Back To The Future… Of Outsourcing!

Future Image

Photo, All rights Kristian Bjornard

(Previously Published in Outsourcing Magazine Sept., 30, 2017)

To understand the future, it often helps to examine the past. The past may not have all our answers, but we often find useful models that can be repurposed in new ways. Turn back the clock one hundred years, and we will find just such a model for future outsourcing… the modern hospital! Don’t worry, you don’t need to get the croup or have the vapors! We will step back in time to the early days of the modern hospital, and Go Back to the Future… of Outsourcing!

Hospitals have been around for millennia. Early hospitals had few effective medicines. Instead, they were more like rest camps. Still, the best hospitals were relatively clean and they were often built by a mountain or a lake where patients had clean air and fresh water. Removed from a polluted city and it’s contaminated water, and given regular meals, a patient had a much better chance to recover.

Prior to the turn of the last century, “intensive care” meant little more than sawing off infected limbs. Hygiene was a bit of a mystery to the medical staff, and the operating room was often fatal. Still, with a little luck, you just might get better. By the mid-1800’s medicine became “scientific” and the rate of recovery for patients slowly improved. By 1920, a hospital had a 50/50 chance of improving your condition.

As hospitals improved, health improved… in hospitals, and across every developed nation. Infectious Diseases… cholera, diphtheria, tuberculosis… were the primary causes of death in the early 20th century. Hospitals joined with departments of sanitation and medical colleges, and infectious diseases began to disappear. By the mid-20th century developed countries eliminated most infectious diseases. Hospitals turned to more complex medical challenges… heart disease, cancer, and genetic research.

To meet these new challenges, hospitals needed to retool. Early hospitals had a lot of beds, trained staff, and operating rooms. Early hospital labs had a lot of test tubes and Bunsen burners, but conquering cancer required more advanced medicine and sophisticated diagnostic equipment.

X-ray machines were one of the first miracle machines. Doctors could now look inside patients without cutting them open. Ultrasound, MRI and PET scanners soon followed and the inner workings of human biology became an open book. To cure cancer, radiation equipment, cryotherapy, and many other devices were invented. Hospitals were soon filled to the brim with futuristic equipment.

Doctors and nurses, however talented, were not trained to deal with this sophisticated equipment. With too many multi-million dollar pieces of equipment to count, hospitals needed help to maintained and repair their fleet of medical devices. Some equipment, especially in nuclear medicine, requires special care in its use and in the disposal of radioactive components. And, of course, this technology requires extensive training. Tools like the “Gamma Knife” (a knifelike beam of radiation), can cure if correctly used, but can also do great damage when operators are not properly trained. With life and death consequences, outsourcing is essential!

Just containing all this equipment, and providing room for the volume of patients needed to keep these expensive devices fully occupied, forced hospitals to grow even larger. Typical hospitals contain multiple buildings and thousands of workers. These “Super-Hospitals” have become campus-wide structures, with power plants, warehouses and immense parking lots to keep the hospital running and fully stocked.

“Super-Hospitals” are incredibly capable, but even they need help as medicine has begun to peer into humanity’s own genetic code. Healthcare is now dominated by clusters or networks of organizations that work together to cure patients… government agencies, insurance groups, education and certification bodies, specialty clinics, and (most recently) data outsourcers using tools like IBM’s WATSON to develop insights into medical care and personalized treatments.

Very impressive! But exactly how does the evolution of the hospital predict the way that outsourcing will evolve? Let’s take a look, starting with…

Last Generation Outsourcing: We’re just at the tipping point where outsourcing becomes something new. Until very recently, outsourcing was driven by lower wages in common offshore locations, such as India and China. However, we until recently, outsourcing meant moving from a relatively sophisticated work environment to a less sophisticated one. The offshore factory would have less automation and equipment than the previous factory. Buying all of that equipment offshore would have raised the cost of operation, increased capital investments, and slowed down implementation. 

Instead, we chose to hire more people offshore than we had onshore. It meant working in a different way, but the results often satisfied all parties. Remember, offshore nations allowed us to work in their country because we provided employment. Money spent on equipment (that was manufactured in another country) did not help the offshore economy. Besides, when offshore wages are one-fifth of onshore wages, you could hire two workers for every one you had onshore, and still be ahead financially.

50/50 Chance: Early on, outsourcing was unreliable. Some projects worked well and some failed. “Lift and shift” alone failed. When outsourcing exploded in size at the turn of the 21st century, outsourcers had very variable results. Around this time McKinsey, both the world’s largest consulting firm and an early outsourcer, stated that only 50% of outsourcing is successful. Failures often arose from skipping necessary steps, lack of specific skills, and unreasonable expectations.

Now outsourcing… at least when a reputable outsourcing firm is used… is better understood and generally more successful. Yet, there remains a nagging sense that some forms of outsourcing, especially for knowledge work, just won’t work offshore. At the very least, it is more difficult to convince some customers that they can perform work offshore rather than onshore.  

Proximity: Intelligent automation and robotics diminish the role of wages in outsourcing. Automation produces products with few or no wage earners. The more we automate business functions, the lower the total cost of production. We’ve also learned that when we offshore, wages eventually rise. Offshore wages usually will rise far faster than onshore. The cost of automation, on the other hand, falls over time.  

We are at the beginning of a wave of onshoring. Athletic shoe manufacturers were a big part of the offshoring culture of past decades. Athletic shoes, and athletic clothing, aggressively moved offshore, leaving little production onshore. Automation makes onshore manufacturing viable. By being onshore, manufacturing not only met the price of offshore but could add new value.

Work can be sent halfway around the world efficiently, but it adds to turnaround time. When the next iPhone is released, orange might be the most popular color. But if there weren’t enough orange phones on hand, a request will be sent to an offshore factory to for the orange phones. Total turnaround time to produce new parts, assemble the phone and ship them back to the customer? A month or more. By then, the buyer might give up and buy a different phone.

Size: When manufacturing was outsourced to China, the scale of outsourcing changed. The U.S. and Europe already had big factories, producing cars and airplanes. In the last decade, China built over 500 new cities (capable of supporting a million citizens). These cities were created to house the workers needed by new factories. Factories and related networks of factories (bicycle factories built next to bicycle tire factories) took on a new scale in China. 

This scale of operations not only created big single use factories, it has created a new type of outsourcing. Foxconn corporation is the world’s largest private employer and is based in China. What does Foxconn do? They assemble consumer electronics. They don’t build CPUs, or memory chips, or circuit boards. They just assemble the parts into a phone, for almost every cell phone in the world. They also assemble a huge percent of the computers, tablets, flat screens and other electronics that consumers buy.

