McKinsey: Half the World’s Banks Too Weak to Survive Downturn • Hacker News Board

Re: McKinsey: Half the World’s Banks Too Weak to Survive Downturn

#151

Post by turk73 » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 12:32 PM UTC

glangdale wrote: post #8

std_throwaway wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It amazes me how long and how slowly the value of our money can be eroded without casing a hard crash. This has been going on for over 100 years in the US. Money used to pay things used to be gold, then fully gold backed, then partially gold backed, then no gold but security backed, then securities are diluted more and more. The next logical steps would be that the central banks buy up the bankrupt economy and introd…

Right, because everything was so much better when you could, for no particularly good reason, relate money to a marginally useful-to-jewellers-and-dentists soft metal. I suppose I shouldn't expect economic literacy on Hacker News, but the twist on the standard goldbug narrative ("social credit backed by surveillance") is at least original, if nutty.

It's not nutty to point out that the dollar is presently only worth $.05 what it was in the year the Federal Reserve came into being.

Re: McKinsey: Half the World’s Banks Too Weak to Survive Downturn

#152

Post by throwaway66920 » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 1:39 PM UTC

tomrod wrote: post #147

op00to wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You call it playing politics, others call it effective communication.

Effective communication is pushing people the alums dislike out of their jobs and building silos?

“Playing politics” is is largely empathy and communication skills. Giving people what they want is actually not intuitive because, again, people are generally bad at communicating what they want. It’s common to hear people maligned for being “political players” but I’ll be honest; if you’re bad at office politics, it generally implies you don’t have people’s confidence, trust, and friendship- often because you’re fixated on the idea that work should stand for itself and not recognizing the massive importance that is working with others.

Being a dick with your influence is a different concept

Re: McKinsey: Half the World’s Banks Too Weak to Survive Downturn

#153

Post by NotSammyHagar » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 3:08 PM UTC

dawg- wrote: post #44

And if you're a bank, guess who is conveniently standing by ready to fix it for you with an army of $2000 an hour consultants? McKinsey. Same exact scam as the shady mechanic who wants charge you $400 to flush your transmission fluid and convinces you that your car will surely blow up if you don't do it.

Just watch _House of Lies_. Marty Kaan and Associates will kick the ass of your McKinsey folks.

This fantastic show really gets at what consultants are doing. It was based on a book by a real management consultant. They all have their MBAs from the good schools. You go to a company, figure out what the ceo wants you to decide and is paying you to 'investigate', and then support them with a complicated opinion with numbers and accounting details (that a lot of people aren't going to investigate too carefully or refute). Offer 80% of what they need at that time, and a continuing contract to figure out the rest.

Re: McKinsey: Half the World’s Banks Too Weak to Survive Downturn

#154

Post by NotSammyHagar » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 3:12 PM UTC

ploxolo wrote: post #123

shantly wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's basically therapy for corporate executives, delivered via powerpoint, with a healthy side of blame insurance. And yeah, it's expensive.

Dad worked at a bank (just below CEO). He once said that McKinsey was most useful when you wanted to kill a project diplomatically, and make sure it would stay put. Have McKinsey come in, make the recommendation that X project was no good, and kiss it goodbye with McKinsey absorbing the blame. Other way around was to give projects some extra push and credibility.

Everyone should watch the series House of Lies, that completely supports this description ;-) It's the most enjoyable and subversive show about the world of business ever.

Re: McKinsey: Half the World’s Banks Too Weak to Survive Downturn

#155

Post by NotSammyHagar » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 3:22 PM UTC

geodel wrote: post #31

Not that I disagree. Its same pattern: half of the universities, most of liberal art colleges, 60% of IT companies, 70% of private Doctor practices and so on are too weak to survive next shock. The only sad part I see is nasty businesses like McKinsey is not fitting in any pattern of failure.

I think we'd be better off with a bunch of small private colleges going under. The weaker yet still expensive and shrinking enrollment private colleges are dying slowly. They are just soaking up resources that could go other places.

One example is Cottey College, a small college in Missouri that is trying to get one of my relatives to go there. Down to below 300 students and shrinking fast.

