How to Find Great Companies to Invest In

How to Find Great Companies to Invest In.

Smart investors put their money in reputable companies and investigate new companies thoroughly before committing their money. By carefully considering the qualities of the companies you invest in and incorporating your own knowledge of the market, you can make informed decisions in the hopes of choosing stocks of good quality and value. Be aware, however, this is no small task. Mutual fund companies and the like dedicate entire teams of experts whose full-time jobs are to research and understand how to invest in companies. Be sure you have the time and inclination to do this yourself, as well as the willingness to take the risks of doing so.

Method 1 Buying What You Know.
1. Stay within your circle of competence. If you have a field of expertise, you may be best able to identify quality within that area. Experience can provide you with the insights you need to make more informed choices. For example, if you work in retail, you may be better positioned to determine if you should invest in companies like Walmart, Target, or Best Buy, than you are in evaluating the latest bio-tech company.
Having competence in a certain area doesn't have to come from workplace experience. If you're a techie who spends his time buying and reading about the latest gadgets, you can draw on the information you obtain to help you make decisions on how to invest in the technology sector.
2. Focus on a few industries or markets. These can be either your direct area of competence or other areas that you are interested in investing in. The important thing is to realize that you can't keep track of everything going on in the global economy. Large financial institutions have whole departments for doing this so don't think you can do it on your own. Instead, narrow your focus to include only a few key industries or markets.
This doesn't mean you should avoid focusing on individual companies. You should always investigate every company you plan to invest in individually.
3. Stay up to date on news within that industry. Examples of quality sources for this are online finance websites like Bloomberg and the Wall Street Journal. They'll give you up-to-date information on many of the goings-on in various sectors of the economy and the World. Again, focus your energy on a few key areas and become knowledgeable on the happenings in them. Look for things like trends, mergers, acquisitions, relevant legislation changes, and any global events that may affect your chosen market.
4. Plan ahead. Identify a company that you think stands to benefit from some change or trend in the market. Look ahead for when this change will take place and move around your money to prepare to invest in the company. For example, if you think that a new product being released by your favorite tech company is going to be a huge success, you may choose to invest in the company before the rest of the world realizes this and drives up the stock price.

Method 2 Investing in Companies with Competitive Advantages.
1. Understand competitive advantages. There are some companies that manage to be consistently profitable and successful in their industry over many years. These companies have succeeded in building a "moat" around them to keep their competitors away. This distance from their competitors is also known as a competitive advantage. Competitive advantages allow these companies to make money and retain customers more easily than others. In turn, these companies are able to provide greater value and return to their shareholders.
An investment in one of these companies allows you to participate in their competitive advantage. While they may not grow as quickly as smaller companies, they often can be less likely to fail in economic downturns and can provide consistent growth throughout the years to come.
Blue-chip stocks are examples of large, successful companies with competitive advantages. These companies have provided consistent growth or dividends over many years and are listed on large stock indexes.
2. Invest in trusted brands. Think Harley Davidson, Coke, BMW. These are brand names etched in the public mind as the best in their class. These companies can raise their prices on the strength of their brands, resulting in deeper profits.These companies are so well-known and essential that they are unlikely to lose a significant amount of customers to competitors.
3. Find companies with high switching costs. When was the last time you switched banks? Or cell phone providers? These services retain customers because switching between them is more time-consuming than it's worth. Companies that have high switching costs can be expected to hold on to their customers longer than companies that don't.
4. Search for economies of scale. Companies that are able to make products and sell them at much lower prices than their competition automatically attract customers -- lots of them -- as long as quality is not compromised. In a crowded market, this is generally the result of economies of scale, a phenomenon where a large company is able to experience lower production costs solely due to its size. Walmart and and Dell have perfected this concept to a science.
5. Invest in legal monopolies. Some companies are granted legal (if temporary) monopolies by the government. Large pharmaceutical companies and manufacturing companies with patents are able to bring a truly unique product to market. Companies that own copyrights, drilling rights, mining rights, and other forms of protected property are often the sole producer or service provider in their area. Thus, these companies can raise prices without fear of losing customers, resulting in higher profits.
Be sure to check how long the company's patent or usage rights are in effect. Some of these are temporary and when they go, there's a chance the company's profit will go with them.
6. Look for opportunities for easy growth. Some companies are easily scalable. That is, their products or services with the potential to network or add more users over time. Adobe has become the de facto standard in publishing; Microsoft's Excel has done the same in spreadsheets. eBay is a great example of a user network. Each additional user to the network costs the company virtually nothing. The additional revenues that come in as the network expands go straight to the bottom line.
For a more current example, consider Netflix. As a streaming service, they make more money for each subscriber, even as their costs remain virtually the same. That way, as they gain more users they will continue to grow in profitability, assuming they don't choose to increase costs significantly.

Method 3 Evaluating Company Performance and Valuation.
1. Check the quality of management. How competent is the management running the company? More importantly, how focused are they toward the company, customers, investors, and employees? In this age of rampant corporate greed, it's always a great idea to research the management of any company you're thinking of investing in. Newspaper and magazine articles are good places to get this information.
This doesn't just mean that management has provided good financial results recently. Rather, look for indications of other important qualities like responsiveness, adaptability, capacity for innovation, and organizational ability.
2. Watch for management changes. A good leader can successfully turn around a company that many consider to be a lost cause. Watch the news and financial reports for changes in management positions, especially CEOs. If you believe in the new CEO of a company, based on your research, you may choose to invest in that company. Here, you're essentially putting your faith in the person, not the company.
3. Avoid overvalued stocks. Even a great company can be overvalued. Learn to interpret financial statements and pick stocks with fundamental analysis to find companies the market has overvalued. Know that these companies may be some of the most buzzed-about and invested in companies around, but they are still overvalued and may experience drastic declines in price once their day in the spotlight is over.
One way to determine if a stock is overpriced is to examine its price-earnings-ratio. The price to earnings ratio can usually be found in the company's stock summary on financial websites. Generally, PE ratios are between 20-25, but this varies by industry.
To evaluate a company's PE ratio, search online for the average PE ratio in the company's industry. If the P/E ratio is over the industry average, the company could be overpriced in view of its earnings.
4. Buy undervalued stocks. Undervalued stocks are those that are trading at a lower value than their financial information would indicate. These may be companies that have only started to do well recently. In these cases, the market has not yet caught up with their newfound success. To identify stocks with room to grow in value, you can also use the price-earnings ratio mentioned above and look for companies with low PE ratios compared to the industry average.
You can also look for companies with a price-to-book-value of less than 2. The price-to-book ratio is the price of the company divided by the total value of its assets minus its liabilities and intangible assets. A low ratio may indicate that the company is relatively cheap.

