Author Archives: Content in Context

Unknown's avatar

About Content in Context

Content in Context helps companies to define the market for their products and services, to identify customers and build the business pipeline, and to develop their content marketing strategies. By working with our clients to design, build and grow their business, our primary focus is to extract commercial value from unique assets, including knowledge, data, know-how, processes and transactional information.

Australia 3.0 – beyond the mining boom….

Posted on by
2

In the wake of the G20 Brisbane meeting, Australia’s place in the world has been under scrutiny, in particular our role in Asia Pacific. With the announcement of a Free Trade Agreement with China (following similar treaties with Japan and Korea), a flurry of extra-mural visits by G20 leaders, and our current Presidency of the UN Security Council, you’d be forgiven for thinking that Australia was now front and centre of the world stage. Well, I hate to disappoint anyone, but I’ve recently spent 3 weeks overseas, and the only news I heard from home was the death of Gough Whitlam.

However, this does seem like a timely opportunity* to consider the question: “What’s next?” after the resources bubble has burst. This was the topic of discussion at this month’s Directors Suite luncheon, where I delivered some opening remarks based on the following text: 

Introduction

Our theme of Australia 3.0 is not to be confused with the think tank of the same name. Although it is interesting to note that their four areas of interest are Infrastructure, Health, Government Services and Mining.**

Historical Perspective?

I’m not a political or economic historian, but I would suggest that Australia’s policy agenda has followed a rough but discernible narrative:

  • Australia 1.0 – from the launch of Federation to the 1960’s – post-colonial era, bookended by WWI and the Vietnam War, and despite the dominant figure of Menzies, largely a protectionist, semi-nationalised, highly collective and quasi-socialist mixed economy
  • Australia 1.5 – The Whitlam Upgrade (or Experiment) – radical, short-lived, too much too soon?
  • Australia 2.0 – The Hawke/Keating System Reboot – currency and interest rate reforms, major privatization, re-engagement with Asia
  • Australia 2.5 – Rudd/Gillard bug fixes – a micro-managed response to the GFC, but despite the hype/promise, not much was actually achieved in macro terms, witness the 2020 summit…

What Issues Will Define Australia 3.0?

If we take it as read that there are demographic and environmental challenges ahead, I see that there are 5 Key Drivers for social and economic change, each with their own particular issues and consequences:

1. THE BIG ONE:
Economic activity post-GFC, post-mining boom, post-dollar parity		 The “new normal”: slow/low/no growth and the struggle for sustainable growth; sunset on the baby boomer era; how to get internationally competitive, streamline SME regulations, remove the burden of tax administration
2. THE TECH TREND:
The age of mobile, cloud and social technology		 Digital innovation backed by a new spirit of Gen Y/Gen I entrepreneurial start-ups; no more “job for life” employment – 1.3m non-employing businesses in Australia…. (40% of US workers will be freelance/self-employed by 2020)
3. THE END OF EMPIRE(S):
Declining respect for/relevance of political structures & public institutions		 Minority governments, heightened clash of ideologies, power shift from Federal/State to Regional/Community; also reflects a failure of leadership within political parties, unions, corporations, religious bodies, professional sporting codes, armed forces etc.
4. OUR PLACE IN THE REGION
Free Trade Agreements with Asia, realigning regional interests		 At what price? Implications for our traditional political allegiances? Challenges to Australia’s regional relevance if it’s one-way traffic only? Threat to food security?
5. NEW NATION BUILDING
Upgrading declining infrastructure and building capacity for the future		 Who decides? Who pays? NIMBY? Too little too late?

Some international perspectives

Based on my recent travels to the UK and Hong Kong, we can make some interesting comparisons with conditions here at home. For example, like Australia, both UK and HK have very unpopular governments at present (but for different reasons); they are currently enjoying relatively higher (albeit still sluggish) GDP growth rates compared to other developed economies; and like the Australian dollar, Sterling has also declined recently against the US dollar (HK’s dollar is, of course, pegged to the US).

