今日已經係我哋喺意大利嘅第十一日喇。真係唔數都唔知假期原來已經過咗一半！如果時間可以停頓就好了。
點都好，我哋而家喺前往那不勒斯嘅火車上，車程共五個鐘，家陣先過咗區區一小時，所以我先咁得閒喺度寫吓嘢。
諗返轉頭，其實呢個假期都好充實，節奏雖然無平時咁緊湊，始終都係渡蜜月嘛，但係每日都依然可以由早上玩到食晚飯，真係無乜時間寫嘢。哈哈...除非我唔睇報紙囉，但係旅行完脫晒節我又唔想喎。
究竟我哋去咗邊度玩呢？
第一到第四晚，我哋係住喺威尼斯。
第五晚，我哋就住喺羅蜜歐同茱麗葉嘅故鄉維羅納。
之後三晚我哋就去咗意大利旺角-博洛尼亞。又去吓帕爾馬同摩德納買吓嘢咁樣。
然後我哋就去咗時尚之都米蘭朝聖！好潮之餘仲買咗好多嘢tim！
就係咁，十日就過去了。意大利真係正呀！嘢又好食，又多嘢睇，又多嘢買。嗰種歐洲中古嘅感覺同埋現代感喺唔同嘅城市都有不同嘅表達，真係想寫出嚟都唔得。
當然，以上種種，換來嘅當然係甜蜜嘅回憶啦。:)
2011年7月15日星期五
How one company got outside money -- and still kept control
以下係一篇有關於一個我很喜歡的網頁的成功故事
原來今天已經賣了盤了
共勉之……
Owned and Operated
How one company got outside money -- and still kept control.
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB120533633272930493-lMyQjAxMTIxMDE1NTMxMzU2Wj.html
MARCH 17, 2008.
By MANEET AHUJA
The founders of Vault Inc. have made a career out of giving advice. They got their start writing guidebooks for students about colleges and internships, and later branched off into helping job seekers.
But entrepreneurs can also learn a lesson from these partners -- about handling investors.
As their business grew and changed, the Vault team sought out venture capital a number of times. But they made sure they didn't lose control of the company along the way. They were careful to seek out like-minded investors who didn't want them to change their business plan. The founders also structured the venture deals so that they ended up with the majority of board seats. And when they got the chance, they bought back some investors' stakes -- leaving the founders in near-complete control of the company.
These lessons are critical for small companies. Often, up-and-coming firms are so hungry for capital that they sell too much of the farm too fast. And then they discover that the new owners of the company have very different priorities -- and have no qualms about imposing them.
"Some less-reputable VC firms have been known to put pressure on start-ups to grow faster, expand into what they believe to be more marketable business lines and in some cases seek control when things do not work out," says Jason Mendelson, managing director of early-stage venture firm Foundry Group LLC.
Vault got its start in 1996. The founders, Mark Oldman and brothers Samer and Hussam Hamadeh, had written a number of best-selling guidebooks for students, such as "America's Top Internships" and "The Princeton Review Business School Companion." Now they wanted to target a new market. Using employee surveys, they would compile insider profiles of companies that job hunters could use for research.
"There was no real way to get inside scoops on industries and employers unless you knew someone in the field -- we wanted everyone to have that edge going into the interview," says the 39-year-old Mr. Oldman, senior vice president for enterprise licensing. Producing the guides, he adds, was a way to "avoid the rat race by writing about it."
The partners raised $200,000 from friends and family and set up shop in a New York apartment. But less than two years later, they realized they needed to change their plan of attack. The Internet was coming into its own, and they decided they needed to exploit the new medium. So, they started hunting for venture capital to build up their fledgling Web site and hire staff.
The experience wasn't encouraging. Some potential investors simply didn't believe in the idea; others wanted significant changes before they handed over capital. For instance, some wanted Vault to focus on providing company information for the business-to-business market -- a big buzzword at the time -- instead of consumers. Still others thought the partners should sell space for job postings instead of offering insider information.
The partners decided to hold out, using revenue from their existing products to keep them afloat. "Luckily, we were never in a desperate position that required us to accept money at any price and on any terms," says Hussam Hamadeh, 37, senior vice president for e-commerce.
He adds, "As with any start-up, we had many VCs and angels who rejected our business plan. You simply have to keep executing on a model, bringing in clients and revenues and generating growth, and eventually, some financing sources will believe in you."
When those sources eventually showed up, some of them weren't ordinary venture firms: They were divisions of large corporations. These investors typically take a different approach than conventional venture firms, says Mr. Hamadeh. They usually aren't as interested in quickly building up firms and selling them off, and they don't demand onerous amounts of control. Instead, he says, they treat the investments more like partnerships, looking for ways that their different businesses can work together.