FAQ.

Question : How can I know a company's management?
Answer : A company's stock prospectus will list its management personnel. For suggestions on researching company management, go here: Investopedia.com/articles/02/062602.asp.

Tips.
Start thinking about everyday companies in terms of this new framework.
Learn the basics of reading financial statements. Check the profitability of companies you're interested in. Check their debt position. See if they have been growing steadily.
Visit the company’s website and other financial websites that will give you insight into the stock.
While it may be advantageous to invest in companies you know, do not limit yourself to just one or two sectors of the economy. Try to research companies in a variety of sectors. Doing so further diversifies your portfolio to better insulate it from a downturn in a single sector or company.

Warnings.
Be aware of stock tips: Whether they come from someone you see on TV or someone you meet in person, these are more often not well-researched or are even based on someone's grandiose theory about getting rich quick. They may also be provided by salesmen paid to inflate a stock's price to allow a company to raise as much capital as possible.
Jumping into buying stocks in a company without doing thorough research can be a quick way to lose your money.
Investing always carries risk. Even if you do everything right, there's no guarantee that you'll make money.

April 07, 2020

Ten Ways to Create Shareholder Value (part 3).

Ten Ways to Create Shareholder Value (part 3).

by Alfred Rappaport.

Principle 8.

Reward middle managers and frontline employees for delivering superior performance on the key value drivers that they influence directly.
Although sales growth, operating margins, and capital expenditures are useful financial indicators for tracking operating-unit SVA, they are too broad to provide much day-to-day guidance for middle managers and frontline employees, who need to know what specific actions they should take to increase SVA. For more specific measures, companies can develop leading indicators of value, which are quantifiable, easily communicated current accomplishments that frontline employees can influence directly and that significantly affect the long-term value of the business in a positive way. Examples might include time to market for new product launches, employee turnover rate, customer retention rate, and the timely opening of new stores or manufacturing facilities.

My own experience suggests that most businesses can focus on three to five leading indicators and capture an important part of their long-term value-creation potential. The process of identifying leading indicators can be challenging, but improving leading-indicator performance is the foundation for achieving superior SVA, which in turn serves to increase long-term shareholder returns.

Principle 9.

Require senior executives to bear the risks of ownership just as shareholders do.
For the most part, option grants have not successfully aligned the long-term interests of senior executives and shareholders because the former routinely cash out vested options. The ability to sell shares early may in fact motivate them to focus on near-term earnings results rather than on long-term value in order to boost the current stock price.

To better align these interests, many companies have adopted stock ownership guidelines for senior management. Minimum ownership is usually expressed as a multiple of base salary, which is then converted to a specified number of shares. For example, eBay’s guidelines require the CEO to own stock in the company equivalent to five times annual base salary. For other executives, the corresponding number is three times salary. Top managers are further required to retain a percentage of shares resulting from the exercise of stock options until they amass the stipulated number of shares.
But in most cases, stock ownership plans fail to expose executives to the same levels of risk that shareholders bear. One reason is that some companies forgive stock purchase loans when shares underperform, claiming that the arrangement no longer provides an incentive for top management. Such companies, just as those that reprice options, risk institutionalizing a pay delivery system that subverts the spirit and objectives of the incentive compensation program. Another reason is that outright grants of restricted stock, which are essentially options with an exercise price of $0, typically count as shares toward satisfaction of minimum ownership levels. Stock grants motivate key executives to stay with the company until the restrictions lapse, typically within three or four years, and they can cash in their shares. These grants create a strong incentive for CEOs and other top managers to play it safe, protect existing value, and avoid getting fired. Not surprisingly, restricted stock plans are commonly referred to as “pay for pulse,” rather than pay for performance.

In an effort to deflect the criticism that restricted stock plans are a giveaway, many companies offer performance shares that require not only that the executive remain on the payroll but also that the company achieve predetermined performance goals tied to EPS growth, revenue targets, or return-on-capital-employed thresholds. While performance shares do demand performance, it’s generally not the right kind of performance for delivering long-term value because the metrics are usually not closely linked to value.

Companies need to balance the benefits of requiring senior executives to hold continuing ownership stakes and the resulting restrictions on their liquidity and diversification.

Companies seeking to better align the interests of executives and shareholders need to find a proper balance between the benefits of requiring senior executives to have meaningful and continuing ownership stakes and the resulting restrictions on their liquidity and diversification. Without equity-based incentives, executives may become excessively risk averse to avoid failure and possible dismissal. If they own too much equity, however, they may also eschew risk to preserve the value of their largely undiversified portfolios. Extending the period before executives can unload shares from the exercise of options and not counting restricted stock grants as shares toward minimum ownership levels would certainly help equalize executives’ and shareholders’ risks.

Principle 10.

Provide investors with value-relevant information.
The final principle governs investor communications, such as a company’s financial reports. Better disclosure not only offers an antidote to short-term earnings obsession but also serves to lessen investor uncertainty and so potentially reduce the cost of capital and increase the share price.

One way to do this, as described in my article “The Economics of Short-Term Performance Obsession” in the May–June 2005 issue of Financial Analysts Journal, is to prepare a corporate performance statement. (See the exhibit “The Corporate Performance Statement” for a template.) This statement:

separates out cash flows and accruals, providing a historical baseline for estimating a company’s cash flow prospects and enabling analysts to evaluate how reasonable accrual estimates are;
classifies accruals with long cash-conversion cycles into medium and high levels of uncertainty;
provides a range and the most likely estimate for each accrual rather than traditional single-point estimates that ignore the wide variability of possible outcomes;
excludes arbitrary, value-irrelevant accruals, such as depreciation and amortization; and
details assumptions and risks for each line item while presenting key performance indicators that drive the company’s value.