By assembling every possible type of cellphone, Foxconn developed unique expertise in phone assembly. When a new iPhone is released, Apple’s marketing campaign has publically announced (and very tight) release dates. This has been amazingly effective in marketing the iPhone, creating huge lines at Apple stores when a new iPhone is released. Samsung’s Galaxy and other top-tier phones are now released in the same way. Without the massive capacity of Foxconn, this would not be possible. Assembly firms like Foxconn didn’t exist a decade ago, but now many products cannot exist without them. We’ll get back to Foxconn in just a little bit.   

Technology: As discussed earlier, when work moved offshore, key equipment and technology were left behind. This reduced the time to ramp up and required less investment to implement. It took more people offshore to replace a team onshore, but if wages were low enough it still made financial sense.

To understand relative levels of technology between the U.S. and China, consider the “robot ratio”, the number of robots per 10,000 workers. In early 2016, China had 36 robots for every 10,000 workers. Today, China may have as many as 50 per 10,000. The U.S. has 175. As you can see, workers in China have quite a disadvantage. Still, you can see that China is quickly catching up. By the early 2020’s China will pass 100 robots per 10,000. However, the world’s robotic leader is South Korea, with 530 robots. That tells us that there is a LOT of room for automation even with just existing technology.

China is investing heavily in robots. They are already the world’s largest buyer of industrial robots, and China is investing in its own domestic robot industry. Recently, China started investing in European robotics firms and has already bought several multi-billion dollar firms. As soon as 2020, the majority of the world’s industrial robots will be “Made in China” or will be made by firms owned by China.

Onshoring will explode in size in the next few years. Domestic factories will become much more automated. Work will move from China back to the U.S. and Europe. But only a fraction of the jobs will be re-shored. Robots will do most of the work. Traditional factories in the U.S. won’t always have the ability to maintain these robots. Just as hospitals turned to outsourcing to deal with training and maintenance, the arrival of a massive number of industrial robots provides a huge opportunity to outsourcers… IF they have the skills and the scale needed to support this transition.

Need another example? Consider… computer support. The old model was that any corporation of significant size ran its own IT department to roll out servers, add hard drives, and monitor networks. Amazon WEB Services (AWS) and Microsoft Azure have taken over the IT functions of thousands of companies. Startups are now starting up without server rooms. Amazon Marketplace has taken over warehousing, distribution, and other aspects of America’s small businesses.  

Consolidation: What’s next? Remember our friend’s over at Foxconn? They negotiated a deal to build an “assembly factory” in Wisconsin. The key factors to follow in this deal are…

  • Scale: The factory, when fully built, will employ 13,000. Keeping in mind that Foxconn has stated that it will build a VERY automated factory, that makes it a VERY BIG factory. Inside of this huge factory, Foxconn will initially build flat screen TV’s, but by building on the expertise they developed in China, they can create virtual assembly lines for smaller customers with a variety of assembly needs.  
  • Automation: Whoever builds the robots usually gets the first opportunity to maintain them. Because China is building these machines, and will soon be seen as the nation that best understands robots, we can expect Chinese competition. Both the firms that build the robots and a new generation of Chinese outsourcers. Local outsourcers must step up their game if they want to compete in this area.  
  • Government Relations: Giant factories need government support. Mega-factories lead to mega-employment or at least new revenue. Foxconn shopped around its plans to several states and chose the one that offers the most. Modifications to the minimum wage, changes to environmental regulations, and many other “perks” that can be offered only by the government are being discussed. Future outsourcing will involve more mega-projects. Tomorrow’s outsourcers need to be skilled in government negotiations.
  • Financing: Wisconsin will provide $3,000,000,000 in government incentives. That’s a staggering amount of money. If all government incentive packages start to look like this, government funding could become the key element in every new project.
  • New Industry: Foxconn and Amazon are developing new types of outsourcing. In a world where our homes are filled with electronic gadgets, assembly and technical support will be HUGE and growing industries. Start-up firms increasingly want to focus on design and market, leaving it to other partners to manufacture their products.
  • Customization: This new model of automated, onshore, manufacturing allows more products to be released, more often. Soon, customization will become the norm. For example, smartphones offer different amounts of memory, color options, and processor types. But these customizations are built-in to the phone and must be installed when you buy the phone. That means a long wait for the next batch of phones if you choose popular options. When the factory is just a few miles away, and robots can be quickly reprogrammed, new assembly lines can be instantly converted to build your product. Then, your custom phone could be just a day away… especially if it is delivered by an Amazon drone!

Hospitals grew, developed new technologies, grew some more, developed a network of services and suppliers, and then outsourced many of their day to day functions. On-shore manufacturers are in a very similar position. The new wave of onshoring will trigger the movement of more work in product distribution, IT support, hardware management and other services to outsourcing providers. 

If the Foxconn deal proceeds, who will build the factory? Foxconn has powerful connections with China’s government, construction firms and banks. In other nations, Chinese companies that build new factories use Chinese construction firms (the largest in the world) and Chinese banks (which are in the top 10 largest) to finance projects. If Chinese firms are not brought into the Foxconn deal, Foxconn is likely to make major investments in local construction firms and contractors.   

The arrival of intelligent robots and advanced automation are changing the way that factories manufacture and corporations work. This in turn will lead to larger outsourcing projects, and the need for multifaceted outsourcers with a wide range of skills and deep pockets. There will still be room for specialized outsourcing and smaller implementations, but more and more money will be tied up in big projects that only a small number of outsourcers can deliver. If you want to be in this elite group, now is the time to start lining up your partners!

Posted in Best Practices, Employment, Improvement, Improvement, Continuous or Not, Uncategorized, Unique Ideas | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Ready For The New Normal… In Weather?


Sex, politics and the weather. Until someone can figure out which bathroom school kids can use, or until EVERY NIGHT isn’t a new story about dysfunctional politics in Washington… I’ll just talk about something non-controversial. Like the weather. I mean, at least THAT’S not controversial, right? Yep, weather. No controversy there. So… How are things going in Puerto Rico?

Geeze! Why does everything need to be so political? As we rolled into hurricane season, the worst of the climate deniers in Washington were either dropping out of the conversation or had their hands out for money for hurricane relief. It’s been one of the worst years ever, and it’s still weeks before the Hurricane season ends. Have we learned anything?