For instance, Mr. Hamadeh says one of the venture deals was with Hollinger Capital, an arm of media company Hollinger International Inc. As part of the investment, he says, the company provided Vault with ad space in some of its newspapers and online properties. (Hollinger managers at the time of the deal couldn't be reached for comment. The company's current leadership couldn't confirm Mr. Hamadeh's account and declined to comment.)
"There was more patience, more collaboration, and sharing of ideas both ways," Mr. Hamadeh says. "We were not being as dictated to as [with] a standard financial VC. We were not replaced or threatened with replacement as executives."
Moreover, by not allowing any single investor to own a majority stake, Vault's founders ended up with an unusual amount of control over the company. Through two rounds of financing in 1999 and 2000 -- which brought in a total of $20 million -- the Vault team insisted on deals that gave them the majority of board seats.
"We met many VCs who refused to accept our requirement that we keep control, but we refused to take the next step with those VCs," says Samer Hamadeh, 38, chief operating officer.
This arrangement helped the founders make quick decisions and implement new ideas virtually immediately. When some of their marketing spending wasn't generating returns, for instance, they were able to cut it rapidly -- instead of debating the idea with outside investors.
They were also able to ditch those investors -- and take even firmer control of the company -- when they had the opportunity. Following the tech bust in 2001, one of Vault's shareholders approached the company about buying out his position on the cheap so that he could claim a tax loss for the year. The trio jumped at the offer. They even found other shareholders who were happy to take the tax loss rather than wait for the industry to bounce back.
Finally, last September, the partners decided it was time to give up control. Over the past few years, Vault had started partnering with companies to supply official inside information for the site, and began to offer career services such as message boards and résumé reviews. The company had also broadened the site's focus to include information for students.
But the founders wanted to take the company global, and expand its services even further. So, they sold a majority stake to a media-focused private-equity firm, Veronis Suhler Stevenson. Eric Sorenson, former president of MSNBC, came on board as chief executive officer, and Eric Ober, former president of CBS, headed up a new effort: providing insider recruiting videos about companies and schools across America.
"We needed the next level of capital funding to transition into a global brand, and VSS shared our vision," says Samer Hamadeh. "Together we're creating Vault 2.0."
—Ms. Ahuja is a producer at CNBC. She can be reached at reports@wsj.com.
原來今天已經賣了盤了
共勉之……
Owned and Operated
How one company got outside money -- and still kept control.
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB120533633272930493-lMyQjAxMTIxMDE1NTMxMzU2Wj.html
MARCH 17, 2008.
By MANEET AHUJA
The founders of Vault Inc. have made a career out of giving advice. They got their start writing guidebooks for students about colleges and internships, and later branched off into helping job seekers.
But entrepreneurs can also learn a lesson from these partners -- about handling investors.
As their business grew and changed, the Vault team sought out venture capital a number of times. But they made sure they didn't lose control of the company along the way. They were careful to seek out like-minded investors who didn't want them to change their business plan. The founders also structured the venture deals so that they ended up with the majority of board seats. And when they got the chance, they bought back some investors' stakes -- leaving the founders in near-complete control of the company.
These lessons are critical for small companies. Often, up-and-coming firms are so hungry for capital that they sell too much of the farm too fast. And then they discover that the new owners of the company have very different priorities -- and have no qualms about imposing them.
"Some less-reputable VC firms have been known to put pressure on start-ups to grow faster, expand into what they believe to be more marketable business lines and in some cases seek control when things do not work out," says Jason Mendelson, managing director of early-stage venture firm Foundry Group LLC.
Vault got its start in 1996. The founders, Mark Oldman and brothers Samer and Hussam Hamadeh, had written a number of best-selling guidebooks for students, such as "America's Top Internships" and "The Princeton Review Business School Companion." Now they wanted to target a new market. Using employee surveys, they would compile insider profiles of companies that job hunters could use for research.
"There was no real way to get inside scoops on industries and employers unless you knew someone in the field -- we wanted everyone to have that edge going into the interview," says the 39-year-old Mr. Oldman, senior vice president for enterprise licensing. Producing the guides, he adds, was a way to "avoid the rat race by writing about it."
The partners raised $200,000 from friends and family and set up shop in a New York apartment. But less than two years later, they realized they needed to change their plan of attack. The Internet was coming into its own, and they decided they needed to exploit the new medium. So, they started hunting for venture capital to build up their fledgling Web site and hire staff.
The experience wasn't encouraging. Some potential investors simply didn't believe in the idea; others wanted significant changes before they handed over capital. For instance, some wanted Vault to focus on providing company information for the business-to-business market -- a big buzzword at the time -- instead of consumers. Still others thought the partners should sell space for job postings instead of offering insider information.