Could such specific disclosure prove too costly? The reality is that executives in well-managed companies already use the type of information contained in a corporate performance statement. Indeed, the absence of such information should cause shareholders to question whether management has a comprehensive grasp of the business and whether the board is properly exercising its oversight responsibility. In the present unforgiving climate for accounting shenanigans, value-driven companies have an unprecedented opportunity to create value simply by improving the form and content of corporate reports.

The Rewards—and the Risks.
The crucial question, of course, is whether following these ten principles serves the long-term interests of shareholders. For most companies, the answer is a resounding yes. Just eliminating the practice of delaying or forgoing value-creating investments to meet quarterly earnings targets can make a significant difference. Further, exiting the earnings-management game of accelerating revenues into the current period and deferring expenses to future periods reduces the risk that, over time, a company will be unable to meet market expectations and trigger a meltdown in its stock. But the real payoff comes in the difference that a true shareholder-value orientation makes to a company’s long-term growth strategy.

For most organizations, value-creating growth is the strategic challenge, and to succeed, companies must be good at developing new, potentially disruptive businesses. Here’s why. The bulk of the typical company’s share price reflects expectations for the growth of current businesses. If companies meet those expectations, shareholders will earn only a normal return. But to deliver superior long-term returns—that is, to grow the share price faster than competitors’ share prices—management must either repeatedly exceed market expectations for its current businesses or develop new value-creating businesses. It’s almost impossible to repeatedly beat expectations for current businesses, because if you do, investors simply raise the bar. So the only reasonable way to deliver superior long-term returns is to focus on new business opportunities. (Of course, if a company’s stock price already reflects expectations with regard to new businesses—which it may do if management has a track record of delivering such value-creating growth—then the task of generating superior returns becomes daunting; it’s all managers can do to meet the expectations that exist.)

Value-creating growth is the strategic challenge, and to succeed, companies must be good at developing new, potentially disruptive businesses.

Companies focused on short-term performance measures are doomed to fail in delivering on a value-creating growth strategy because they are forced to concentrate on existing businesses rather than on developing new ones for the longer term. When managers spend too much time on core businesses, they end up with no new opportunities in the pipeline. And when they get into trouble—as they inevitably do—they have little choice but to try to pull a rabbit out of the hat. The dynamic of this failure has been very accurately described by Clay Christensen and Michael Raynor in their book The Innovator’s Solution: Creating and Sustaining Successful Growth (Harvard Business School Press, 2003). With a little adaptation, it plays out like this:

Despite a slowdown in growth and margin erosion in the company’s maturing core business, management continues to focus on developing it at the expense of launching new growth businesses.
Eventually, investments in the core can no longer produce the growth that investors expect, and the stock price takes a hit.
To revitalize the stock price, management announces a targeted growth rate that is well beyond what the core can deliver, thus introducing a larger growth gap.
Confronted with this gap, the company limits funding to projects that promise very large, very fast growth. Accordingly, the company refuses to fund new growth businesses that could ultimately fuel the company’s expansion but couldn’t get big enough fast enough.
Managers then respond with overly optimistic projections to gain funding for initiatives in large existing markets that are potentially capable of generating sufficient revenue quickly enough to satisfy investor expectations.
To meet the planned timetable for rollout, the company puts a sizable cost structure in place before realizing any revenues.
As revenue increases fall short and losses persist, the market again hammers the stock price and a new CEO is brought in to shore it up.
Seeing that the new growth business pipeline is virtually empty, the incoming CEO tries to quickly stem losses by approving only expenditures that bolster the mature core.
The company has now come full circle and has lost substantial shareholder value.
Companies that take shareholder value seriously avoid this self-reinforcing pattern of behavior. Because they do not dwell on the market’s near-term expectations, they don’t wait for the core to deteriorate before they invest in new growth opportunities. They are, therefore, more likely to become first movers in a market and erect formidable barriers to entry through scale or learning economies, positive network effects, or reputational advantages. Their management teams are forward-looking and sensitive to strategic opportunities. Over time, they get better than their competitors at seizing opportunities to achieve competitive advantage.
Although applying the ten principles will improve long-term prospects for many companies, a few will still experience problems if investors remain fixated on near-term earnings, because in certain situations a weak stock price can actually affect operating performance. The risk is particularly acute for companies such as high-tech start-ups, which depend heavily on a healthy stock price to finance growth and send positive signals to employees, customers, and suppliers. When share prices are depressed, selling new shares either prohibitively dilutes current shareholders’ stakes or, in some cases, makes the company unattractive to prospective investors. As a consequence, management may have to defer or scrap its value-creating growth plans. Then, as investors become aware of the situation, the stock price continues to slide, possibly leading to a takeover at a fire-sale price or to bankruptcy.

Severely capital-constrained companies can also be vulnerable, especially if labor markets are tight, customers are few, or suppliers are particularly powerful. A low share price means that these organizations cannot offer credible prospects of large stock-option or restricted-stock gains, which makes it difficult to attract and retain the talent whose knowledge, ideas, and skills have increasingly become a dominant source of value. From the perspective of customers, a low valuation raises doubts about the company’s competitive and financial strength as well as its ability to continue producing high-quality, leading-edge products and reliable postsale support. Suppliers and distributors may also react by offering less favorable contractual terms, or, if they sense an unacceptable probability of financial distress, they may simply refuse to do business with the company. In all cases, the company’s woes are compounded when lenders consider the performance risks arising from a weak stock price and demand higher interest rates and more restrictive loan terms.