I HOPE we’ve learned that the climate is changing. The weather has been consistent with the changes predicted by climate scientists. Not just the three big hurricanes that we have seen so far in 2017, but changes that have been we documented for decades. Rising seas, melting glaciers, storms on the coasts, droughts in the interior, and of course a warming earth.

The conditions that are facing FEMA and other disaster agencies are different than a decade or two ago. It’s not just a matter of a bigger budget. The future will certainly require more money to address bigger storms and larger flood disaster zones. But it is also going to require different thinking from our leaders. Consider the following…

Acceleration: For decades climate scientists have said that the weather would change. It has. Then they told us the reason it was changing was “human activities”, including CO2 emissions, byproducts of industry, urban development (especially building on wetlands), the loss of forestlands, and of course… more people. The speed of change in our climate is still accelerating.

While we cannot predict what the weather will be tomorrow, we can predict that for at least the next 10 years the weather will be warmer, windier, wetter (on the coasts) and more destructive than 10 years ago. Climate change will only become faster. Expect that America will spend more money on storm damage every year.   

Frequency: A mid-term report card for 2017 could be… Houston: B+, Florida: B+, Puerto Rico: D- . Puerto Rico’s low score has less to do with FEMA, than the fact that Puerto Rico was hit by two hurricanes in two weeks. When one hurricane weakens infrastructure, the second needn’t be very strong to completely destroy whatever is left standing.

As the earth continues to warm, the chances of a double, or even triple hit by hurricanes increases. It takes months or years for a city to fully recover from hurricane damage. The first hit could happen in late November (end of the hurricane season) with a second hit a few months later when the next year’s season begins (in June). Cities with double hits, or even with a hit every 3 or 4 years, can expect insurance carriers to shrink or kill their coverage. In the past few years, the Federal government has picked up the business the Insurance Industry abandoned. But it has been a money-losing business.

Finances: Money affects everything. Communities with more money are often better engineered. More paved roads mean better access during floods. Higher priced properties are usually on land that is well graded, and without low spots that easily flood. Poor communities have fewer drains and uneven ground and “water traps” that frequently strand vehicles. Poor and poorly built communities are easily isolated by flood waters.  

Puerto Rico is very poor, with only half of the US median family income. They can’t afford to stockpile in advance of a storm, and they lack emergency equipment. Add to that the decades of financial crises. They lost key tax credits in the early 2000’s, defaulted on government debt in 2015,  and since then eliminated many government jobs that they need now to deal with this disaster. 

Before the storm, home mortgage defaults were already at a record high. Not surprisingly, few homes have wind or flood insurance. After the immediate disaster is taken care of, and lives are no longer at risk, Puerto Rico’s long-term survival… the ongoing fate of the island’s 3.4 million population… will depend on financing. Yes, America will help Puerto Rico, but will we invest in it? Especially if more storms are on the way? This horrid little question is going to be asked over and over again, as one post-disaster community after another looks for the billions of dollars they will need to rebuild.

Protection: Storms and floods will damage coastal cities, Tornados will tear up the center of the US, and dangerous rivers (Mississippi, Red, Ohio) will have record floods. In-between the storms, old buildings are repaired or torn down. But what prevention? What about the problems that make these storms so damaging? A seawall might keep out a high tide. Flood waters can be temporarily directed to underground storage tanks. Low lying areas can be raised. Or you could even build new wetlands and plant trees.

Over the past couple of decades very little has been done to reduce the risk of flooded cities. Instead, bad urban planning, often done to generate short-term revenues, has eliminated natural storm protection. Hurricane damage from Katrina was worse due to lost wetlands that once slowed incoming tides and soaked up flood waters. Preserving and expanding natural protection, engineering ways to keep water out, and developing systems to get flood waters out… could be the only thing that keeps the “potential” in our potential flood cities.     

Atlantic City, Boston, Charleston, Miami, New Orleans, New York, and Tampa… to name just a few US cities… are all on the flood city list.  Just 10 years ago, Boston completed the Big Dig, a project to ease traffic congestion in central Boston. At $22 billion, this is the most expensive highway project in the US to date. Construction projects of a similar or even greater size will be needed to save each city.  

Moving On: The big picture for global climate change can be too big to wrap your arms around. Let’s look at it more locally. In Houston, 50 inches of rain fell over 5 days during hurricane Harvey. To understand this, Houston is about 630 square miles. A gallon of water is 231 square inches. That equals 550 billion gallons of water. While this was only 1.5% of the water Harvey dumped on Texas, it’s too big a number for mere humans to understand. Have you ever seen an Olympic pool? They’re huge! In Houston 2 Olympic pools worth of water needed to get out of the city every minute! It’s just math. The water has got to go somewhere. But, when the tide is high… that water cannot get through to the sea.   

When the next storm arrives the same scenario will play out once again, and the city drowns. Areas closest to the water are usually the oldest part of town, and the most likely to flood. In a world where flood insurance is harder to obtain, how many times can the homeowners… or the city… afford to rebuild the most frequently flooded areas? Some cities may close neighborhoods rather than fight this losing battle.

“What happens to the homeowners?”, is the big question for the next few decades. Without insurance or local governments to buy out homeowners where can they turn? Don’t look to Washington! The Fed has no plans, and no appetite, for any kind of bailout!

A Way Out?: In 1900, less than 40% of the US population lived in cities; in 2015 it rose to over 80%. Storm soaked Florida has gone Urban even faster. At the same time, Florida went from 20% urban to 90%. Rural counties and small towns are less able to deal with big infrastructure projects than big cities. As sea levels rise, coastal populations will move into cities. That means we can protect fewer square miles of land, but at the cost of more urbanization around cities.

Perhaps, the solution is right under our noses. While the entire world is busy fighting climate change, another global change taking place… The Robot Revolution. Experts tell us that 50% of all of the jobs that exist today will be lost in just a decade or two. Without replacement positions, unemployment will rise to unprecedented levels. For this reason, governments around the world are considering how to adopt something called a UBI, which would provide all citizens with a stipend to replace lost income.     

With a greatly reduced need for paid employees, many worry that even with financial issues  taken care of by a UBS payment, people still need a purpose in life. Perhaps, these two efforts can go together. This could take any form, but imagine an organization something like the old Peace Corps. Make it a primarily volunteer organization, that allows citizens to work on projects to help before and after storms.

