{"id":605,"date":"2009-07-06T07:36:35","date_gmt":"2009-07-06T12:36:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/poojanwagh.opalstacked.com\/poojanblog\/?p=605"},"modified":"2009-07-06T07:42:44","modified_gmt":"2009-07-06T12:42:44","slug":"a-conversation-with-lowell-bryan-and-richard-rumelt-mckinsey-quarterly-strategy-strategic-thinking","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/poojanblog.com\/blog\/2009\/07\/a-conversation-with-lowell-bryan-and-richard-rumelt-mckinsey-quarterly-strategy-strategic-thinking\/","title":{"rendered":"A conversation with Lowell Bryan and Richard Rumelt &#8211; McKinsey Quarterly &#8211; Strategy &#8211; Strategic Thinking"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Enjoyed the McKinsley Quarterly podcast<a href=\"http:\/\/www.mckinseyquarterly.com\/Audio\/Management_lessons_from_the_financial_crisis_A_conversation_with_Lowell_Bryan_and_Richard_Rumelt_236\"> A conversation with Lowell Bryan and Richard Rumelt &#8211; McKinsey Quarterly &#8211; Strategy &#8211; Strategic Thinking<\/a> (link is to transcript of the interview).<\/p>\n<p>They make the point that we were all looking at the wrong metrics before the mortgage\/credit crisis occurred. Things such as GDP, etc. have no correlation with people making much larger mistakes (packaging high-risk loans as low-risk).<\/p>\n<p>Here&#8217;s a really good analogy:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>At the heart of this failure is what I call the &ldquo;smooth sailing&rdquo; fallacy. Back in the 1930s, the Graf Zeppelin and the Hindenburg were the largest aircraft that had ever flown. The Hindenburg was as big as the <em>Titanic<\/em>. Together these vehicles had made 620-odd successful flights when one evening the Hindenburg suddenly burst into flames and fell to the ground in New Jersey. That was May 1937.<\/p>\n<p>Years ago, I had the chance to chat with a guy who had actually flown over Europe in the Hindenburg. And he had this wistful memory that it was a wonderful ride. He said, &ldquo;It seemed so safe. It was smooth, not like the bumpy rides you get in airplanes today.&rdquo; Well, the ride in the Hindenburg <em>was<\/em> smooth, until it exploded. And the risk the passengers took wasn&rsquo;t related to the bumps in the ride or to its smoothness. If you had a modern econometrician on board, no matter how hard he studied those bumps and wiggles in the ride, he wouldn&rsquo;t have been able to predict the disaster. The fallacy is the idea that you can predict disaster risk by looking at the bumps and wiggles in current results.<\/p>\n<p>The history of bumps and wiggles&mdash;and of GDP and prices&mdash;didn&rsquo;t predict economic disaster. When people talk about Six Sigma events or tail risk or Black Swan, they&rsquo;re showing that they don&rsquo;t really get it. What happened to the Hindenburg that night was not a surprisingly large bump. It was a design flaw.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>This theory of large disasters makes a lot of sense to me: it almost seems like a necessary condition for a large disaster that the conventional metrics wouldn&#8217;t predict it. We&#8217;re not <em>all<\/em> stupid; if some metric predicted disaster, someone would take advantage of it&#8211;and in free markets, each opportunistic person forms a feedback loop that corrects the original market inefficiency (in this case, averts disaster by gradually devaluing mortgage-backed securities).<\/p>\n<p>The interviewees go on to say that the systematic design flaw was treating correlated securities as having independent risk. That seems like a contradiction to me: aren&#8217;t things such as correlations and risk well-established metrics? So, weren&#8217;t the metrics available at the time able to predict this disaster?<\/p>\n<p>According to the interviewees, these metrics weren&#8217;t being analyzed within the scope of economic stability. Instead, GDP (and GDP volatility) was being tracked. I don&#8217;t know enough to know whether they are right or wrong. But, it makes for thought-provoking reading.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Enjoyed the McKinsley Quarterly podcast A conversation with Lowell Bryan and Richard Rumelt &#8211; McKinsey Quarterly &#8211; Strategy &#8211; Strategic Thinking (link is to transcript of the interview). They make the point that we were all looking at the wrong metrics before the mortgage\/credit crisis occurred. Things such as GDP, etc. have no correlation with [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[86],"tags":[174],"class_list":["post-605","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-finance","tag-black-swan"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/poojanblog.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/605","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/poojanblog.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/poojanblog.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/poojanblog.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/poojanblog.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=605"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/poojanblog.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/605\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":610,"href":"https:\/\/poojanblog.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/605\/revisions\/610"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/poojanblog.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=605"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/poojanblog.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=605"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/poojanblog.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=605"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}