April 27, 2024

European Finance Ministers Deadlock on Plan to Oversee Banks

The ministers agreed to reconvene next week, a day ahead of a summit meeting of European Union leaders who had been hoping to focus discussion on the design of a banking union — something the leaders agreed last summer to establish as a way to safeguard the industry after member countries racked up enormous debts bailing out their banks.

That agreement in June had called for setting up the single regulator under the European Central Bank. And the bloc’s administrative arm, the European Commission, has proposed phasing in the system beginning Jan. 1.

But the deadlock on Tuesday indicated that there was sharp disagreement among member states over how many banks in the euro currency union should be covered by the new system; how to ensure that countries outside the currency union have a way to rebuff regulations they dislike; and how to ensure that the European Central Bank would keep monetary policy separate from its decisions on bank supervision.

After ministers failed to reach agreement Tuesday during their regular monthly meeting, Vassos Shiarly, the finance minister of Cyprus, the country holding the Union’s rotating presidency, set another session for Dec. 12.

If ministers fail to reach agreement at that meeting, the E.U. leaders will arrive at their summit meeting the following day without a cornerstone in place for the banking union. One of the goals for the union could eventually be to issue debt jointly backed by euro zone countries, as a way to buffer the sort of interest rate spikes that have often bedeviled weaker countries, including Spain.

Some ministers warned on Tuesday that further delays in designing the banking union could lead to a return of acute financial pressures in the euro zone. “If we are not able to deliver in the dates we have committed, this will not be neutral in terms of the stability of the markets,” said Luis de Guindos, the Spanish economy minister.

For Spain, stricter supervision was supposed to be the condition for using European funds to bail out its troubled banks directly and a way to avoid accumulating more sovereign debt. Once the supervisor is in place, Spain wants the money it is drawing upon for its bailout to be moved off its government ledgers.

But France and Germany remained divided over the new banking rules on Tuesday. That is a significant obstacle because agreement between the two countries usually is needed to accomplish major reforms in Europe.

Pierre Moscovici, the French finance minister, told the meeting that the new rules should apply to all lenders rather than lead to a two-tier system.

Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany has suggested that the system could eventually apply to all 6,000 banks in the euro zone. But some German officials and industry groups would rather have the new centralized oversight apply only to the biggest European banks, and leave regulation of the country’s smaller savings banks in the hands of national officials.

French officials have stressed the need for a system that covers all euro zone banks. Otherwise, the French have warned, any sudden intervention by the E.C.B. into the affairs of a bank under national regulation could raise alarm among investors and depositors and even lead to bank runs.

But Wolfgang Schäuble, the German finance minister, said Tuesday that trying to give too much central authority to a new banking regulator would meet stiff political opposition in his country.

“I think it would be very difficult to get an approval by the German Parliament if you would leave the supervision for all the German banks to European banking supervision,” Mr. Schäuble told the meeting. “Nobody believes that any European institution will be capable to supervise 6,000 banks in Europe.”

The government in Berlin has complained that overly rapid implementation of the rules could lead to regulatory loopholes. German state governments also have balked at giving the central bank oversight of their sparkassen, the hundreds of small and midsize savings banks that do much of the lending to consumers and small businesses.

Germany also refused to support one of the main British demands: new voting rules to ensure that lenders based in London continue to be regulated by Britain.

Yet another concern for Mr. Schäuble was whether placing so much supervisory power within the European Central Bank could lead the central bank to compromise its decisions on monetary policy — if, for example, the E.C.B. were setting interest rates while also trying to oversee politically sensitive issues like bank bailouts.

“In the long run, you will damage the independence of the central bank,” Mr. Schäuble told the meeting.

Germany is the biggest financial contributor to the European Union, and establishing the single supervisory system could oblige Ms. Merkel to dip into the treasury to help prop up weaker European banks, like many of those in Spain. Such aid could be an issue for German taxpayers, ahead of national elections in their country next September. German citizens have already grown weary of paying most of the bill for bailouts, and they are wary of using more money to help banks in vulnerable southern European countries.