Re: McKinsey: Half the World’s Banks Too Weak to Survive Downturn

#156

Post by tomrod » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 4:26 PM UTC

throwaway66920 wrote: post #152

tomrod wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Effective communication is pushing people the alums dislike out of their jobs and building silos?

“Playing politics” is is largely empathy and communication skills. Giving people what they want is actually not intuitive because, again, people are generally bad at communicating what they want. It’s common to hear people maligned for being “political players” but I’ll be honest; if you’re bad at office politics, it generally implies you don’t have people’s confidence, trust, and friendship- often because you’re fix…

Being a dick in influence is what I observe more often from my (biased, certainly) sample of McKinsey alum. We both agree that salability of work product is an important and underutilized skill.

Re: McKinsey: Half the World’s Banks Too Weak to Survive Downturn

#157

Post by dmix » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 6:33 PM UTC

QuesnayJr wrote: post #143

dmix wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The unemployment rate is the short term metric which is exactly what I’m taking about. A long term perspective means preventing future recessions too, not just fixing the short term problems. Creating new moral hazards, negative incentives, behaviour and careers which would have been tarnished and discredited normally are allowed to continue, often with the same people and companies. If we were serious about preventi…

We've had recessions for the entire history of capitalism, under a large number of legal regimes. We had recessions back when banking was much more tightly regulated. We had recessions under laissez-faire. Recessions are endemic to the system. Our choices are either "combat unemployment" or get ready for socialism to finally win the war of ideas.

> or get ready for socialism to finally win the war of ideas.

Yeah how's that working out in Venezuela and Ecuador (who only half-heartedly did it and still got burned).

Re: McKinsey: Half the World’s Banks Too Weak to Survive Downturn

#158

Post by QuesnayJr » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 9:03 PM UTC

dmix wrote: post #157

QuesnayJr wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've had recessions for the entire history of capitalism, under a large number of legal regimes. We had recessions back when banking was much more tightly regulated. We had recessions under laissez-faire. Recessions are endemic to the system. Our choices are either "combat unemployment" or get ready for socialism to finally win the war of ideas.

> or get ready for socialism to finally win the war of ideas. Yeah how's that working out in Venezuela and Ecuador (who only half-heartedly did it and still got burned).

It's working out badly. But we get 25% unemployment, and a lot more countries are going to try it.

Re: McKinsey: Half the World’s Banks Too Weak to Survive Downturn

#159

Post by nerdponx » Thu, Oct 24, 2019, 2:49 AM UTC

QuesnayJr wrote: post #138

dmix wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once again completing the cycle of moral hazards in the name of reducing the "impact" of rescissions in the short-term. The only metric that apparently matters.

In the last recession, unemployment in the US reached 10%. How big does unemployment have to reach before you take the quotes away from "impact"? 15%? 20%? Unemployment in Spain reached as high as 26% because Spain was unable to reduce the impact.

The real impact is loss of current and future income and wealth.

Jobs are a means to an end.

Re: McKinsey: Half the World’s Banks Too Weak to Survive Downturn

#160

Post by jsjohnst » Fri, Oct 25, 2019, 9:18 AM UTC

std_throwaway wrote: post #54

jsjohnst wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No wonder you are hiding behind a throwaway, as you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about and are just posting mindless drivel. If you want to know the outcome of “we can always make more money” attitudes, look no further than Zimbabwe. In ~2007 they had a 50 cent paper note. ~6 months later a common paper note was $10,000,000,000. Just a short while after that, paper notes were being printed in one hundred tr…

Zimbabwe did not run out of money. I did not say that a bank can make everybody rich by printing money just that there is no limit to the money that the banks can print, as is evidenced by Zimbabwe. They ran out of everything else but not money. We are basically expressing the same thing from different viewpoints.

> Zimbabwe did not run out of money

Actually, wrong again. They did run out of “money” and tried to mask that by continuing to print currency. “Currency” is a physical thing, it’s essentially a promissory note. “Money” is an intangible thing, essentially a stored value. Currency that is worth nothing isn’t “money” as the promise printed on it has no stored value.