The voodoo of informed predictions

This morning I got a mail from a well-regarded source about the likely outcome of the bi-monthly Monetary Policy Committee (The MPC is a committee of the Central Bank of Nigeria) meeting coming up later in the day. The source argued that the MPR, LR and CRR would probably be left at 7.5%, 30% and 2% respectively. With a caveat that the prediction should be taken with a pinch of salt and she’s not liable for any calamity that hits anyone who uses the prediction to make decisions. Come on! Even Jim Jones was better than this.

By the way, if you don’t know what these acronyms stand for, don’t bother; they mean absolute nothing, especially to the man on the street. They are some of the jargons we bankers put up to feel very self-important.

It would have been a story if the ratios weren’t changed: I can’t remember if any of the predictions ever made by my source came true. But I’m sure if Harold Camping’s rapture hasn’t taken place before the next MPC, my impeccable source would make another prediction and guess what, my own prediction is that she’s going to be wrong, as usual.

The business world is replete with loads of analysts and self-styled experts but empirical evidence has shown we (too bad, seems I’m one of them) are not better than an army of random monkeys hitting away at the keyboards and a chance Shakespeare classic coming out. The publishing editors are thrilled and the monkeys have been given an advance for 4 more classics. You see, if you deal with a very large solution space (another jargon, another narcissistic comment) like I’m working on for my current project, anyone can get lucky.

The real disaster, of course, is confusing luck with expertise.

If you think I’m joking, read about what McKinsey and Company told AT&T in 1982.

Behavioral finance and the science of voodoo

I just had some argument with a PhD researcher about the value of behavioral models over the up-till-now traditional financial modeling. You see, behavioral finance is a growing field of financial science and came into prominence after the last catastrophic implosion of the global financial market. Obviously some greedy folks went berserk and all the fancy market models developed to understand them were obviously on vacation (read Fama, French, Sharpe, Markowitz, Merton Miller and a bunch of others. I can’t even imagine that some people actually got a Nobel for this type of rubbish. In a world where Obama can get a Nobel for Peace in anticipation of peace, anything can happen!).

From the behavioral finance people’s point of view, financial and capital models are crap and can’t model how the financial world will behave as it is based on what is called the rational model (players will behave according to expectation) but can’t understand the primordial human instincts (greed, fear, ego, etc.) which ultimately always upturn things.

This is actual bone of contention. We both agreed that the current models are capital BS but I believe that the financial and capital behavior can be modeled. What we don’t have now is enough attributes to put into the model to factor things in. Another thing is to redefine what a rational attribute is. Purchasing an equity based on PE ratio is a rational behavior but it doesn’t even rank as much as buying because of fear! Or why would the experts spend so much time wondering that the Weekend Effect is all about?

This is what luxury good purveyors have known for centuries, people don’t buy because a purchase makes sense, they buy for all manners of reasons and that is what we modeler need to figure out.

Can fear be modeled? Yeah! Same for herd behavior, for greed, for revenge, etc. What I dont know is if a smart dude is going to figure it out in a year, decade or century but I can put my bet on 2 decades out there. What do you think we are going to use all those powerful computers to do? Turn them into Precogs while the world reenact Minority Report. So between now and then, I will advice my fancy research to go find another job; behavioral finance career is about to hit a dead end.

Global Africa: Presence or Profitability?

Following the ultimatum that Nigerian banks shore up their capital base if they are to remain in business, several banks have indeed gone over board with each one raising capital in excess of $1billion. Their aim in the long run, having been rescued from the shackles of being a bank in a developing nation, is to become a mega bank with global presence.

With large purses and an increased appetite for international trade and global financing, banks started to look for routes to invest these funds. Routes that will guarantee maximum returns on investment and create a true global presence. It became inadequate to have a good branch network within Nigeria, to remain a Mega bank with enough clout; the bank had to have presence in other countries asides Nigeria.

Early entrants within the banking industry controlled about 60% of the market share and had well established network within Nigeria and most importantly the United Kingdom. This branch network was necessary to help facilitate their international trade. The focus was never on the African axis as these banks were barely able to meet up with customer and service demands in their own home country.

With the consolidation exercise and the creation of bigger bank who have energetic, young and adventurous CEO’s at the helm of affairs, the banking industry was about to witness a phenomenal change. Emphasis was removed from merely being a Nigerian bank offering financial services; it became the case of meeting up with international best practice. Ideas started to flow. It became easy enough since these ideas were backed with the required purchasing power. The banking industry witnessed a significant evolution that changed the face of banking in Nigeria. Top of the range technology was deployed, service standards improve and international trade began to boom. Foreign investors realizing that the return on investment in Nigeria was high began to invest huge sums of money into the banking industry. Hedge funds, public offers, private placements offered excellent investment opportunities for these FDI’s.

Being armed with enough capital and having fully conquered the Nigerian markets, it was time to conquer the African markets. Global Africa was next on the agenda. Which bank was going to be the first to have adequate branch network in Africa. It was time to contest with the likes of Standard chartered Bank in the fight for the African business. After all, there was human capital, technology and the cash to be deployed to the rest of Africa.

The first country to witness the advent of Nigerian Banks become global was Ghana. With loose demands from their Central bank in setting up a financial institution, it was easy to open up branches in Ghana. Now, the whole of West Africa is having a taste of Nigerian banks. The issue is no longer which country to go to; the issue now is “we hope we won’t be the last bank to open up a branch there”

Now the frenzy is on. This brings me to my question. Global Africa is it all about creating a global presence or is it about creating investments that has a higher rate of return? With loose laws and minimum requirements to establish financial institutions in most African countries, creating a chain of banks in Africa has become an easy feat to achieve. Knowing how aggressive bankers are in Nigeria, they are not about to let this opportunity go without thoroughly maximizing it.

Having gone through the rudiments of starting up a new bank in other African countries, the acquisition of banking license, the acquirement of physical and human capital, It becomes obvious that Nigerian banks have more in sight than the mere returns on their investment. The question really is, if all these resources were to be deployed in the setting up a new branch in a viable area in Nigeria, would it achieve a higher rate or return on investment than that of a new deployment in Nigerian’s neighboring countries?