Clearly, if a company is vulnerable in these respects, then responsible managers cannot afford to ignore market pressures for short-term performance, and adoption of the ten principles needs to be somewhat tempered. But the reality is that these extreme conditions do not apply to most established, publicly traded companies. Few rely on equity issues to finance growth. Most generate enough cash to pay their top employees well without resorting to equity incentives. Most also have a large universe of customers and suppliers to deal with, and there are plenty of banks after their business.

It’s time, therefore, for boards and CEOs to step up and seize the moment. The sooner you make your firm a level 10 company, the more you and your shareholders stand to gain. And what better moment than now for institutional investors to act on behalf of the shareholders and beneficiaries they represent and insist that long-term shareholder value become the governing principle for all the companies in their portfolios?

July 25, 2020

Everything You Need to Know About Finance and Investing in Under an Hour

Everything You Need to Know About Finance and Investing in Under an Hour 

Uses a lemonade stand example to provide an overview of the financial aspects of a business (revenue, profits, valuation, growth, pricing, balance sheet, income statements).
Concentrates on investing, including the following key points
In the example, the owner starts with $750, with $250 of that coming from a loan.
Here's an income statement tracking the healthy growth of the lemonade business. By year five, the company has seven stands, supported by an increased margin on products, and makes a profit of $2,311 (earnings before tax).
With some compound interest examples, he highlights the importance of starting early so your money can grow early over time).
He tweaks return assumptions to show how long-term outcomes are impacted by changes in how much your investments return.
Save $10,000 and earn 10% each year, you would have $602,000 after 43 years.
Earn 15% per year, you would have over $4 million after 43 years.
Importance of not losing money as drawdowns can have significant negative effects on returns.

A business owner can take money from a lender, who profits from interest on his loan, or an equity investor, who buys shares in the company. An equity investor stands to make much more money than a lender due to the level of risk involved — if the company doesn't make money, neither does the investor.

What are keys to successful investing?

Invest in companies that are listed on the stock market (liquid, well-known).
Avoid investing in start-up businesses where prospects are not well known.
Invest in businesses that you understand.
Invest at a reasonable price.
Invest in company that could last forever.
For instance, an investor makes a small amount of interest from government bonds because the risk is low — the US government is more secure than any corporation. An investor makes a large amount of interest from loans to business owners because the risk is high.
What kind of businesses last forever? (Examples: Coca-Cola, McDonalds, candy business).

Equity is a "residual claim" because debt must be paid off before investors can profit. Shareholders may make money from company profits called "dividends."

When a company has grown significantly, its owner can sell it for a typically large sum of money, in exchange for control of the business and a shot at future profits.
Sell a product that people need.
Sell a unique product (not a commodity).
Elicit brand loyalty that consumers are willing to.
Find a company with limited debt.
High barriers to entry.
Immune to extrinsic factors.
Has low reinvestment costs.
Generate high amounts of cash flow.
Avoid businesses with controlling shareholders (one shareholder holds majority of company stock).
Instead of growing a business further, an owner can pay himself dividends to put cash in his pocket rather than in the company.
At a moment of strong growth, the business owner can either share profits with a private investor or go public.
When a business files for an initial public offering (IPO), its owners offer a portion of it to the general public, which raises cash, and the company gets listed on an exchange. It requires being transparent and, in the US, reporting to the Securities and Exchange Commission.


When are you ready to start investing?

When you have money you won’t need for 5-10 years.
After paying off credit card debt and student loan debt.
Have 6-12 months of emergency funds set aside.

Psychology of investing.

How to withstand volatility.
Be financially secure.
Don’t get spooked by short-term fluctuations.
Do your own research.
Invest at a reasonable price.

If you don't have the time or desire to invest in individual stocks, you can invest in mutual funds, large pools of funds managed by a professional investor.
Mutual fund companies.
Pros.
Portfolio diversity, even for small investment amounts.
Managed by professional investor.
Cons.
Choice: Over 10,000 to choose from.
Research is required to pick a good manager.

You can also outsource your investing to a money manager.
Reputation for integrity.
Easily explain investment strategy (“the two minute test”).
Has a value approach.
Long-term track record.
Consistent approach.
Invests own money in the fun.

July 11, 2020

How Bitcoin Disrupts the Finance Industry

How Bitcoin Disrupts the Finance Industry .

Cryptocurrencies and their underlying blockchain technology are being touted as the next-big-thing after the creation of the internet. One area where these technologies are likely to have a major impact is the financial sector. The blockchain, as a form of distributed ledger technology (DLT), has the potential to transform well-established financial institutions and bring lower costs, faster execution of transactions, improved transparency, auditability of operations, and other benefits. Cryptocurrencies hold the promise of a new native digital asset class without a central authority.

So what do these technological developments mean for the various players in the sector and end users? “Blockchains have the potential to displace any business activity built on transactions occurring on traditional corporate databases, which is what underlies nearly every financial service function. Any financial operation that has low transparency and limited traceability is vulnerable to disruption by blockchain applications. DLT is therefore both a great opportunity and also a disruptive threat,” according to Bruce Weber, dean of Lerner College and business administration professor, and Andrew Novocin, professor of electrical and computer engineering, both at the University of Delaware.

Earlier this year, Weber, Novocin, and graduate student Jonathan Wood conducted a literature review on cryptocurrencies and DLT for the SWIFT Institute. Based on this review, the SWIFT institute recently issued a grant to conduct new research on DLT and cryptocurrencies in the financial sector. Weber and Novocin noted that just as disruptors like Amazon, Google, Facebook and Uber built software platforms and thriving businesses thanks to the connectivity provided by internet standards, next-generation startups will build new services and businesses with blockchains. “Many pundits expect blockchain, as a distributed technology, to become the foundation for new services and applications that have completely different rules from those running on hierarchical and controlled databases. Cryptocurrencies are an early example but many others will follow,” they added.

Kartik Hosanagar, a Wharton professor of marketing and operations, information and decisions, pointed out that the financial services sector is full of intermediaries such as banks that help create trust among transacting parties like lenders and borrowers. Blockchain, he said, is a mechanism to create trust without centralized control. “The power of eliminating intermediaries is the ability to lower transaction costs and take back control from powerful financial intermediaries.”