The Future: Climate change is still accelerating. Even the most optimistic plans to address urbanization and air pollution won’t stop or reverse the rise in global temperatures that make our weather more violent. And with more urbanization, there will be more creating bigger and more destructive storms

While two wrongs rarely make a right, we have a rare opportunity to take two problems and create one very timely solution. Many of our cities are at risk of flooding. We have seen early signs of how extensive our flooding risks are. Before cities flood, we need to develop a consensus on how each threatened city can be helped. When do we rescue a neighborhood, and when do we let it go? Which issues will be handled locally and which must be part of a central plan controlled by the Federal government?

Let’s not miss this opportunity! We will need many different kinds of skills to keep America’s cities above water and operating. Automation and artificial intelligence may make the second half of the 21st century a “jobless future”. But no job doesn’t mean no work. Enormous changes in the economy just might provide the volunteers to save us from the enormous changes in the environment. Let’s hope so! The future is now no farther away than the next change in the weather!


Posted in Best Practices, Decision Making, Unique Ideas | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Everyone Into The Cloud!

Cloud 6

(Previously published in Outsource Magazine, 9/8/2017)

Outsourcers fear that the coming Robot Revolution. Robots and A.I.s will wipe out traditional outsourcing… or so you have been told! The reality is that the technologies behind the Robot Revolution will create the greatest outsourcing opportunity of all time, Cloud Services! Let’s dive in and see how the Robot Revolution will save Outsourcing!

Cloud Services are a new way to support IT. Or at least a new name for support. Back in the 1960’s when computers and IT were just taking off, IT was already outsourced. Yet the model was clearly similar. The granddaddy of American computer services was IBM. IBM did not sell their MainFrame computers. You could either buy slices of computers that ran at IBM headquarters, or you might even be allowed to have IBM computers on your site, as long as they remained under IBM control.

Not even to America’s military could buy IBM computers. By the 1980’s competition in the market changed the model and managed facilities, equipment buy-outs, sub-contracting, subscription services and every other method of paying for IT was launched. Including traditional third party outsourcing.   

However, the proliferation of options suddenly made it very difficult to answer a simple question, “How many people are in IT?”. Earlier, headcount would give you a simple way to measure IT growth. But contract workers, outsourced workers and “IT as a service” obscured this number and IT managers only vaguely understood their headcount. Every year IT services would change and new devices fell under the responsibility of IT. The phone PBX, ISP’s, external data providers, research services, voice mail, cell phones, even printers, and copiers might get thrown onto the every growing IT heap.

Then the Internet arrived! Just connecting a single user to your network could be a complex and expensive project. Now, you had a way that you could connect to the world and the world could connect to you. More expensive ways to connect were retired. Even sending printed documents to users was replaced by URL connection to a library of PDF’s.

For overwhelmed IT workers, it was like a fairy tale. One of your many impossible tasks could finally be accomplished!  By the way. Have you read a fairy tale… lately? They all go something like this… you have a problem, it gets solved, you expect to be happy, then you find out that no one gets anything for free. That great solution from the traveling bean salesman? It didn’t quite live up to the demo, did it?  

Managing IT has been like a fairy tale lately. But not the part where Jack climbs the beanstalk up to the Cloud to take the Giant’s treasures. No, we’re dealing with the part where the Giant says, “Fee-Fi-Foe-Fum, I smell the blood of…” Well, YOU. Something just got dropped on the grill and it smells like IT. All of those wonderful solutions that the Internet planted throughout your infrastructure? They don’t look much like magical gifts today, do they?

Instead, it looks like a decade of living on the Internet has punched holes into every part of your firewalls. Bad guys can even attack your clients and then tunnel back through your network. Viruses, malware, phishing, Trojan Horses, and ransomware are everywhere. Corporate IT departments can no longer keep up with the pace of new cyber threats.

Of course, not all of the threats are from the outside. Not all of the protocols and technologies on your network play well together. An obscure application that some other department occasionally uses has suddenly knocked your team off the network. Is something wrong with the software, is it a faulty upgrade? Hundreds of updates must be carefully examined to find the problem. Every issue takes too long to fix, costs too much, breaks down too often. But that’s not the worst of it.

For every story about a million stolen IDs or hijacked tax records, you can bet that an IT career went down in flames. The perpetrators? Perhaps a small criminal ring in Estonia, or hacktivists in London, or maybe just some disgruntled teen in suburbia. Not the most formidable opposition. Cyberclowns, more interested in embarrassing the corporate world than burning it down. But our Cyberclowns are being replaced by professional Cyber warriors.

For years China’s government has sponsored attacks on the US and Europe. Websites have been crashed, corporate documents stolen. When the New York Times ran a series of articles on Chinese corruption, they were repeatedly and successfully attacked by Chinese hackers. The NYT is not some small, technologically literate firm. Their IT department is at least as good as the average and knows a thing or two about espionage. If the NYT can be hacked, so can you!      

North Korea, upset by the politics of a recently released Sony movie, hacked Sony and the information they released led to the firing of their Co-Chair. North Korea? Not exactly an IT  powerhouse. What about the real IT powerhouses… like Russia? It is just possible that if you have been living in a monastery with a strict code of silence that you haven’t heard…  no, No, NO! Not even then! You could still use sign language! Yeah, we all now know that Russia spends A LOT of time hacking America.

By interfering in the American Presidential election, without any visible penalty, we have guaranteed that Russia will try again. Thanks to a series of almost unbelievable events in Washington, the unraveling of America’s national security has been the world’s # 1 rated soap opera for 2017.

The world now knows that even America can be beaten by anonymous hackers. Every regional dictator who has ever lusted after nuclear weapons or an aircraft carrier to elevate their status will soon realize that a team of professional hackers can be bought for a tiny fraction of the cost of military weapons. The threat level is about to go through the roof, and there is little that IT can do about it. We have moved the world’s business onto the Internet, but the Internet was never built to be secure.

The Internet was created to connect a handful of research Universities, and a few thousand graduate students and Ph.D.’s that worked on government funded projects. They were guided by formal ethical codes. Cybercrime? Internet trolls? Early pioneers lived in terror of a releasing a report with a mistake in their footnotes. The small community and high ethical standards ensured that even being slightly impolite could cause expulsion. The idea of security, forcing limits on data and people, was seen as a crazy at best and Fascist policy at worst. Espionage and financial crime were laughable!

There are millions of companies around the world. Their IT departments have wildly variable technical skills. What skills they have are spread across innumerable operating systems, applications and devices. It has been impossible for IT to mount an effective defense. Until now. The answer is pretty simple… we all need to head into the Cloud!