The partners decided to hold out, using revenue from their existing products to keep them afloat. "Luckily, we were never in a desperate position that required us to accept money at any price and on any terms," says Hussam Hamadeh, 37, senior vice president for e-commerce.
He adds, "As with any start-up, we had many VCs and angels who rejected our business plan. You simply have to keep executing on a model, bringing in clients and revenues and generating growth, and eventually, some financing sources will believe in you."
When those sources eventually showed up, some of them weren't ordinary venture firms: They were divisions of large corporations. These investors typically take a different approach than conventional venture firms, says Mr. Hamadeh. They usually aren't as interested in quickly building up firms and selling them off, and they don't demand onerous amounts of control. Instead, he says, they treat the investments more like partnerships, looking for ways that their different businesses can work together.
For instance, Mr. Hamadeh says one of the venture deals was with Hollinger Capital, an arm of media company Hollinger International Inc. As part of the investment, he says, the company provided Vault with ad space in some of its newspapers and online properties. (Hollinger managers at the time of the deal couldn't be reached for comment. The company's current leadership couldn't confirm Mr. Hamadeh's account and declined to comment.)
"There was more patience, more collaboration, and sharing of ideas both ways," Mr. Hamadeh says. "We were not being as dictated to as [with] a standard financial VC. We were not replaced or threatened with replacement as executives."
Moreover, by not allowing any single investor to own a majority stake, Vault's founders ended up with an unusual amount of control over the company. Through two rounds of financing in 1999 and 2000 -- which brought in a total of $20 million -- the Vault team insisted on deals that gave them the majority of board seats.
"We met many VCs who refused to accept our requirement that we keep control, but we refused to take the next step with those VCs," says Samer Hamadeh, 38, chief operating officer.
This arrangement helped the founders make quick decisions and implement new ideas virtually immediately. When some of their marketing spending wasn't generating returns, for instance, they were able to cut it rapidly -- instead of debating the idea with outside investors.
They were also able to ditch those investors -- and take even firmer control of the company -- when they had the opportunity. Following the tech bust in 2001, one of Vault's shareholders approached the company about buying out his position on the cheap so that he could claim a tax loss for the year. The trio jumped at the offer. They even found other shareholders who were happy to take the tax loss rather than wait for the industry to bounce back.
Finally, last September, the partners decided it was time to give up control. Over the past few years, Vault had started partnering with companies to supply official inside information for the site, and began to offer career services such as message boards and résumé reviews. The company had also broadened the site's focus to include information for students.
But the founders wanted to take the company global, and expand its services even further. So, they sold a majority stake to a media-focused private-equity firm, Veronis Suhler Stevenson. Eric Sorenson, former president of MSNBC, came on board as chief executive officer, and Eric Ober, former president of CBS, headed up a new effort: providing insider recruiting videos about companies and schools across America.
"We needed the next level of capital funding to transition into a global brand, and VSS shared our vision," says Samer Hamadeh. "Together we're creating Vault 2.0."
—Ms. Ahuja is a producer at CNBC. She can be reached at reports@wsj.com.
2011年5月4日星期三
HSBC chief’s quiet revolution
HSBC chief’s quiet revolution
By James Quinn, Sunday TelegraphApril 30, 2011
http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/HSBC+chief+quiet+revolution/4704599/story.html
On the early evening conference call that followed the rushed announcement endorsing Stuart Gulliver as the new chief executive of HSBC last September, the man himself said relatively little.
Having been anointed only hours earlier in the pages of a national newspaper, the then-investment banking chief was keen not to rock the boat after a tumultuous few days for the bank. Weeks of leaks and counter-briefings had exposed divisions among senior management at HSBC and laid bare the arcane way in which the bank operated.
Asked whether his fiefdom would be beefed up as part of his new reign, Gulliver coyly said only that there were “no plans” to change the 30-to-40-per-cent profit contribution of his global banking and markets division and that the focus remained “identical” in terms of shifting profits from the developed world to emerging markets.
“The processes Mike Geoghegan and Stephen Green have started, Douglas Flint and I will continue to execute,” said Gulliver, doffing his cap to his and new chairman Flint’s outgoing predecessors.
But on the morning of May 11, in the confines of an auditorium in the Canary Wharf skyscraper that is the bank’s global headquarters, Gulliver will change all that.
In an almost unprecedented step for HSBC, the 51-year-old will set out his strategy for the future of the bank, ending practices brought in by Geoghegan and Green and attempting to bring a focus to some of the global giant’s sprawling activities.