Regarding cryptocurrencies, Hosanagar pointed out that most of the value today is tied to speculative buying rather than actual use cases. But having a currency without a central authority offers “certain unique kinds of protections especially in countries with troubled central banks.” For example, Venezuela’s currency is rapidly losing value. For people who stored their savings in crypto, there was greater protection against such rapid currency devaluations. “Of course, cryptocurrencies have their own instabilities, but they aren’t tied to actions by central banks and that’s particularly relevant in countries and economies where citizens don’t trust their governments and central banks,” he said.

“Any financial operation that has low transparency and limited traceability is vulnerable to disruption by blockchain applications.”–Bruce Weber and Andrew Novocin

Hosanagar expects the first wave of applications to be rolled out in “private” blockchains where a central authority such as a financial institution and its partners are the only ones with the permission to participate (as opposed to public, permissionless blockchains where participants are anonymous and there is no central authority). Applications in the private blockchains, he said, will be more secure and will offer some of the benefits of decentralized ledgers but will not be radically different from the way things work at present. However, over time, he expects smart contracts (self-executing contracts when requirements are met) to be offered on public blockchain networks like Ethereum. “When securities are traded, intermediaries provide trust, and they charge commissions. Blockchains can help provide such trust in a low-cost manner. But trade of securities is governed by securities laws. Smart contracts offer a way to ensure compliance with the laws. They have great potential because of their ability to reduce costs while being compliant,” says Hosanagar.

According to Weber and Novocin, one area ripe for transformation is reaching consensus on important benchmark rates and prices. At present, they point out, different proprietary indexes are used to determine interest rates and the price of many mainstream assets. Blockchain can transform this. “Think of the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) and the recent scandals involving manipulation of benchmark values when they are controlled by a single entity that may not be capable of detecting false or fraudulent data. Blockchain could provide greater transparency around the process of creating agreed upon reference prices, and allow more people to participate in the consensus process.”

Weber and Novocin expect that in some areas intermediaries will find their roles reduced as blockchain allows for automation through greater transparency and traceability. In other areas, intermediaries will find themselves well-placed to take advantage of changing needs of their clients, as firms will need help to manage the shift to new standards as well as the greater complexity of open and traceable blockchain infrastructure. Intermediaries in areas that could potentially be disrupted, they said, “should get involved with projects seeking to set the standards, so that they can stay informed and position themselves to profit from becoming the leaders in the operations of the new markets that will emerge.”

Kevin Werbach, Wharton professor of legal studies and business ethics, and author of a forthcoming book The Blockchain and the New Architecture of Trust,  said that it’s usually not helpful to focus on what aspects of a major existing market will be “transformed” or “disrupted” by new technologies. Important technologies, he said, are far more likely to be integrated into the system than replace it. According to Werbach, while some firms will fail to make the transition and some new ones will take hold, “over the long-run, virtually every historic innovation that eliminated some forms of intermediation also created new forms.”

Blockchain will reduce the massive duplication of information that creates delays, conflicts and confusion in many aspects of financial services, Werbach added. For example, when a syndicate of lenders participates in a loan, having one shared ledger means they don’t all need to keep track of it independently. International payments and corporate stock records are other examples where there are huge inefficiencies due to duplicate record-keeping and intermediaries. “End users won’t see the changes in the deep plumbing of financial services, but it will allow new service providers to emerge and new products to be offered,” said Werbach.

Bumps Along the Way

Angela Walch, professor of law at St. Mary’s University School of Law and a research fellow at the Centre for Blockchain Technologies at University College London, offered another perspective. She said there is a lot of excitement about blockchain as a distributed ledger technology for the financial sector because many believe that it offers a better, more efficient and more resilient form of recordkeeping. However, making use of the blockchain is not as simple as just buying new software and running it. “Blockchain technology is, at core, group recordkeeping. To reap its full benefits, one needs all the relevant members of the group to join the system. This requires collaboration with and across businesses, which is a potentially big hurdle, and may be the hurdle that most limits adoption.”

Governance is the biggest challenge in decentralized organizations, said Weber and Novocin. Members participating in a blockchain-supported financial function may have misaligned incentives, and can end up in gridlock, or with a chaotic outcome. They cite the example of the ‘DAO Hack,’ which was the first prominent smart contract project on the Ethereum network to suffer a large loss of funds. The Ethereum community voted to conduct a hard fork (a radical change to the protocol that makes previously invalid blocks/transactions valid or vice-versa) — reversing the transactions after the hack and essentially refunding the DAO investors. This was in effect a breach of Ethereum’s immutability and it left a sizeable minority of the community bitterly dissatisfied. This group viewed the Ethereum community as forsaking its commitment to immutable, permanent records. They refused to acknowledge the hard fork, and maintained the original Ethereum blockchain, now known as Ethereum Classic (whereas the forked version supported by the Ethereum Foundation is simply Ethereum).

“The power of eliminating intermediaries is the ability to lower transaction costs and take back control from powerful financial intermediaries.”–Kartik Hosanagar

“Distributed organizations serving an open community need to take care to design their governance systems, incentive structures and decision-making processes to create consensus without unduly slowing down the decision-making,” said Weber and Novocin. “Scenario planning or war gaming are worth exploring at the beginning of blockchain projects. Forward planning enables organizations to swiftly respond in a predictable way that is supportive of stakeholders. Publicizing these plans in advance can also build trust and user confidence.”

Cryptocurrency Risks.

Werbach listed a variety of risks and vulnerabilities related to cryptocurrencies: Bitcoin has shown that the fundamental security of its proof-of-work system is sound, but it has major limitations such as limited scalability, massive energy usage and concentration of mining pools. There has been massive theft of cryptocurrencies from the centralized intermediaries that most people use to hold it, and massive fraud by promoters of initial coin offerings and other schemes. Manipulation is widespread on lightly-regulated cryptocurrency exchanges.