I got the impression that the cost of living in the UK has not gone up much since my last visit just over two years ago, although like Australia’s capital cities, London house prices are probably achieving/exceeding pre-GFC levels. (However, GDP growth is mainly due to pent-up demand from continuing austerity measures.) Relations with the EU are strained by budget issues and immigration polices. Following the Scottish referendum, there has been increased discussion on regional devolution, and Manchester looks set to acquire new regional powers (similar to the Mayor of London model). London remains as an important international financial centre, while selected manufacturing and services industries are enjoying renewed growth. There were numerous signs of major infrastructure projects (notably the Crossrail in London) and urban renewal initiatives (such as the Manchester City Library upgrade).

Meanwhile, HK is going through yet another constitutional crisis under the post-handover Basic Law (“One Country, Two Systems”). The Occupy Central protests, aka the Umbrella Movement were the most orderly demonstrations I have ever seen. The protests are multi-faceted; they are not just about Universal Suffrage, but also reflect social, economic and cultural struggles/challenges. There is another (speculative) property boom, fuelled in part by new subway systems, new commercial buildings, and a harbour front tunnel to by-pass the CBD; and in part by hundreds of new apartments (attracting mainland buyers). Property prices are at another all-time high (new developments can cost US$4-5m for less than 1,000 sq. ft.) – no wonder that about half of the population now live in public housing projects, and nearly one-fifth are estimated to be living below the poverty line. But food, clothing, public transport, eating out and general consumer goods can still be bought at modest prices (as long as you avoid high-end brands in high-end malls).

Making The Right Connections

I spent two days at a major Asia Pacific financial services conference in HK aimed at stock exchanges, banks and data vendors, where I only saw a couple of delegates from Australian banks, nobody from the ASX and no-one from the Australian superannuation or asset management sectors.

Does this matter? I think it does.

There was much talk about the convertibility (or internationalization) of the RMB, and one currency broker I spoke to suggested that Australia will be the next target for major RMB investment – it’s not just about Toorak mansions. There are huge RMB deposits sitting in HK, and Australia is an approved investment destination (and Australian-managed funds are an approved asset class) for approved mainland investors. The money has to go somewhere.***

By standalone stock market capitalisation, ASX is ranked 14th globally, but represents only about 2.2% by value. Furthermore, when taking into account recent stock exchange mergers and the new HK/Shanghai Stock Connect trading platform, the combined Hong Kong/Shanghai/Shenzhen market cap will leapfrog into 2nd place globally, and into 1st place in Asia Pacific, displacing Japan from its long-held position. And even though conference delegates often talked about the 4 key regional markets of HK, Japan, Singapore and Australia, the ASX comprises a mere 6% of regional market value, and the only exchange ASX has had serious (but failed) merger talks with is Singapore – which does not even make the global top 20.

The ASX market cap is $1.5tn; total superannuation funds and assets under management are about $1.6tn; while the equity in family owned businesses that needs to be refinanced over the next 5-10 years is estimated to be about $3.5tn.

Even financial market experts in Asia were acknowledging that wealth management, retirement planning and private banking services are gaining more significance than IPOs and equities trading. This in turn places greater emphasis on long-term investments, asset management for future returns, a new role for private equity, and more allocations to fixed income and bonds. But regulatory and operating costs threaten to erode any value that is being created in these asset classes, unless service providers and intermediaries can generate better efficiencies and/or develop additional, high-value products and services.

For our part, do we need to explore the role of alternative stock exchanges and non-traditional fund-raising platforms (especially for emerging companies and infrastructure projects)? And what is happening with Australia’s anticipated role as a regional fund and asset manager?

Implications for NEDs

As Non-Executive Directors, does this mean we should be shifting our focus from the “holy grail” of a seat on a public board, and instead look at how we can help, support and build value in the small businesses that will continue to be the long-term drivers of economic growth, and ensure that the boards of super funds have adequate governance?

