Posts filed under “Corporate Management”
One of the first things attorneys learn about cross-examination is to look for the witness’s motives. Its not that most people are outright liars — though too many are — its that people are often unaware how much their own biases and self interest color their views. In the marketplace of ideas (including litigation), the goal is for the best, most logical ideas to win out.
That’s why its so interesting when in the corporate world, a debate breaks out over a scientific concept. The motivations of all parties are to preserve their business model, income stream and profitibility. However, out of this debate, we may potentially develop resolution on a disputed theory or notion.
For quite some time now, the debate over Global Warming has primarily been asymmetrical: The bulk of scientists on one side, versus Carbon producers (Oil companies, Auto manufacturers, Energy producers) on the other.
Which leads us to today’s issue: Which corporate interest might be on the other side of the debate from the Global Warming deniers ? That question is indirectly explored in the Sunday Times: The Real Riddle of Changing Weather: How Safe Is My Home?
Here’s an excerpt:
"The bigger threat to property is the possibility of more frequent and increasingly vicious storms that could propel already encroaching waters onto the shore, could dump larger amounts of precipitation, and could lash glassy skyscrapers and crumbling tenements.
And even before that happens, real estate values in low-lying areas could erode as heightened awareness of global warming draws attention not only to long-term exposure to storms but also to near-term damage from severe storms that could happen regardless of any long-term warming trend — like the major hurricane that experts say is overdue in New York City.
One Manhattan real estate agent said the fear was already weighing on some clients’ minds. “After Katrina, they saw how ineffective the U.S. is at holding back water compared to some other places, and it has made some people concerned,” said the agent, Tom Hemann of Brown Harris Stevens, who sells downtown. He said last month’s gloomy report on global warming prompted four former clients who had bought downtown to voice concern about living in low-lying neighborhoods.
Several interest come to mind right away: Properrty owners such as REITs are one; Home builders with substantial land holdings are another. Architects and city planners are also weighing in; Real Estate agencies, too. As previously noted, however, the National Association of Realtors (NAR) has been too busy spinning the housing market. They have yet to look into how this issue might impact its membership.
But the biggest potential corporate interest is without a doubt, the Insurance companies:
"Among insurers, all of whom factor climate change into their risk assessments, some like Allstate are already refusing to renew homeowners’ policies in the eight downstate counties (including metropolitan New York) most vulnerable to hurricanes and other major storms that could proliferate in a warming climate. (Allstate continues to insure individual co-op and condo units.)
“When you have trillion-dollar exposure, it doesn’t take much bad weather to cause extensive damage,” said L. James Valverde Jr., the vice president for economics and risk management at the Insurance Information Institute, a trade group based in Manhattan. “That’s really on the mind of the industry. When you’ve got this kind of concentration of people and property in a very important sector of the country, the potential for economic and insured loss really is great.”
So far, the debate on Climate Change has been between two very different sets of participants. However, the debate on Global Warming is now entering a new phase: Corporate versus Coprorate. Should get interesting, to say the least.
Map courtesy of NYTimes
The Real Riddle of Changing Weather: How Safe Is My Home?
TERI KARUSH ROGERS
NYT, March 11, 2007
Blame the professors: Just as the option backdating scandal started with academic researchers noting mathematical anomalies, so too might the next brewing scandal: the I/B/E/S Analyst ratings back dating scandal.
According to a Barron’s article by Bill Alpert (buried on page 39), several professors have discovered what they describe as 54,729 non-random, ex-post changes out of 280,463 observations — a little over 19.5% of analyst recs (abstract below):
"The professors found
almost 55,000 changes that had been made in the I/B/E/S database of
stock-analyst recommendations maintained by Thomson, the Stamford,
Conn., firm that is a leading vendor of financial data. The alterations
made Wall Street’s record of recommendations look more conservative –
hiding Strong Buy recommendations and adding Sell recommendations from
1993 to 2002. That is a period for which Wall Street has drawn heat and
government sanctions for touting Internet bubble stocks.
As a result of the changes, the stock picks shown in
the database would have created annual gains that were 15% to 42%
better than the originally recorded recommendations, using a trading
strategy based on analysts’ recommendations."
The firms were the most significant participants in the data backdating were also the firms who had the closest relationship between banking and research and were the hardest hit by the Spitzer enforced settlement.
From page four of the academic working paper notes exactly how significant this was:
"Why do the historical data now look different than they once did? The contents of the database changed at some point between September 2002 and May 2004, a period that not only coincided with close scrutiny of Wall Street research by regulators, Congress, and the courts, but also saw a substantial downsizing of research departments at most major brokerage firms in the U.S.
The paper outlines four types of data changes: 1) non-random removal of analyst names from historic recommendations (anonymizations); 2) the addition of new records not previously part of the database; 3) the removal of records that had been in the data; and 4) alterations to historical recommendation levels.
The net result of this was to make many specific trading strategies appear better in retrospect than they actually were. Buying top rated stocks and shorting lowest rated stocks, based on the changed data, now perform 15.9% to 42.4% better on the 2004 revised data than on the 2002 tape, the professors state.