Bar the strategy day hastily organized in November 2007 in response to dissident shareholder Knight Vinke’s aggressive actions, Gulliver’s full-day event will be the first of its kind, telling investors, analysts and journalists alike how he plans to bring a new focus to the bank’s global operations while delivering profits that match the lofty price/earnings multiple on which its shares trade.
To gain an understanding of his priorities, one only needs to look at some of his comments on the subject, following the release of the bank’s full-year results at the end of February.
He spoke of a “very disciplined approach to allocation of capital” and the fact that the bank’s cost-efficiency ratio was “totally unacceptable.”
In essence, cost control will play a central role in what Gulliver has to say on May 11 and it will be key to the bank’s financial performance. Gulliver will tell investors that he regrets that the bank has not made it a priority earlier.
Instead, attempting to sound a warmer tone with shareholders than Geoghegan – who was known for his gruff monosyllabic responses – he will set out the ways in which the new management team, notably the chief financial officer, Iain MacKay, will evaluate business performance.
One of the key areas for cost-cutting will be in the U.K. and in particular the bank’s retail operations. The Sunday Telegraph understands that an in-depth focus on U.K. retail has led to findings that show a large element of cost could be stripped out, both from the branch network and head office and central operations.
One area under discussion is believed to be separating out U.K. retail’s head office staff from 8 Canada Square, the type of move that other U.K. retail banks did years ago.
Not only would it strip out cost, by moving the staff – believed to total several hundred – to a less expensive part of the country, but it would also make the business more stand-alone were there to be a need to divest it, either as a result of the Independent Commission on Banking or as a result of falling returns.
Certain investors believe that HSBC could sell a tranche of its domestic branches – one went so far as to suggest 500 – which would certainly strip out a significant amount of cost and deliver capital that could be reinvested elsewhere.
Whether Gulliver will be quite so radical remains to be seen. However, it appears clear that the U.K. will be firmly on his radar.
In assessing each of HSBC’s varied global businesses, it is understood that Gulliver will adopt a similar approach to that taken by another new incumbent chief executive, Bob Diamond at Barclays.
Just as Diamond told investors that all Barclays businesses must stand on their own merits in terms of delivering on cost of capital, Gulliver is expected to enforce what is essentially an up-or-out mantra. Each individual business, he will say, must either contribute or risk being shut down or sold.
One former senior company figure said Gulliver will “identify businesses which are not earning the group’s cost of capital and divide them into those which are capable of being reinvigorated to get over this hurdle and those where the prospects are poor, with the latter being sold”.
In part, the move is an obvious response to the regulatory pressure on capital requirements, meaning that such banks as HSBC can no longer carry under-performing businesses. However, this move could be met with cynicism by some, particularly given Gulliver’s 21-year stint at the bank and the fact that he has held a senior management role for much of that period.
One investor spoken to by The Sunday Telegraph said that if Gulliver had never thought of centralizing costs and cutting out under-performing businesses over the 20-odd years he’s been at the firm, “he doesn’t deserve to be there now”.
That comment highlights in one breath the problem Gulliver faces. Unlike his opposite numbers at Lloyds and the Royal Bank of Scotland – Antonio Horta-Osario and Stephen Hester – he has grown up in HSBC’s culture, and has taken part in many of the decisions that find the bank where it is today.
As such, he cannot deliver a strategy review that will produce a total U-turn for the bank, as Horta-Osario may do at Lloyds, but rather has to build on what Geoghegan and Green accomplished.
Part of the strategy day will focus on a set of financial targets, which, although somewhat dry to the outside world, will please the investor community as they will be targets on which the new management team can clearly be measured.
Gulliver has already hinted that he hopes to achieve a dividend payout ratio of 40-to-60 per cent. But in addition, Gareth Hunt at Investec believes there will be the introduction of a return on equity target of between 12-to-15 per cent. Gulliver’s return on cost will be central to achieving this, as will Asia, Hunt argues, because of its importance “as a driver of group return on equity.”
Other financial parameters to be put in place will be a capital adequacy range, which most analysts appear to believe will fall in the 9.5-10.5 per cent area, and a cost income ratio of 48-52 per cent. There are some who will wish Gulliver to be more radical and focus less on targets and more on actual acquisitions.
Simon Maughan, analyst at MF Global, argues that on a country-by-country basis, Gulliver needs to focus on those areas where HSBC can truly make a difference. “For a long time it’s pressed ahead with Brazil, but it’s maybe too late, and the wrong point in the cycle, for it to push on there.”
He pinpoints Mexico as an area where HSBC could make inroads, as well as Poland and Turkey.
On the sale of the U.S. credit- and store-card business – for which Gulliver is said to have hired JP Morgan – he says it possibly makes sense but argues the money should be reinvested in emerging market acquisitions, not in U.S. corporate lending. “I’d like to see him buy up the minorities in Hang Seng, even though it’s pretty expensive. But the cash flow from that alone would reap dividends,” Maughan said.