Footnotes:

*We were not alone: “Head of PwC Australia addresses National Press Club”

**See my own “3 Pillars of the Digital Economy”

***As part of the FTA with Australia, China has opened a RMB clearing house in Sydney, and granted Australia a portion of RQFII asset allocation. And soon after the FTA was announced, the NSW Treasury issued an RMB bond.

Next week: Managing Big Data Analytics and Visualization

 

Who’s making money from market data?

Posted on by
1

In recent years, market data vendors and their clients have been fixated on supporting the demand for low-latency feeds to support high-frequency, algorithmic and dark pool trading while simultaneously responding to the post-GFC regulatory environment. New regulations continue to place increased operating burdens and costs on market participants, with a current focus on know your customer (KYC), pre-trade analytics and benchmark transparency.

For banks and asset managers, the cost of managing data is now seen as big an issue as the cost of acquiring the data itself. Furthermore, the need to meet regulatory obligations at every stage of every client transaction is adding to operating expenses – costs which cannot easily be recovered, thereby diminishing previously healthy transactional margins.

I was in Hong Kong recently, and had the opportunity to attend the Asia Pacific Financial Information Conference, courtesy of FISD. This annual event, the largest of its kind in the region, brings together stock exchanges, data vendors and financial institutions. It has been a few years since I last attended this conference, so it was encouraging to see that delegate numbers have continued to grow, although of the many stock exchanges in the region, only a few had taken exhibition stands; and representation from among buy-side institutions and asset managers was still comparatively low. However, many major sell-side institutions and plenty of vendors were in attendance, along with a growing number of service providers across data networking, hosting and management.

Speaking to delegates, it was clear that there is a risk of regulation overload: not just the volume, but also the complexity and cost of compliance. Plus, it felt like that despite frequent industry consultation, there appears to be limited co-ordination between the various market regulators, resulting in overlap between jurisdictions and duplication across different regulatory functions. Are any of these regulations having the desired effect, or simply creating unforeseen outcomes?

One major post-GFC development has been the establishment of a common legal entity identifier (LEI) for issuers of securities and their counterparts. (This was in direct response to the Lehman collapse, as a result of a failure or inability to correctly and accurately identify counterparty risk in their trading portfolios, especially for derivatives such as credit default swaps.)  However, despite a coordinated international effort, a published standard for the common identifier, and a network of approved LEI issuers, progress in assigning LEIs has been slow (especially in Asia Pacific), and coverage does not reflect market depth. For example, one data manager estimated that of the 20,000 reportable entities that his bank deals with, only 5,000 had so far been assigned LEIs.

Financial institutions need to consume ever more market data, for more complex purposes, and at multiple stages of the securities trading life-cycle:

  • pre-trade analysis (especially to meet KYC obligations);
  • trade transaction (often using best execution forums);
  • post-trade confirmation, settlement and payment;
  • portfolio reconciliation;
  • asset valuation (and in the absence of mark-to-market pricing, meaning evaluated pricing, often requiring more than one independent source);
  • processing corporate actions (in a consistent and timely fashion, and taking account of different taxation rules);
  • financial reporting and accounting standards (local and global); and
  • a requirement to provide more transparency around benchmarks (and other underlying data used in the creation and administration of market indices, and in constructing investable products).

Yet with lower trading volumes and increased compliance costs, this inevitably means that operating margins are being squeezed. Which is likely having most impact on data vendors, since data is increasingly seen as a commodity, and the cost of acquiring new data sets has to be offset against both the on boarding and switching costs and the costs of moving data around to multiple users, applications and locations.