Cloud Services like Microsoft Azure and Amazon Web Services (AWS) have massive scale. JPMC had 58,000 servers in 2014. That’s enormous! Yet, that number is tiny when we compare it to the 1.5 million servers at AWS. Amazon can buy more equipment at a lower price, has the staff to develop expertise in far more applications, and can buy the most advanced technology (Solid State hard drives and graphics processors rather than platters and CPUs). They also have on-site virus and malware experts and have the expertise to ensure that every server runs the most current updates. One financial analyst concluded that AWS is three times as efficient as a typical IT department.

Because of their enormous scale, Amazon has developed its own management and automation tools, allowing them to do the work with a fraction of the staff.  It also allows Amazon clients to add storage or CPU cycles to their environment with the flip of a switch. The uniformity of this environment plus their concentration of expertise makes cloud services like AWS far more secure than most internally managed IT facilities. The cost is lower, the maintenance is better and the chance of surviving a cyber attack is a lot higher.

Cloud services will not solve every problem in IT, it can elevate IT quality and security. Can the Cloud cut the cost of IT? Of course, it can! But more importantly, Professional hackers are raising the threat level to your data. That’s a very compelling reason to use Cloud Services. Every IT department is facing giant problems. Your solution, and even a few treasures could be waiting for you in the Clouds!

Posted in Best Practices, Improvement, Continuous or Not, Self Sorting | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

The Trump Conundrum: American Jobs vs. Good Jobs vs. American Made

Factory Floor

Candidate Trump told America that he would bring back, “Good, well-paying jobs, with benefits.”  Which is what we want. We don’t just want low paying jobs without time off or health benefits. However, as Trump has learned, just the health care part of the job can take quite a bit of effort to define and deliver. When we take a look at what Trump is doing, and the bills that he supports, it’s difficult to imagine how his action will yield the sort of jobs we want, yet his approach may provide some benefits to the economy… just not the ones we expect. We need to dive into this issue and see just what Trump is doing to “Make America Great”.

Bring back jobs or create jobs – At the low end of the labor market, we don’t have a shortage of jobs. Quite the opposite, we have millions of jobs that Americans cannot or will not fill. There are 5–20 million more jobs in the US than we can fill. America’s illegal immigrant issue is really an illegal labor problem. Most of the “illegals” in the US are here to work. They would like to pay taxes, but to do so could get them arrested and deported. Some politicians admit that if illegals paid taxes everyone would be better off… But it creates the problem of illegal workers getting the same or similar treatment as legal workers and citizens. Individual morality is in conflict with economics.

In the 20th century, the illegal worker issue was largely restricted to agricultural work and agricultural states. In the last half of the 20th century, women entered the workforce in large numbers. Two income families became common, which caused an explosion in the service industry. With both parents working, America “outsourced” day to day functions… Fast food restaurants, cleaning services, lawn care, etc. The average American was making more money and wanted professional jobs. Services fell to illegal workers.    

The estimated 11 million illegal workers were able to find jobs because there were so many jobs that Americans will not take, at least not at the wages that are currently offered. Even during our last economic downturn, Americans refused to take jobs such as picking lettuce. Politicians debated over whether this was true or just an urban rumor. Well, during the summer of 2017 we had a chance to test this theory.

The shrimping industry in Texas was an excellent test. The season is determined by nature and shrimp breeding rules. The shrimping season happens during the summer in Texas. One of the hardest jobs, that has to be performed on the boats during hurricane season, is taking the heads off of shrimp. Before 2017, shrimpers brought in labor. Some from Mexico, but most from the Caribbean and Africa. In 2017 the Federal Government told shrimpers that were needed to use American labor. Taking the heads off of shrimp is low paying $7.25 per hour (minimum wage in Texas), dangerous (bad weather), requires expertise to do correctly and is very hard work.

The results were that not enough workers would be hired. Often “newbies” would find that they could not do the work while they were in a storm, and the ship needed to return to port. The summer harvest is down by 75% due to these labor issues (expect a sharp rise in shrimp prices later this year). Similar outcomes were experienced in restaurants in tourist areas… but for different reasons. You see, even if you can get American workers for these restaurants, most American workers are young college students. They need to return to school 30 days BEFORE the high season ends. These restaurants make most of their profit for the year in these last 30 days. They cannot shut down, and they cannot change the season. For different reasons there are many other jobs, seasonal and permanent, that American’s cannot fill. If the US government does not allow foreign workers next year, tens of thousands of small businesses could go out of business in 2018.

Create good jobs – Candidate Trump talked about good jobs, workers rights, workers having a say in outsourcing, jobs with health care and other benefits, etc. Trump sounded surprisingly like a 20th century union boss… “Trust me and I will make it happen, I will make America Great Again”.

Notice the similarity between “Make America Great again” with the old union ad for “Made in America”. Made in America was an ad campaign by the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union. Trump clearly borrowed from the earlier campaign, yet it is telling that Trump’s campaign materials (flags, hats, etc), were all made in China.

This lack of awareness flows through Trump’s pro-worker policies. Trump stated that he is for the common worker, but he has also signed or requested bills that slash the budget for the Department of Labor. Remember, the one Federal agency that is supposed to protect American workers is the DOL.

Trump has stated his opposition to unions, but that’s almost a requirement for any Republican. But while candidate Trump asked for worker rights, President Trump has backed legislation that makes it harder to join a union and he has supports court decisions that reduce overtime payments to workers. Trump may genuinely sympathize with workers, and want the same kind of jobs that unions pushed for in the past, but when it comes to specific actions or laws, he goes against his campaign promised. Trump may be thinking about the good of America’s workers, but we have as yet to see Trump acting for the good of workers.

American made – To understand how much the American labor market has changed, let’s go back to that “Made in America” ad. Back in the 1980’s when the ad was running, producing textiles required a lot of manpower, even though the automation of textile manufacturing began more than a century earlier. American textiles were some of the best in the world. But the economy changed, and big factories moved south, first to the southern states, then to mexico and South America. Eventually it moved to India and Bangladesh. No place on earth has a lower textile manufacturing cost than Bangladesh.

“Made in America” was created to stop the flow of work offshore. A century ago, New York City was a major manufacturing location. It was a center of textile manufacturing, that worked with the design industry in NYC, which was also one of the to markets for high quality textiles. It made sense for all of these industries and workers to be near each other. As communications technology improved (telephone, computers, etc.) it became possible to gain the advantages of offshore markets (low cost labor) while still being able to manage all of the suppliers, regardless of where they are. This is the logic that led to offshoring from the middle of the last century to about a decade ago. Importantly, this is the business logic that President Trump was raised on.    