Investors are similarly of the view that Gulliver should be bold when it comes to divestments and acquisitions.
One discussed the prospect of a sale of the old Midland Marine business in New York state, which encompasses several hundred branches across the state, from its headquarters in Buffalo.
This could make sense, given the loss-making U.S. retail business is believed to fund the profitable commercial division, and one top 10 investor suggested Gulliver may also signal an end to the bank’s push to attract the Asian immigrants on the east and west coasts, which is thought to have been costly and yielded few returns. As part of this, one person suggested the famous “world’s local bank” tag line may begin to be retired, in favour of a newer, more appropriate slogan that recognizes the fact that HSBC cannot be all things to all people in all countries.
Gulliver’s geographic strategy will very much focus on those countries in which HSBC can seize or maintain a leadership position, and the perception of operating in almost every country may not be the best one to promote.
One issue which will not be high on the agenda, however, will be the bank’s domicile. Sources with knowledge of the situation told The Sunday Telegraph that Gulliver will do all that he can during the investor day to attempt to deflect questions on whether the bank should remain in London for tax purposes, or move back to Hong Kong, which it left 19 years ago. Although it remains a “live” issue, with the bank’s board assessing it this year as part of its stated three-yearly review, investors will want to hear about operational strategy rather than tax strategy.
A company watcher said: “It’s about exploiting the operational performance of the review, and I would be amazed if Gulliver wants this to be a distracting element.” Instead, when asked, as investors are bound to, he will just repeat the company’s stated policy, that it is concerned by U.K. regulation and the fact the country appears to be moving farther down a route of anti-bank regulation than many of HSBC’s possible domiciles.
The key issue will be execution and the desire by Gulliver to actually live up to the promises he makes on May 11.
One person who met Gulliver last month told The Sunday Telegraph: “Stuart’s ambitious and isn’t going to want to fall into the trap of not doing anything. I think he recognizes they’ve fallen behind somewhat.”
Leigh Goodwin, analyst at Citigroup, agrees: “I think there’s an issue around how quickly they’re likely to go, which is part of the frustration with investors. For all the talk about growth, etc., when you look at group level there isn’t any top-line growth, and so Gulliver will want to show he can execute his new strategy.”
However, he warns those looking for Gulliver to be radical to think again. “I don’t think it’s HSBC’s style to be revolutionary. In a funny sort of way, the fact they’ve been perceived to have a good crisis is a problem,” he says, pointing out that as a result Gulliver does not have the mandate for total change that some of his rivals have been given.
That said, whatever Gulliver says on May 11, investors and analysts will be watching him closely, to gain not only the measure of the man who is now running one of the world’s largest banks but to see whether he will sail the good ship HSBC into clearer waters, waters that make it more of a profitable bank in the areas it chooses to operate in from now on.
© Copyright (c) The Montreal Gazette
By James Quinn, Sunday TelegraphApril 30, 2011
http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/HSBC+chief+quiet+revolution/4704599/story.html
On the early evening conference call that followed the rushed announcement endorsing Stuart Gulliver as the new chief executive of HSBC last September, the man himself said relatively little.
Having been anointed only hours earlier in the pages of a national newspaper, the then-investment banking chief was keen not to rock the boat after a tumultuous few days for the bank. Weeks of leaks and counter-briefings had exposed divisions among senior management at HSBC and laid bare the arcane way in which the bank operated.
Asked whether his fiefdom would be beefed up as part of his new reign, Gulliver coyly said only that there were “no plans” to change the 30-to-40-per-cent profit contribution of his global banking and markets division and that the focus remained “identical” in terms of shifting profits from the developed world to emerging markets.
“The processes Mike Geoghegan and Stephen Green have started, Douglas Flint and I will continue to execute,” said Gulliver, doffing his cap to his and new chairman Flint’s outgoing predecessors.
But on the morning of May 11, in the confines of an auditorium in the Canary Wharf skyscraper that is the bank’s global headquarters, Gulliver will change all that.
In an almost unprecedented step for HSBC, the 51-year-old will set out his strategy for the future of the bank, ending practices brought in by Geoghegan and Green and attempting to bring a focus to some of the global giant’s sprawling activities.
Bar the strategy day hastily organized in November 2007 in response to dissident shareholder Knight Vinke’s aggressive actions, Gulliver’s full-day event will be the first of its kind, telling investors, analysts and journalists alike how he plans to bring a new focus to the bank’s global operations while delivering profits that match the lofty price/earnings multiple on which its shares trade.
To gain an understanding of his priorities, one only needs to look at some of his comments on the subject, following the release of the bank’s full-year results at the end of February.