For example, roughly half of Bitcoin transactions are with Tether, a “stablecoin” that claims to be backed by U.S. dollars but has never been audited and is involved in highly suspicious behavior. Money laundering and other criminal activity is a serious problem if transactions do not require some check of real-world identities. “There are major efforts to address all of these risks and vulnerabilities. Some are technical, some are business opportunities, and some are regulatory questions. There must be recognition among cryptocurrency proponents that maturation of the industry will require cooperation in many cases with incumbents and regulators,” added Werbach.

Hosanagar cautions that while decentralization offers significant value — and a significant number of miners/validators must verify the transaction for it to be validated — it is still susceptible to collusion. If one or a few companies running lots of miners/validators in a small network collude, they can affect the sanctity of the network. The big risk with cryptocurrencies, he added, is that most activity as of today is ultimately tied to speculation. It’s important for cryptocurrencies to discover a “killer app soon so there is some underlying value created beyond speculation of its future value,” Hosanagar concludes.

The Way Ahead?

Given all these challenges, what is the current mindset in the financial sector towards adopting these new technologies? And, importantly, should one push for wide acceptance and deployment, or is there need for them to stabilize first?

According to Werbach, “It’s not an either-or” choice. Cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology in general, he noted, are immature currently. However, there are some areas where they are already able to be deployed effectively. The best way to work through today’s problems, is “to build working systems and see where difficulties arise,” Werbach said. Looking ahead, integration with law, regulation and governance will be critical. Blockchain and cryptocurrencies represent a new form of trust, he added. They will only succeed if they become sufficiently trustworthy, beyond the basic security of the distributed ledgers. “Law, regulation and governance are three major mechanisms to produce trustworthy systems that scale up to society-wide adoption. We need to find ways to address the legitimate concerns of governments without overly restricting the innovations that blockchain technology enables. I’m optimistic about that process over time.”

“We need to find ways to address the legitimate concerns of governments without overly restricting the innovations that blockchain technology enables.”–Kevin Werbach

Walch noted that while there are claims that some consortia are putting ‘blockchain’ systems into production, in many cases it appears that what they are calling a blockchain bears little to no resemblance to the original blockchain technology behind Bitcoin. In many instances, she said, existing shared databases are being called ‘blockchain’ for marketing purposes. “If people do use something they call DLT or blockchain technology in important financial systems, my hope is that they make the decision based on actual capabilities of the tech rather than its widely hyped and generally overstated capabilities,” Walch said. “Permissioned blockchains, which are the variation most likely to be used for financial systems recordkeeping, are very different from public blockchains like Bitcoin or Ethereum. I hope that a more modest and accurate understanding of the actual characteristics of permissioned blockchains sinks in before they are widely adopted.”

Regarding cryptocurrencies or cryptoassets, Walch said that the financial sector’s interest is “less about recordkeeping and more about a new financial asset that it can make money off of.” She pointed out that at present there is no clarity on how power and accountability work in these systems. The ongoing operation of crypto systems and the value they embed and support is reliant on the competence of, and ethical behavior by, unaccountable software developers and validators. “The financial sector believes it understands and can manage the risks of cryptoassets, but I am less certain and worry that hubris and greed are driving the push to create cryptoassets as a real asset class. This has been a bad mixture in the past,” says Walch. “I think it would be more responsible to let cryptosystems exist on their own for a while longer to let more of the kinks get worked out — if they can be; I’m not sure the governance ones can — rather than to rapidly integrate them into the financial system as we seem to be doing.”

“I … worry that hubris and greed are driving the push to create cryptoassets as a real asset class.”–Angela Walch

Conversely, Weber and Novocin feel that the financial industry is cautious about the new DLT technology. According to them, to build confidence in new blockchain systems there needs to be transparency around how the processes work and what the benefits are, and in order to secure adoption, they need to be straightforward to use. “Pundits have drawn parallels to the open source Linux operating system. Although only a few individuals use Linux directly, it quietly runs the vast majority of servers and cloud processors across the world. Similarly, early adoption of blockchain will likely happen in the background of business processes. Companies should get involved now, even if it is just to experiment with the concepts. By gaining familiarity with these new tools, they will be ready as the space continues to develop.”

Weber and Novocin expect that in the next few years, many more businesses will implement private blockchains to improve the transparency and traceability of their financial operations, supply chains, inventory management systems and other internal business systems. Clearer standards will be adopted and a few high-profile projects will emerge. Meanwhile, they said, R&D will continue among the many decentralized blockchain projects to invent more scalable public ledgers whether it be blockchain, Tangle, Hashgraph or something new. “Work is needed on better and more efficient consensus models, whether it be a new form of proof-of-stake or proof-of-work, or something else. There are many established groups, startups, companies and research teams that organizations can join, partner with, or support in order to contribute to research and expand their capabilities.”




Bitcoin (Currency),Bitcoin,Finance (Industry),Industry (Organization Sector),Brad Templeton,Singularity University,Innovation,Internet,Web,Website,Google,Disruption,Technology,Technological,Money,Currency,Gold,Big Think,BigThink,BigThink.com,Education,Educational,Lifelong Learning,EDU

July 16, 2020

How the Blockchain Will Impact the Financial Sector

How the Blockchain Will Impact the Financial Sector.

Cryptocurrencies and their underlying blockchain technology are being touted as the next-big-thing after the creation of the internet. One area where these technologies are likely to have a major impact is the financial sector. The blockchain, as a form of distributed ledger technology (DLT), has the potential to transform well-established financial institutions and bring lower costs, faster execution of transactions, improved transparency, auditability of operations, and other benefits. Cryptocurrencies hold the promise of a new native digital asset class without a central authority.

So what do these technological developments mean for the various players in the sector and end users? “Blockchains have the potential to displace any business activity built on transactions occurring on traditional corporate databases, which is what underlies nearly every financial service function. Any financial operation that has low transparency and limited traceability is vulnerable to disruption by blockchain applications. DLT is therefore both a great opportunity and also a disruptive threat,” according to Bruce Weber, dean of Lerner College and business administration professor, and Andrew Novocin, professor of electrical and computer engineering, both at the University of Delaware.

