1.) Change. President-elect Barack Obama epitomizes change by whom he is and what he has accomplished. We're personally in awe of the achievement but that doesn't mean we're sold on "change we can believe in" as a lasting message. Especially not when it looks as though he's going to staff key positions with a bunch of retreads from former administrations. Why no one has pointed out this reality speaks volumes about how much the status quo remains the status quo. Change trumps experience was the main literal takeaway from the election. The real question is whether political change will lead business, societal and generational change. And whether one individual representing a movement can marshal in new governmental systems and capabilities that actually work. Obviously it's going to take some time. We remain hopeful until proven otherwise. Things can only go up from here, right?
2.) TARP. For the acronym deficient, this stands for Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), which represents the largest infusion of government money into the banking system since...well, ever. Large banks lapped up the favorable terms like thirsty dogs, while smaller regional and community players are trying to figure out the pros and cons of program enrollment. Take the money and you're deemed desperate. Refuse the infusion and risk being branded as risky. Poor buggers. What a no win situation. Here's a common sense suggestion that seems lost in the debate: Turn the money down if you don't need it. Take it if you do. Then be prepared to explain your position in clear terms.
Look for the new administration and Congress to rework the bailout terms as they're already doing with AIG. So what if it takes some time. Get things right for a change (no pun intended.)
3.) Economy. The next CEO who uses the terminology, "not since the Great Depression," to describe current economic conditions will have to choose one of the following:
A.) Death by stoning in the public square
B.) Proving that he or she was alive and working during the Great Depression
C.) Called out publicly by the TGR
D.) Combination of the above
We would love to see some leadership on this issue, but unfortunately, true to form, CEOs and boards are hunkered down trying to figure out what comes next in their own little worlds. Free market believer says, "well, that's what they're supposed to do -- protect shareholder interests." The optimistic change agent says it's time to get beyond selfish interest and focus on answering need vs. fear-based protection of assets.
Back to "since the Great Depression" demagoguery for a closing minute. Consider the following fact that wasn't in place during the 1930s. Companies have a combined $1 trillion in cash on their balance sheets. Microsoft, for example, could run for three years without additional revenue. While that's not likely, it's a key statistic that has been grossly overlooked by the sound biters focused on saving companies that may not deserve to be saved.
Which side of these issues are you on? Leaders need to know or at least show a capacity for knowing. We could argue that if this were already the case then the recession would be shorter-lived. But that's not going to fly. For what should be obvious contrary reasons.
# # #