The overloaded data managers from the major financial institutions said they wished stock exchanges and vendors would adopt more common industry standards for data licensing and pricing. Which seems reasonable, until you hear the same data managers claim they each have their own particular requirements, and therefore a “one size fits all” approach won’t work for them. Besides, whereas in the past, data was either sold on an enterprise-wide basis, or on a per-user basis, now data usage is divided between:

  • human users and machine consumption;
  • full access versus non-display only;
  • internal and external use;
  • “as is” compared to derived applications; and
  • pre-trade and post-trade execution.

Oh, and then there’s the ongoing separation of real-time, intraday, end-of-day and static data.

This all raises the obvious question: if more data consumption does not necessarily mean better margins for data vendors (despite the need to use the same data for multiple purposes), who is making money from market data?

While the stock exchanges are the primary source of market data for listed equities and exchange-traded securities, pricing data for OTC securities and derivatives has to be sourced from dealers, inter-bank brokers, contributing traders and order confirmation platforms. The major data vendors have done a good job over the years of collecting, aggregating and distributing this data – but now, with a combination of cost pressures and advances in technology, new providers are offering to help clients to manage the sourcing, processing, transmission and delivery of data. One conference delegate commented that the next development will be in microbilling (i.e., pricing based on actual consumption of each data item by individual users for specific purposes) and suggested this was an opportunity for a disruptive newcomer.

Finally, other emerging developments included the use of social media in market sentiment analysis (e.g., for algo-based trading), data visualisation, and the deployment of dedicated apps to manage “big data” analytics.

Next week: Australia 3.0

Yet another #co-working space opens in #Melbourne – what’s going on?

Posted on by
Reply

Co-working spaces continue to pop-up all over Melbourne. The latest I’ve heard about is LSX (aka Lennox Street Exchange, in the heart of Richmond’s startup zone), which opened in September.

I’ve not had the opportunity to visit all of these venues – but I’ve been able to spend some time in a few of them such as York Butter Factory, the Hub, inspire9, Launchpad and Queens Collective. The decor and ambience are usually New York loft conversion meets warehouse chic meets funky cafe meets London Free School. Some offer little more than a serviced office with some added startup appeal; several are closely linked to incubator programmes and angel investors; and a couple want to create a whole philosophical/spiritual experience around personal development, collaboration and sustainability.

A key attraction of co-working spaces for early-stage startups and budding entrepreneurs is the relatively low-cost business accommodation. Plus, if you are new to being self-employed/freelance, or if you are just starting your own business, going to an office (at least once a week) can instil some discipline, provide a change of scenery to the home office (or garage), help with networking contacts, and offer the chance to meet people who can offer skills you don’t have.

But, these spaces are mostly open plan, have an itinerant population that comes and goes, and the communal kitchens sometimes remind me of the worst shared houses I have lived in….. So, you have to enjoy that sort of vibe, and as we know, open plan offices are not always conducive to productivity or personal concentration.

There are some genuinely philanthropic values inherent in a number of these venues, but others are more commercial and seem only interested in getting investors through the door to nurture the “talent” they think they have uncovered.

If you are thinking of signing up to a co-working space, it pays to do your due diligence:

  • Commitment – not just the cost, but time and other contributions that may be expected of you
  • Values – it helps if your values generally align with those of the hosts and other members; if you’re not a creative type, or if 3-D gaming development is not your thing, maybe look elsewhere
  • Location – proximity to prospective clients and/or partners and collaborators may be more important than a cool hot-desking venue in a trendy part of town
  • Services – what’s included in the membership fees and/or rent? are there any hidden extras?
  • Insurance – make sure the premises are up to date with their building and other statutory insurances; do you still need to take out professional indemnity/public liability policies; are your personal belongings and equipment covered while they are on site?
  • Ownership – are you buying a membership or a “share” in a business? if the former, does this carry any voting rights at member meetings? if the latter, could you be taking on more legal risk or financial liability if the venue fails?

No doubt there are some vibrant co-working communities, that offer great support and service to the growing number of people who want to “do their own thing” rather than join a more corporate environment. Even some banks seem to be getting in on the act, as they recognise an opportunity to engage with their business customers via co-working spaces and startup facilities.