Earlier this year, Weber, Novocin, and graduate student Jonathan Wood conducted a literature review on cryptocurrencies and DLT for the SWIFT Institute. Based on this review, the SWIFT institute recently issued a grant to conduct new research on DLT and cryptocurrencies in the financial sector. Weber and Novocin noted that just as disruptors like Amazon, Google, Facebook and Uber built software platforms and thriving businesses thanks to the connectivity provided by internet standards, next-generation startups will build new services and businesses with blockchains. “Many pundits expect blockchain, as a distributed technology, to become the foundation for new services and applications that have completely different rules from those running on hierarchical and controlled databases. Cryptocurrencies are an early example but many others will follow,” they added.

Kartik Hosanagar, a Wharton professor of marketing and operations, information and decisions, pointed out that the financial services sector is full of intermediaries such as banks that help create trust among transacting parties like lenders and borrowers. Blockchain, he said, is a mechanism to create trust without centralized control. “The power of eliminating intermediaries is the ability to lower transaction costs and take back control from powerful financial intermediaries.”

Regarding cryptocurrencies, Hosanagar pointed out that most of the value today is tied to speculative buying rather than actual use cases. But having a currency without a central authority offers “certain unique kinds of protections especially in countries with troubled central banks.” For example, Venezuela’s currency is rapidly losing value. For people who stored their savings in crypto, there was greater protection against such rapid currency devaluations. “Of course, cryptocurrencies have their own instabilities, but they aren’t tied to actions by central banks and that’s particularly relevant in countries and economies where citizens don’t trust their governments and central banks,” he said.

“Any financial operation that has low transparency and limited traceability is vulnerable to disruption by blockchain applications.”–Bruce Weber and Andrew Novocin

Hosanagar expects the first wave of applications to be rolled out in “private” blockchains where a central authority such as a financial institution and its partners are the only ones with the permission to participate (as opposed to public, permissionless blockchains where participants are anonymous and there is no central authority). Applications in the private blockchains, he said, will be more secure and will offer some of the benefits of decentralized ledgers but will not be radically different from the way things work at present. However, over time, he expects smart contracts (self-executing contracts when requirements are met) to be offered on public blockchain networks like Ethereum. “When securities are traded, intermediaries provide trust, and they charge commissions. Blockchains can help provide such trust in a low-cost manner. But trade of securities is governed by securities laws. Smart contracts offer a way to ensure compliance with the laws. They have great potential because of their ability to reduce costs while being compliant,” says Hosanagar.

According to Weber and Novocin, one area ripe for transformation is reaching consensus on important benchmark rates and prices. At present, they point out, different proprietary indexes are used to determine interest rates and the price of many mainstream assets. Blockchain can transform this. “Think of the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) and the recent scandals involving manipulation of benchmark values when they are controlled by a single entity that may not be capable of detecting false or fraudulent data. Blockchain could provide greater transparency around the process of creating agreed upon reference prices, and allow more people to participate in the consensus process.”

Weber and Novocin expect that in some areas intermediaries will find their roles reduced as blockchain allows for automation through greater transparency and traceability. In other areas, intermediaries will find themselves well-placed to take advantage of changing needs of their clients, as firms will need help to manage the shift to new standards as well as the greater complexity of open and traceable blockchain infrastructure. Intermediaries in areas that could potentially be disrupted, they said, “should get involved with projects seeking to set the standards, so that they can stay informed and position themselves to profit from becoming the leaders in the operations of the new markets that will emerge.”

Kevin Werbach, Wharton professor of legal studies and business ethics, and author of a forthcoming book The Blockchain and the New Architecture of Trust,  said that it’s usually not helpful to focus on what aspects of a major existing market will be “transformed” or “disrupted” by new technologies. Important technologies, he said, are far more likely to be integrated into the system than replace it. According to Werbach, while some firms will fail to make the transition and some new ones will take hold, “over the long-run, virtually every historic innovation that eliminated some forms of intermediation also created new forms.”


Blockchain will reduce the massive duplication of information that creates delays, conflicts and confusion in many aspects of financial services, Werbach added. For example, when a syndicate of lenders participates in a loan, having one shared ledger means they don’t all need to keep track of it independently. International payments and corporate stock records are other examples where there are huge inefficiencies due to duplicate record-keeping and intermediaries. “End users won’t see the changes in the deep plumbing of financial services, but it will allow new service providers to emerge and new products to be offered,” said Werbach.

Bumps Along the Way

Angela Walch, professor of law at St. Mary’s University School of Law and a research fellow at the Centre for Blockchain Technologies at University College London, offered another perspective. She said there is a lot of excitement about blockchain as a distributed ledger technology for the financial sector because many believe that it offers a better, more efficient and more resilient form of recordkeeping. However, making use of the blockchain is not as simple as just buying new software and running it. “Blockchain technology is, at core, group recordkeeping. To reap its full benefits, one needs all the relevant members of the group to join the system. This requires collaboration with and across businesses, which is a potentially big hurdle, and may be the hurdle that most limits adoption.”

Governance is the biggest challenge in decentralized organizations, said Weber and Novocin. Members participating in a blockchain-supported financial function may have misaligned incentives, and can end up in gridlock, or with a chaotic outcome. They cite the example of the ‘DAO Hack,’ which was the first prominent smart contract project on the Ethereum network to suffer a large loss of funds. The Ethereum community voted to conduct a hard fork (a radical change to the protocol that makes previously invalid blocks/transactions valid or vice-versa) — reversing the transactions after the hack and essentially refunding the DAO investors. This was in effect a breach of Ethereum’s immutability and it left a sizeable minority of the community bitterly dissatisfied. This group viewed the Ethereum community as forsaking its commitment to immutable, permanent records. They refused to acknowledge the hard fork, and maintained the original Ethereum blockchain, now known as Ethereum Classic (whereas the forked version supported by the Ethereum Foundation is simply Ethereum).