He spoke of a “very disciplined approach to allocation of capital” and the fact that the bank’s cost-efficiency ratio was “totally unacceptable.”
In essence, cost control will play a central role in what Gulliver has to say on May 11 and it will be key to the bank’s financial performance. Gulliver will tell investors that he regrets that the bank has not made it a priority earlier.
Instead, attempting to sound a warmer tone with shareholders than Geoghegan – who was known for his gruff monosyllabic responses – he will set out the ways in which the new management team, notably the chief financial officer, Iain MacKay, will evaluate business performance.
One of the key areas for cost-cutting will be in the U.K. and in particular the bank’s retail operations. The Sunday Telegraph understands that an in-depth focus on U.K. retail has led to findings that show a large element of cost could be stripped out, both from the branch network and head office and central operations.
One area under discussion is believed to be separating out U.K. retail’s head office staff from 8 Canada Square, the type of move that other U.K. retail banks did years ago.
Not only would it strip out cost, by moving the staff – believed to total several hundred – to a less expensive part of the country, but it would also make the business more stand-alone were there to be a need to divest it, either as a result of the Independent Commission on Banking or as a result of falling returns.
Certain investors believe that HSBC could sell a tranche of its domestic branches – one went so far as to suggest 500 – which would certainly strip out a significant amount of cost and deliver capital that could be reinvested elsewhere.
Whether Gulliver will be quite so radical remains to be seen. However, it appears clear that the U.K. will be firmly on his radar.
In assessing each of HSBC’s varied global businesses, it is understood that Gulliver will adopt a similar approach to that taken by another new incumbent chief executive, Bob Diamond at Barclays.
Just as Diamond told investors that all Barclays businesses must stand on their own merits in terms of delivering on cost of capital, Gulliver is expected to enforce what is essentially an up-or-out mantra. Each individual business, he will say, must either contribute or risk being shut down or sold.
One former senior company figure said Gulliver will “identify businesses which are not earning the group’s cost of capital and divide them into those which are capable of being reinvigorated to get over this hurdle and those where the prospects are poor, with the latter being sold”.
In part, the move is an obvious response to the regulatory pressure on capital requirements, meaning that such banks as HSBC can no longer carry under-performing businesses. However, this move could be met with cynicism by some, particularly given Gulliver’s 21-year stint at the bank and the fact that he has held a senior management role for much of that period.
One investor spoken to by The Sunday Telegraph said that if Gulliver had never thought of centralizing costs and cutting out under-performing businesses over the 20-odd years he’s been at the firm, “he doesn’t deserve to be there now”.
That comment highlights in one breath the problem Gulliver faces. Unlike his opposite numbers at Lloyds and the Royal Bank of Scotland – Antonio Horta-Osario and Stephen Hester – he has grown up in HSBC’s culture, and has taken part in many of the decisions that find the bank where it is today.
As such, he cannot deliver a strategy review that will produce a total U-turn for the bank, as Horta-Osario may do at Lloyds, but rather has to build on what Geoghegan and Green accomplished.
Part of the strategy day will focus on a set of financial targets, which, although somewhat dry to the outside world, will please the investor community as they will be targets on which the new management team can clearly be measured.
Gulliver has already hinted that he hopes to achieve a dividend payout ratio of 40-to-60 per cent. But in addition, Gareth Hunt at Investec believes there will be the introduction of a return on equity target of between 12-to-15 per cent. Gulliver’s return on cost will be central to achieving this, as will Asia, Hunt argues, because of its importance “as a driver of group return on equity.”
Other financial parameters to be put in place will be a capital adequacy range, which most analysts appear to believe will fall in the 9.5-10.5 per cent area, and a cost income ratio of 48-52 per cent. There are some who will wish Gulliver to be more radical and focus less on targets and more on actual acquisitions.
Simon Maughan, analyst at MF Global, argues that on a country-by-country basis, Gulliver needs to focus on those areas where HSBC can truly make a difference. “For a long time it’s pressed ahead with Brazil, but it’s maybe too late, and the wrong point in the cycle, for it to push on there.”
He pinpoints Mexico as an area where HSBC could make inroads, as well as Poland and Turkey.
On the sale of the U.S. credit- and store-card business – for which Gulliver is said to have hired JP Morgan – he says it possibly makes sense but argues the money should be reinvested in emerging market acquisitions, not in U.S. corporate lending. “I’d like to see him buy up the minorities in Hang Seng, even though it’s pretty expensive. But the cash flow from that alone would reap dividends,” Maughan said.
Investors are similarly of the view that Gulliver should be bold when it comes to divestments and acquisitions.
One discussed the prospect of a sale of the old Midland Marine business in New York state, which encompasses several hundred branches across the state, from its headquarters in Buffalo.