Next week: Who’s making money in financial data?

Online Pillar 3: #Education

Posted on by
2

Students don’t need to attend formal classes anymore – they can YouTube a tutorial, sign up for a MOOC, watch a TED talk, Google the answer to a question, or research a Wiki entry. And that’s just the free stuff. Online seminars and workshops, especially in the area of software programming and code writing, are big business; and even vocational courses are looking to deliver more content via the web.

This week is the final part in my mini-series on the Three Pillars. (See Health and Finance.) Of the three, Education has probably done the most to embrace online – it’s certainly been at the forefront of the Internet and the web, both of which have their roots in academia. Yet of the three, it is the one vertical segment that is most vulnerable to disruptive technologies and changing business models.

Lifelong learning is going to become vital in keeping ourselves informed, skilled, up-to-date, relevant and employable (whether as hired labour or as self-employed freelances). Even in retirement, services like the University of the Third Age (U3A) can help in maintaining our mental wellbeing.

Few of us establish long-term relationships with schools or educational establishments we have attended – at best, we may join an alumni group, but in my experience, many such organisations are designed around fund-raising activities, “old boy” networks, quasi-masonic rituals and/or sadomasochistic memory recall at the annual reunion; and they don’t do so well when former students become increasingly mobile in the global workplace. On the other hand, the ability to attend so many different educational establishments and be exposed to different types of education services makes for a richer learning experience.

Online academic reference and research services have been around since the 1980s, and it’s now possible to source post-grad dissertations and PhD papers via vast online library databases. Part of this is driven by the academic need to “publish or perish”, part by changes in the publishing and information industry, part by the need to foster collaboration via better dissemination of primary research.

For myself, I participated in my first online seminar about 15 years ago, and webinars are commonplace for professional development, distance learning and collaborative projects. I have also enrolled in online tutorials for one-off courses on very specific topics – less about getting a qualification, more about enhancing my knowledge.

Students today, including those in primary and secondary education, are expected to participate online, even though they may still attend daily “in person” classes:

  • tablet devices are mandatory – for access to textbooks, and for managing assignments
  • students interact with their teachers and classmates via Learning Management Systems
  • undergraduates are expected to develop online CVs as well as use dedicated social media platforms run by their colleges
  • ebooks are capable of being personalised and customised – e.g., uploading your own notes, accessing peer comments, and interacting with teachers

Mass Open Online Courses (MOOC) are a logical extension of the webinar model – but of course, you don’t get the same certificate or diploma you would receive (assuming you get one at all) if you had enrolled for the class, completed the assignments and passed the exams. Some universities and colleges license their content (syllabus and curriculum) for local delivery by another institution – a bonus for students in remote locations, or unable to access more expensive colleges. Maintaining the integrity and quality of this “distributed” learning is still a challenge, and mutual recognition of qualifications (as well as certification and authentication) may yet be a barrier to student mobility.

Recognition of prior learning is a key feature of vocational education – but I can see a demand for more services that help me validate what I know and what I have learned (in the absence of a formal qualification) as well as helping prospective employers in candidate selection. There are also challenges in monitoring mandatory Continuing Professional Development (CPD), especially in areas such as health services, where even relatively junior nursing and ancillary staff in hospitals are required to maintain an online learning diary or journal as well as evidence of training completion and competence. (Question: who would be responsible if a nurse engaged by a hospital via a labour service provider failed to maintain currency in patient care, resulting in avoidable harm?)

Ultimately, the role of lifelong learning is in helping to plan, manage and develop our careers. Just as we might have a financial plan (to prepare for the future), and we would expect to manage our health (via regular check-ups and preventative measures), why wouldn’t also have a career plan, supported by a learning pathway? And if we are increasingly comfortable accessing content via mobile apps and the web, why wouldn’t we expect to pursue our learning needs online as well?

Next week: Another #co-working space opens in #Melbourne