“The power of eliminating intermediaries is the ability to lower transaction costs and take back control from powerful financial intermediaries.”–Kartik Hosanagar

“Distributed organizations serving an open community need to take care to design their governance systems, incentive structures and decision-making processes to create consensus without unduly slowing down the decision-making,” said Weber and Novocin. “Scenario planning or war gaming are worth exploring at the beginning of blockchain projects. Forward planning enables organizations to swiftly respond in a predictable way that is supportive of stakeholders. Publicizing these plans in advance can also build trust and user confidence.”

Cryptocurrency Risks.

Werbach listed a variety of risks and vulnerabilities related to cryptocurrencies: Bitcoin has shown that the fundamental security of its proof-of-work system is sound, but it has major limitations such as limited scalability, massive energy usage and concentration of mining pools. There has been massive theft of cryptocurrencies from the centralized intermediaries that most people use to hold it, and massive fraud by promoters of initial coin offerings and other schemes. Manipulation is widespread on lightly-regulated cryptocurrency exchanges.

For example, roughly half of Bitcoin transactions are with Tether, a “stablecoin” that claims to be backed by U.S. dollars but has never been audited and is involved in highly suspicious behavior. Money laundering and other criminal activity is a serious problem if transactions do not require some check of real-world identities. “There are major efforts to address all of these risks and vulnerabilities. Some are technical, some are business opportunities, and some are regulatory questions. There must be recognition among cryptocurrency proponents that maturation of the industry will require cooperation in many cases with incumbents and regulators,” added Werbach.

Hosanagar cautions that while decentralization offers significant value — and a significant number of miners/validators must verify the transaction for it to be validated — it is still susceptible to collusion. If one or a few companies running lots of miners/validators in a small network collude, they can affect the sanctity of the network. The big risk with cryptocurrencies, he added, is that most activity as of today is ultimately tied to speculation. It’s important for cryptocurrencies to discover a “killer app soon so there is some underlying value created beyond speculation of its future value,” Hosanagar concludes.

The Way Ahead?

Given all these challenges, what is the current mindset in the financial sector towards adopting these new technologies? And, importantly, should one push for wide acceptance and deployment, or is there need for them to stabilize first?

According to Werbach, “It’s not an either-or” choice. Cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology in general, he noted, are immature currently. However, there are some areas where they are already able to be deployed effectively. The best way to work through today’s problems, is “to build working systems and see where difficulties arise,” Werbach said. Looking ahead, integration with law, regulation and governance will be critical. Blockchain and cryptocurrencies represent a new form of trust, he added. They will only succeed if they become sufficiently trustworthy, beyond the basic security of the distributed ledgers. “Law, regulation and governance are three major mechanisms to produce trustworthy systems that scale up to society-wide adoption. We need to find ways to address the legitimate concerns of governments without overly restricting the innovations that blockchain technology enables. I’m optimistic about that process over time.”

“We need to find ways to address the legitimate concerns of governments without overly restricting the innovations that blockchain technology enables.”–Kevin Werbach

Walch noted that while there are claims that some consortia are putting ‘blockchain’ systems into production, in many cases it appears that what they are calling a blockchain bears little to no resemblance to the original blockchain technology behind Bitcoin. In many instances, she said, existing shared databases are being called ‘blockchain’ for marketing purposes. “If people do use something they call DLT or blockchain technology in important financial systems, my hope is that they make the decision based on actual capabilities of the tech rather than its widely hyped and generally overstated capabilities,” Walch said. “Permissioned blockchains, which are the variation most likely to be used for financial systems recordkeeping, are very different from public blockchains like Bitcoin or Ethereum. I hope that a more modest and accurate understanding of the actual characteristics of permissioned blockchains sinks in before they are widely adopted.”

Regarding cryptocurrencies or cryptoassets, Walch said that the financial sector’s interest is “less about recordkeeping and more about a new financial asset that it can make money off of.” She pointed out that at present there is no clarity on how power and accountability work in these systems. The ongoing operation of crypto systems and the value they embed and support is reliant on the competence of, and ethical behavior by, unaccountable software developers and validators. “The financial sector believes it understands and can manage the risks of cryptoassets, but I am less certain and worry that hubris and greed are driving the push to create cryptoassets as a real asset class. This has been a bad mixture in the past,” says Walch. “I think it would be more responsible to let cryptosystems exist on their own for a while longer to let more of the kinks get worked out — if they can be; I’m not sure the governance ones can — rather than to rapidly integrate them into the financial system as we seem to be doing.”

“I … worry that hubris and greed are driving the push to create cryptoassets as a real asset class.”–Angela Walch

Conversely, Weber and Novocin feel that the financial industry is cautious about the new DLT technology. According to them, to build confidence in new blockchain systems there needs to be transparency around how the processes work and what the benefits are, and in order to secure adoption, they need to be straightforward to use. “Pundits have drawn parallels to the open source Linux operating system. Although only a few individuals use Linux directly, it quietly runs the vast majority of servers and cloud processors across the world. Similarly, early adoption of blockchain will likely happen in the background of business processes. Companies should get involved now, even if it is just to experiment with the concepts. By gaining familiarity with these new tools, they will be ready as the space continues to develop.”

Weber and Novocin expect that in the next few years, many more businesses will implement private blockchains to improve the transparency and traceability of their financial operations, supply chains, inventory management systems and other internal business systems. Clearer standards will be adopted and a few high-profile projects will emerge. Meanwhile, they said, R&D will continue among the many decentralized blockchain projects to invent more scalable public ledgers whether it be blockchain, Tangle, Hashgraph or something new. “Work is needed on better and more efficient consensus models, whether it be a new form of proof-of-stake or proof-of-work, or something else. There are many established groups, startups, companies and research teams that organizations can join, partner with, or support in order to contribute to research and expand their capabilities.”




Bitcoin (Currency),Bitcoin,Finance (Industry),Industry (Organization Sector),Brad Templeton,Singularity University,Innovation,Internet,Web,Website,Google,Disruption,Technology,Technological,Money,Currency,Gold,Big Think,BigThink,BigThink.com,Education,Educational,Lifelong Learning,EDU

July 16, 2020