Now, new technologies have changed this equation. It makes business sense to build products in America once more. BUT just moving the work to America doesn’t mean that you’re building American jobs.

Consider running shoes. This was one of the first significant industries that totally moved out of America. Brands like Reebok and Converse defined the running shoe as an American icon. Yet,  by the 1970’s the manufacturing of American running shoes started to move offshore. By the 1990’s, no running shoes were manufactured in America or in Europe. But starting in 2016, Adidas opened its first shoe factory in Germany, and then another one just outside of Atlanta in 2017. This is only the first of a huge wave of “re-shoring” that will hit starting in 2018.

There’s just one problem. Moving work to the US will not create many new jobs. Automation is now capable of performing more jobs, at a lower price. Athletic shoes… and a growing list of other products… can now be manufactured on shore for just slightly more than the offshore price. When you eliminate the time and cost of shipping goods around the world, “Made in America” goods can cost less than offshore.

Foxconn is a Chinese firm that is the world’s largest employer. Foxconn assembles parts made by other firms… into LED TV’s, smart phones, and other consumer electronics. Foxconn is inking a deal with the state of Wisconsin for a mega-factory that will employ 13,000. However, the state will pay $3 billion for Foxconn to start the project. You can bet that this will be the most automated factory in the world, and could produce as many goods as a factory with ten times as many employees.

But if the work is all performed by machines, what does America truly gain? It would bring money into the economy. We are entering a new economy where the majority of “workers” may be machines rather than humans.  If governments are going to encourage new businesses to move in, and they plan to subsidize their work, there needs to be a very clear understanding of what that firm needs to deliver. Just revenue for state, jobs, good jobs, or something else?

Sum it up? – Trump believes that cutting worker rights and employment benefits can make America a more attractive place for some businesses. He could be right. Trump’s strategy could improve the economy and raise revenues. A few jobs might even be created. But those actions probably can’t create high paying jobs with good benefits.

If new factories open in the US, they can easily produce high value goods and increase profits. But the new generation of automated factories will employ few workers. Political leaders need to understand that manufacturing technology has changed. “Made in America” is still a good battle cry for manufacturing. But if Trump and other leaders do not understand the new technology, “Made in America” may ironically mean no more than made by American robots.

Posted in Common Sense Contracting, Delivering Services, Employment | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

7 Lessons Ted Cruise Can Learn From Hurricane Harvey


“Super hurricane” Harvey ended just two weeks ago, and the next super hurricane… Irma… is headed straight for Florida. Storm of the Century? We’ve suffered through so many superstorms that have caused multi-billion dollar damage… Katrina ($108 billion), Sandy ($75 billion), Ike ($37.5 billion), Wilma ($29.4 billion), Andrew ($26.5 billion) that we’re getting a bit numb to the term “storm of the century”. Maybe these used to be storms of the century, but in the 21st century, they’re just… storms. If the climate science people are correct, this level of storm will soon be an annual event.

Isn’t it strange that when a storm is in progress, everyone… the governor, the mayor, and the President… intently watches the news for any clues on when to evacuate, areas that will be underwater, which shelters need to be opened, and which travel routes are safe. Yet, when the flood waters recede and it’s time to plan for next year (or five or ten years from now), that same governor, mayor and President say, “Climate scientists? What do they know! You can’t predict the weather!). But all of these super storms ARE what the Climate scientists told us would happen a decade ago after Hurricane Katrina. 

Regardless of what politicians believe, next year will come, and it will bring more storms. Even this year, we still have three months before the hurricane season is over. Hurricane Sandy hit at the end of October. There’s still time for another 2017 superstorm. Even a moderately strong storm could devastate Huston if it strikes in the next few weeks. It’s time to end the debate about whether there is Global Warming (Answer: Yes, there is!), figure out what it costs to do nothing (Answer: Trillions of dollars), and agree on how we can reduce the risks of Climate Change.    

Flood cities aren’t just on the coasts.  Big rivers have also been flooding. The Mississippi, the Red River, Ohio and other major rivers have all taken lives and destroyed property. Climate Change affects more than just the US. The UK is experiencing the worst flooding in almost 300 years. Venice has been flooding for centuries, but today floors happen just about every year, and every year the floods get deeper and deeper.

The storm toll is enormous. As of this writing, the death count in Houston is at 70 and is still rising. But, if we look on the other side of the world… in Bangladesh, Nepal, and India… over 1,200 have died so far in their version of the Hurricane (Monsoon) season. Weather is global. Industry in the US impacts other countries around the world, and the growing economies of China, India, and Africa increasingly impact our own weather. That’s why it is so important that the most advanced nations, including the US, set an example for the rest of the world. If not, we will all pay an enormous penalty.   

How big is that penalty? Hurricane Harvey will cost between $50 billion and $200 billion, costing as much or more than Hurricane Katrina. As more and more private insurance firms drop out of the flood insurance industry,  FEMA (a Federal program) will increasingly be responsible for paying the bills. Hopefully, Ted Cruise and other Climate Change naysayers will learn a few lessons from Harvey.