This could make sense, given the loss-making U.S. retail business is believed to fund the profitable commercial division, and one top 10 investor suggested Gulliver may also signal an end to the bank’s push to attract the Asian immigrants on the east and west coasts, which is thought to have been costly and yielded few returns. As part of this, one person suggested the famous “world’s local bank” tag line may begin to be retired, in favour of a newer, more appropriate slogan that recognizes the fact that HSBC cannot be all things to all people in all countries.
Gulliver’s geographic strategy will very much focus on those countries in which HSBC can seize or maintain a leadership position, and the perception of operating in almost every country may not be the best one to promote.
One issue which will not be high on the agenda, however, will be the bank’s domicile. Sources with knowledge of the situation told The Sunday Telegraph that Gulliver will do all that he can during the investor day to attempt to deflect questions on whether the bank should remain in London for tax purposes, or move back to Hong Kong, which it left 19 years ago. Although it remains a “live” issue, with the bank’s board assessing it this year as part of its stated three-yearly review, investors will want to hear about operational strategy rather than tax strategy.
A company watcher said: “It’s about exploiting the operational performance of the review, and I would be amazed if Gulliver wants this to be a distracting element.” Instead, when asked, as investors are bound to, he will just repeat the company’s stated policy, that it is concerned by U.K. regulation and the fact the country appears to be moving farther down a route of anti-bank regulation than many of HSBC’s possible domiciles.
The key issue will be execution and the desire by Gulliver to actually live up to the promises he makes on May 11.
One person who met Gulliver last month told The Sunday Telegraph: “Stuart’s ambitious and isn’t going to want to fall into the trap of not doing anything. I think he recognizes they’ve fallen behind somewhat.”
Leigh Goodwin, analyst at Citigroup, agrees: “I think there’s an issue around how quickly they’re likely to go, which is part of the frustration with investors. For all the talk about growth, etc., when you look at group level there isn’t any top-line growth, and so Gulliver will want to show he can execute his new strategy.”
However, he warns those looking for Gulliver to be radical to think again. “I don’t think it’s HSBC’s style to be revolutionary. In a funny sort of way, the fact they’ve been perceived to have a good crisis is a problem,” he says, pointing out that as a result Gulliver does not have the mandate for total change that some of his rivals have been given.
That said, whatever Gulliver says on May 11, investors and analysts will be watching him closely, to gain not only the measure of the man who is now running one of the world’s largest banks but to see whether he will sail the good ship HSBC into clearer waters, waters that make it more of a profitable bank in the areas it chooses to operate in from now on.
© Copyright (c) The Montreal Gazette
2011年4月19日星期二
France & Iberia trip - day 2
After a tiring first day in Paris, coupled with our problem with jet lag, we woke up pretty late this morning, somwhere around half nine. We weren't supposed to get up that late as we had a lot to cover in Paris...
We started our second day in Paris with Champ de Mars, a large park next to the Eiffel Tower. It is where most people enjoy taking loads of funny photos with the Eiffel Tower. Candy and I were one of those.
After spending hours taking as many photo as we could in front of the Eiffel Tower, we walked past and under the Tower. Although there wasn't too crowded as we expected, we didn't attempt to climb the Tower because we thought the view from the Arc de Triomphe would be more interesting. We didn't want too many views from the top. I don't believe it would be a loss as we could only do as much as we could with limited time. One can't always cover everything in a city in just one or two visits. That gave us exactly the reason to visit Paris again in the future.
Then we walked across the river towards the Palais de Chaillot for another great view of the Tower after appreciating the monster-like structure of the Eiffel Tower at the bottom of the Tower. Great view. Was a bit of long walk though. The number of tourists there was not surprising to us, but the number of street hawkers was quite astonishing and, somewhat, annoying.
Walking along River Seine, we then crossed the Pont Alexander III, from where we could see our next stop, Les Invalides. The bridge itself was a great piece of work with a large number of nicely crafted sultures. According to wikipedia, it was built between 1896 to 1900 and was named after Czar Alexander III of Russia. I was wrong that I thought the bridge was more than 110 years old. From there, we were also able to appreciate the view of the Eiffel Tower one last time.
The Invalides is a gianormous architectural complex built in the 17th Century. It now houses a few museums, including the Army's Museum and the Tomb of Napoleon.
We didn't spend much time there as we were extremely hungry at the time and were desperately looking for food... Later, we found what we were looking for: a Napoleon cake for Candy and an Opera cake for myself.
As we moved on, interestingly, we were approached by a Lebanese old man on the street. Well, he was a nice old man waiting for the birth of her daughter's son. Guess he was a bit bored wandering around Paris. So, we walked together for the next hour or so. Thinking back now, I believe it wasn't a very easy walk for him as it was quite a distance we walked.
