen.
The beauty of Roubini’s predictions is that they are based on crystal clear economic analysis. He had argued that the independent broker dealer model (epitomized by the former big four firms) is fundamentally flawed. These firms use the same business model as banks: they borrow short and lend long. But they borrow on even shorter time frames, use more leverage, and do not have explicit government backing (as banks have had since the Great Depression) and therefore the liquidity crunch.
To conclude i would leave it to you , to decide whether Nouriel Roubini is “Dr Doom” or Economist at his best. Your comments are welcome.