  1. Global Climate Change Predictions – If we cut through the hype, Climate Change experts made a simple prediction about floods. The weather will get warmer, storms get bigger, and more super storms would happen. Which is exactly what has happened over the last decade. We lived through Katrina and Sandy, and Larsen ice shelves A, B, and now C have almost entirely melted away. Recently, it was revealed that big oil companies had their scientists advising them about Climate Change wince the 1970’s, even though oil CEO’s (such as former ExxonMobile’s CEO  and current Secretary of State Rex Tillerson) have repeatedly said that no evidence of Climate Change exists. Will Ted Cruise will ExxonMobil’s scientists?
  2. Storm of the Century – When you have a storm of the century every year, how do you pay for it? Think quick Ted! The Federal Flood Insurance program runs out at the end of September. If superstorms are the new baseline for storms, funding needs to go way, way up. Especially as private insurance companies are exiting the flood insurance business. That means that the cost of GCC will be paid by US taxpayers.
  3. Human Activity – Climate Change predictions go back to the last century, but now there is increasing certainty about the cause… “human activity”. Pollution is one contributor, but the destruction of our wetlands may be even more important. Wetlands soak up rain. Turn wetlands into condos and cities flood. If you don’t save the wetlands you can build storm drains and runoff systems, but Huston consumed it’s wetlands and failed to engineer flood systems. How about that Ted! Maybe we can shift the flooding problem from big oil pollution to unscrupulous Real Estate developers. The Donald should love that discussion!
  4. Environmental Regulations – After years of a depressed economy, local governments bend over backward to accommodate new businesses. Like the Foxconn deal in Wisconsin. Foxconn will receive a huge state tax credit, and will probably be given exemptions from environmental regulations. Chemical factories in Houston negotiated exemptions from some environmental regulations. Today these factories are venting toxic smoke and have had several explosions. Executives have stated that at some point, they expect the factory to burn down. Nearby, are toxic Superfund sites, which have flooded and the contaminated waters may mix with the local drinking water. Are we going to storm-proof toxic sites?
  5. Housing – As Hurricane waters recede, housing becomes an urgent issue. After Katrina 45,000 personal shelters were needed; Harvey is expected to require at least 30,000 shelters. Katrina-era shelters are worn out and have been disposed of. Newer, high-tech shelters and mini-homes can more be moved, assembled, and stored more quickly. HUD (Housing and Urban Development) usually provides guidance and manages these shelters. If super storms hit every year, America needs a stock of mobile shelters that can be swiftly deployed.
  6. Corruption – Today we focus on the victims, but soon scam artists and swindlers will catch our attention when billions in federal funds are stolen or mishandled. Major corporations and minor thieves will overbill or defraud housing and rebuilding projects. This cycle will repeat in the next disaster. If Climate Change means going from disaster to disaster, it also means going from scam to scam. FEMA’s need to invest in “warehouses” to store portable housing units and supplies for the next disaster, and a standing task force to deal with corruption.
  7. The Long View – Harvey is over, but Hurricane Irma, which has the strongest winds ever recorded, is just beginning. Just behind Irma are tropical storms Jose and Katia. Triple storm? Yep, yet another “only happens once in a century” storm conditions in the last two weeks. Is it time for the Climate Change deniers in Washington to give up discredit changes in the weather or debating who caused Climate Change, and instead identify ways to flood proof our cities? This will cost hundreds of billions of dollars… but so too will just a couple of super storms. TED! Are you taking notes?

Storms are expensive, and big storms are more expensive. So far, Climate Change predictions have been pretty accurate, and we are told that more storms that will cause record damage are on the way. We have treated big storms and big flooding as occasional disasters instead of seasonal events. As a nation, we need to raise the priority of flood prevention. Storm proofing out flood cities will be hugely expensive. But, there is one thing that is many times more expensive… doing nothing!



Posted in Best Practices, Environment, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

More News About MiFID II


In the 21st century, Wall Street has faced repeated crises, each of which each followed the same pattern. At first, the impending problem is ignored by all except a few experts, in specialty publications. A few months before the problem is due to hit, the pace of discussion picks up. Just before “going over the cliff”, the nightly news begins to mention the impending disaster. Soon… if it’s “too big to fail”, “the Great Recession”, or “Cybersecurity”… we all get a new word for our financial vocabulary. Today, we learn about, “MiFID”: our next Financial crisis.    

MiFID or “Markets in Financial Instruments Directive”, is a European directive that started in 2004. This was a European reaction to problems in the Equities Market. Lack of transparency in trading and antiquated fee structures from the last century needed reform. MiFID delivered a laundry list of changes, and set MiFID II into motion, to drive further transparency.

On January 3rd, a key component of MiFID II takes effect. While the rules were released in 2012 and were to take force in 2017, implementation was delayed until January 2018. What are these rules? Today, when institutional investors buy stock, brokers charge a single fee, and research is provided for “free”. After January, brokers must charge separately for executing a stock purchase, and for research. Simple, right? Maybe not.

MiFID II technically applies to just European firms, and even if just Europe was the only market impacted, MiFID could still be the biggest change to the financial world in the 21st century. However, it may not be possible to just change Europe and leave the US market alone. Investment Banks have the largest equity research departments. Not only have I-Banks integrated both markets, but research departments have long since merged, now sharing staff and contracts for market data (Reuters, Bloomberg, Moody’s, etc.).

Separating the costs of these two markets will be difficult, and will create unexpected issues. MiFID demands that research and execution costs are separated, but it gives little guidance on how (or it) the cost of European research is separated from US research and research for other markets, such as China, Africa, the Middle East. Yet, in just a few months, every broker must start billing for research. Here’s why everyone is talking about MiFIDJanuary…

Billing: Just dealing with delivering the mechanics of billing by January is a tall order. Especially when so few firms have settled on billing details. Brokers that tentatively discussed how they will bill released new plans a few weeks later. Some plan to simply split the current fees into execution and research. Others will charge a flat monthly fee for research, while others will add an hourly fee for talking with analysts (perhaps as much as $10,000 an hour). The ongoing changes suggest that few clients like what they have heard.

Transactions: While the big issue is research, once execution fees are paid separately, it will become another argument with clients. Will there be a big enough difference in fees to influence which brokers are used? Brokerage fees today are a tenth of what they were a couple of decades ago and falling fact. Clearly, whatever the announced fees on January 3rd, we can expect them to fall significantly by the end of 2018. With billions of dollars of fees at stake, don’t expect negotiations to be… ahem … genteel.

Research: Today, just the top 15 Investment Banks produce 40,000 research reports every week. Most of these reports have a “buy/sell/hold” recommendation, with “buy” being the overwhelming recommendation. Surveys indicate that less than 1% of reports are actually read. Once research is paid for, how many reports will analysts need? Or, are analysts even getting ANY research that they truly want? In a paid world, the smart money says that research departments will need to shed staff very quickly.    

Awareness: Bloomberg reported that in the last 5 months of 2016 there were just 10 mentions of MiFID II in company earning calls. That rose to 50 mentions in the last 5 weeks. For months, regulators have been rejecting requests for MiFID extensions, so expect mentions to rise into the hundreds over the coming weeks.

The news is our, MiFID is coming. We’re all going to see more stories about MiFID, starting with what some well-known research departments are charging for their work. In just a little bit, the news will shift to the loss of thousands of high paying research jobs. After that… it’s anyone’s guess, but in 2019 I’m betting that the top I-Banks will cut the number of reports and ask their clients what kind of research they want to pay for! That’s my Niccolls worth for today!

Posted in Best Practices, Common Sense Contracting, Decision Making, Unique Ideas | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Countdown To Armageddon: MiFID II Arrives!