Finally, we departed at the Arc de Triomphe. It was a good encounter and I really appreciate his kindness to walk with us.
On Day 1, I wasn't able to climb to the top of Arc de Triomphe. I did on Day 2.
Not a difficult climb, but Candy preferred to stay on the ground level for 2 reasons: a) she has done it before and b) she's really tired (poor girl :( ). Therefore, my ascend to the top of Arc de Trimphe was very efficient as I didn't want Candy to wait too long. I just wanted to get a feeling of the city orientation of Paris and experience the view from such a great architecture.
The view was good but not great, mainly because of the weather condition. Seeing with my own eyes that the few wide and long avenues radiating from the Arc de Triomphe was stunning. From there. I also found two places which I should have covered in my trip - the Montmartre and La Defence. The Montmartre district, sitting on a hill, is a natural high point in the city to give tourists a gorgeous view of Paris from the north. La Defence is not a must-go, in my opinion. But the ultramodern design of buildings is such a great contrast to what we could find in central Paris. It was just like 10 minutes Metro ride from the Arc. I think it is still worthwhile to pay there a visit. Next time then!
The rest of the day, we spent in the Louvre Museum as you can tell from the pictures...
We started our second day in Paris with Champ de Mars, a large park next to the Eiffel Tower. It is where most people enjoy taking loads of funny photos with the Eiffel Tower. Candy and I were one of those.
After spending hours taking as many photo as we could in front of the Eiffel Tower, we walked past and under the Tower. Although there wasn't too crowded as we expected, we didn't attempt to climb the Tower because we thought the view from the Arc de Triomphe would be more interesting. We didn't want too many views from the top. I don't believe it would be a loss as we could only do as much as we could with limited time. One can't always cover everything in a city in just one or two visits. That gave us exactly the reason to visit Paris again in the future.
 |
| Next time we will be taking this elevator to get to the top of Eiffel Tower... |
Then we walked across the river towards the Palais de Chaillot for another great view of the Tower after appreciating the monster-like structure of the Eiffel Tower at the bottom of the Tower. Great view. Was a bit of long walk though. The number of tourists there was not surprising to us, but the number of street hawkers was quite astonishing and, somewhat, annoying.
Walking along River Seine, we then crossed the Pont Alexander III, from where we could see our next stop, Les Invalides. The bridge itself was a great piece of work with a large number of nicely crafted sultures. According to wikipedia, it was built between 1896 to 1900 and was named after Czar Alexander III of Russia. I was wrong that I thought the bridge was more than 110 years old. From there, we were also able to appreciate the view of the Eiffel Tower one last time.
 |
| The statue kicking the Eiffer Tower |
 |
| Statue staring at the Eiffel Tower with love |
 |
| A kiss of love |
The Invalides is a gianormous architectural complex built in the 17th Century. It now houses a few museums, including the Army's Museum and the Tomb of Napoleon.
We didn't spend much time there as we were extremely hungry at the time and were desperately looking for food... Later, we found what we were looking for: a Napoleon cake for Candy and an Opera cake for myself.
As we moved on, interestingly, we were approached by a Lebanese old man on the street. Well, he was a nice old man waiting for the birth of her daughter's son. Guess he was a bit bored wandering around Paris. So, we walked together for the next hour or so. Thinking back now, I believe it wasn't a very easy walk for him as it was quite a distance we walked.
Finally, we departed at the Arc de Triomphe. It was a good encounter and I really appreciate his kindness to walk with us.
On Day 1, I wasn't able to climb to the top of Arc de Triomphe. I did on Day 2.
Not a difficult climb, but Candy preferred to stay on the ground level for 2 reasons: a) she has done it before and b) she's really tired (poor girl :( ). Therefore, my ascend to the top of Arc de Trimphe was very efficient as I didn't want Candy to wait too long. I just wanted to get a feeling of the city orientation of Paris and experience the view from such a great architecture.
The view was good but not great, mainly because of the weather condition. Seeing with my own eyes that the few wide and long avenues radiating from the Arc de Triomphe was stunning. From there. I also found two places which I should have covered in my trip - the Montmartre and La Defence. The Montmartre district, sitting on a hill, is a natural high point in the city to give tourists a gorgeous view of Paris from the north. La Defence is not a must-go, in my opinion. But the ultramodern design of buildings is such a great contrast to what we could find in central Paris. It was just like 10 minutes Metro ride from the Arc. I think it is still worthwhile to pay there a visit. Next time then!
 |
| The Montmartre District |
 |
| La Defence |
The rest of the day, we spent in the Louvre Museum as you can tell from the pictures...
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)