Another issue to be resolved in coming weeks will be the leadership of the group of ministers who oversee the euro area.

Jean-Claude Juncker, who has been the group’s president since 2005, reiterated at a news conference Monday night that he would step down at the end of this year or at the beginning of next year.

But he declined to signal his preference for any particular successor to the post, which gives the holder significant power over the agendas of their meetings.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/05/business/global/daily-euro-zone-watch.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Luck Is Just the Spark for Business Giants

And maybe that’s true — if you just want to be merely good, not much better than average. But what if you want to build or do something great? And what if you want to do so in today’s unstable and unpredictable world?

Recently, we completed a nine-year research study of some of the most extreme business successes of modern times. We examined entrepreneurs who built small enterprises into companies that outperformed their industries by a factor of 10 in highly turbulent environments. We call them 10Xers, for “10 times success.”

The very nature of this study — how some people thrive in uncertainty, lead in chaos, deal with a world full of big, disruptive forces that we cannot predict or control — led us to smack into the question, “Just what is the role of luck?”

Could it be that leaders’ skills account for the difference between just meeting their industry’s average performance (1X success) and doubling it (2X)? But that luck accounts for all the difference between 2X and 10X?

Maybe, or maybe not.

But how on Earth could we go about quantifying something as elusive as “luck”? The breakthrough came in seeing luck as an event, not as some indefinable aura. We defined a “luck event” as one that meets three tests. First, some significant aspect of the event occurs largely or entirely independent of the actions of the enterprise’s main actors. Second, the event has a potentially significant consequence — good or bad. And, third, it has some element of unpredictability.

We systematically found 230 significant luck events across the history of our study’s subjects. We considered good luck, bad luck, the timing of luck and the size of “luck spikes.” Adding up the evidence, we found that the 10X cases weren’t generally “luckier” than the comparison cases. (We compared the 10X companies with a control group of companies that failed to become great in the same extreme environments.)

The 10X cases and the control group both had luck, good and bad, in comparable amounts, so the evidence leads us to conclude that luck doesn’t cause 10X success. The crucial question is not, “Are you lucky?” but “Do you get a high return on luck?”

Return on luck: We call it ROL.

SO why did Bill Gates become a 10Xer, building a great software company in the personal computer revolution? Through one lens, you might see Mr. Gates as incredibly lucky. He just happened to have been born into an upper-middle-class American family that had the resources to send him to a private school. His family happened to enroll him at Lakeside School in Seattle, which had a Teletype connection to a computer upon which he could learn to program — something that was unusual for schools in the late 1960s and early ’70s.

He also just happened to have been born at the right time, coming of age as the advancement of microelectronics made the PC inevitable. Had he been born 10 years later, or even just five years later, he would have missed the moment.

Mr. Gates’s friend Paul Allen just happened to see a cover article in the January 1975 issue of Popular Electronics, titled “World’s First Microcomputer Kit to Rival Commercial Models.” It was about the Altair, designed by a small company in Albuquerque. Mr. Gates and Mr. Allen had the idea to convert the programming language Basic into a product that could be used on the Altair, which would put them in position to be the first to sell such a product for a personal computer. Mr. Gates went to college at Harvard, which just happened to have a PDP-10 computer upon which he could develop and test his ideas.

Wow, Bill Gates was really lucky, right?

Yes, he was. But luck is not why Bill Gates became a 10Xer. Consider these questions:

• Was Bill Gates the only person of his era who grew up in an upper middle-class American family?

• Was he the only person born in the mid-1950s who attended a secondary school with access to computing?

Jim Collins is the author of the worldwide best seller “Good to Great.” This article was adapted from “Great by Choice: Uncertainty, Chaos, and Luck — Why Some Thrive Despite Them All,” which was written with Morten T. Hansen and published this month.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/business/luck-is-just-the-spark-for-business-giants.html?partner=rss&emc=rss