Nuclear Explosion

Change is on the way… BIG change! On January 3rd, 2018, MiFID II takes effect. MiFID was designed to make the global markets more transparent, but one seemingly innocent new rule could blow the markets apart. Starting January 3rd, Equity Research must be paid for, instead of being bundled in “trading fees”. Trading fees and research fees must then be separately and explicitly billed. Let’s dive right in and see just how much today’s “free” research is worth!

Equities valued at trillions of dollars are traded around the world. But which stocks should you buy and sell, and when? The answers are found through research! Equity research is a multi-billion industry. Investment banks have huge Equity Research departments. Smaller trading firms have specialized research groups. A few firms even independently sell research. And then, of course, there are global data providers (Bloomberg, Thomson-Reuters, S&P, Moody’s etc.) that sell Research departments all of their data from stock exchanges.

Yet, research is given away to Institutional Investors for free. In exchange, Institutional Investors buy stocks from those brokers that provide research. But when research isn’t for free? PAYING FOR RESEARCH changes everything! Not only will fund managers (and their financial managers), question what research costs and how much is needed, they will question how they are charged. There is, unfortunately, no roadmap.

Every broker will have a different plan on how to charge. Some will bill each transaction with execution and research fees, others will charge a flat monthly rate. A few will further separate billing into written research vs. consulting time with analysts. Better known research departments are expected to charge $5,000 to $10,000 per hour to discuss stock insights with analysts.

MiFID is not a US regulation. It was created by European regulators and only applies to equity sales in Europe. MiFID was created to level the fragmented EU playing field. Since research is given away, but Institutional Investors only buy from brokers with “free” research… this arrangement has the appearance of an “inducement” to do business. When “gifts” worth millions of dollars are given away, it’s not a level field. Alternatively, when research is no longer free, will clients still need the thousands of reports that are created every week?

January 3rd could be a quickly forgotten blip, or it might be the day that all hell breaks loose! Let’s do our own countdown to MiFID II and see what we learn! Starting with…

10… Cost  Some research groups only research a few stocks, others offer global coverage. That translates into different billing rates. Some will be visibly higher, some considerably lower, and some will be more difficult to compare. On day one, expect client feedback to contain a lot of negative comments about overcharging, and demands for remediation. The rest of 2018 could be a firefight over rates. Billing will be renegotiated, and research products will be re-aligned to match client demand. Expect changes in the number of research providers and their staff by mid-year.

9… Competition  Institutional Investors manage trading disruption risks by working with multiple brokers. But after January 3rd, multiple brokers cause duplicate research fees. If you use 5 brokers, are they each providing unique research or are two or more providing the same information? Are you willing to pay for duplicate research? Does every broker give you value for each research Euro?” Or Dollar? Speaking of which…

8… US vs. EU Clients  MiFID is a European regulation, but global clients will quickly ask, “If European clients know their costs, why can’t I?” Wall Street is very aware of MiFID. Clients will demand voluntary adoption of MiFID billing rules. Don’t want to provide it? Are you willing to bet that Washington will provide a better standard? If your firm follows MiFID today, you might have a single U.S. and European rate. But if you wait, you might be required to follow separate U.S. and European billing rules. And how will you bill for research in China (and “other” areas)?

7… US vs. EU Regulators  Most global firms consolidated their local research offices into a central operation years ago. But MiFID complicates how global operations work.  It’s more than just how they allocate billing. EU research must be produced by EU registered analysts, just as US research publications require FINRA registered analysts. Managing analyst registration and duplications in expertise is another task that MiFID adds to global research. As MiFID regulations continue to be written, more conflicts will arise between US and EU offices, raising costs.

6… Duplication  Billions are spent on research, but what is it really worth? A study from Reuters found that the top 15 Investment Banks produce 40,000 research reports every week, but clients read less than 1% of these documents. Even with this huge number of research reports, not every stock is fully covered. Research is overly focused on the “top stocks”. Thirty analysts cover HSBC, with 50 covering Apple. The top 3 or 4 analysts might have original insights about a stock. But what about the least insightful analysts? Fund managers don’t read 99% of reports. How many will they pay for?

5… Bias  The Financial Times of London stated, “The “Buy/Sell/Hold” headline is both heavily regulated and more or less worthless.” If research reports are sales documents, we expect them to over-hype equities, just as they do today. For example, McKinsey, the world’s largest consulting firm, reported that earning growth estimates are 100% overstated. When research is no longer free, will accuracy matter? But accurate research would produce fewer buy recommendations, and lower trading volumes?

4… Indexing  Index Funds and passive investing are now 30% of total equity fund assets and growing. Index funds, outperformed 80% of actively managed funds, without traditional research. As more money flows into Indexed Funds, fewer traditional trades must absorb research costs. Either fees will rise or costs must fall.

3… Whale Hunt  The more a stock is traded, the more coverage it receives. Top firms are over-covered and small cap firms (with low trading volumes) lack coverage. Small cap firms rarely produce the revenue needed to pay for research coverage. However, research departments that are able to dramatically lower the cost of research can transform small cap from a financial burden to a profitable new market.

2…D.I.Y.  According to the Financial Times, Vanguard expects to pay $5 million in research fees in 2018. Another firm that is a mere 10% of Vanguard’s size, but with more complex research needs, expects to pay $10 million. That’s enough to start a research department. It is inevitable that some Institutional Investors will simply write their own research. How many will “defect” from the current system?

1… Market Data Services  We’ve only discussed brokers and Institutional Investors. If just a portion of these changes take place… the breakup of global research, fewer researchers, changing research products… market data providers must quickly pivot, and develop a new research model with fewer subscribers and smaller budgets.

Launch…  It’s anyone’s guess what research will look like in 2019. But in 2018, research quality must rise, costs must fall, and operations must be flexible enough to deal with ongoing changes. Artificial Intelligence is the key technology to offset MiFID changes. AI can write the primary research, allowing high-end analysts to identify new trends and provide original insight. Research departments that do not aggressively adopt AI will lack the resources to produce the quality research clients demand, or they will simply price themselves out of the market.

Tough times are ahead for Equity Research. MiFID is still open to interpretation, but it has already triggered seismic changes. Research departments will soon struggle to reinvent themselves, with fewer analysts, reduced budgets, and a mandate to create unique research. Not every research department will survive. But a few of today’s research departments will aggressively adapt Artificial Intelligence and other new technologies that transform the cost of research and define the next stage in Equity Research.


Posted in Best Practices, Common Sense Contracting, Decision Making, Employment, Improvement, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment