Last September I was asked to give a presentation at the DerivaTech conference in London on the merits of derivative markets. My basic premise was that derivatives are (just) tools: they can be incredibly useful and are not intrinsically ‘good’ or ‘bad’ but rather their utility (or danger to society) depends on how they are used. You can use a hammer to build a house. Or you can use it to bash someone’s head in. Getting rid of hammers because of this undesirable use case obviously wouldn’t make too much sense.
Further, I made the case that the industry had done itself an enormous disservice by “using the hammer” in the “wrong” way – by (deliberately) exploiting the ability of derivatives to obfuscate, the industry had not only ended up losing hundreds of billions but had done a great job in destroying perhaps its single most important core value creator. That of course would be trust. And in the bargain all the beneficial uses of derivatives risked being thrown out with the proverbial bath water.
Basically, as their traditional businesses and cash cows – agency trading, underwriting, etc. – had their margins melt and their business models / compensation structures made obsolete by the rise of the networked information economy (destroying information scarcity which lay at the core of the traditional banking business model), the banks turned more and more to principal risk taking – prop trading, derivatives ‘arbitrage’, etc. – to make up the difference. Putting aside the moral hazard (too big to fail, insured deposits etc.) issues this raised and ignoring for a moment whether or not it is an intrinsically good business model for a bank, it got worse as this shift coincided with a long period of low volatility and benign economic growth… This meant that the (real) opportunities disappeared quickly and – still needing to shore up the bottom line, to feed the blue line – what had started out as science slowly but surely slid into alchemy…
Of course this didn’t happen overnight, but slowly and therein lay the heightened danger: like the apocryphal frog boiling in a slowly heating pot, what started out as useful and reasonable ended up dangerous and irresponsible.
My guess is that this is what went down. Even though Madoff Securities was on the leading edge of automated trading, the business itself was becoming less and less lucrative. Everyone had the same computers. Spreads, the difference between the bid price and the ask price that became Wall Street trading profits, began shrinking. And the move to list stocks in penny increments instead of eighths (12.5 cents) whacked trading desks all over Wall Street.
So you make it up in volume. Beyond cocktail parties, Madoff really created the money management business to feed himself trades. But his strategy was garbage. He absolutely bombed as a money manager, but he desperately needed the assets under management to feed his trading operations, so he started to make the numbers up. As is usually the case, most don’t set out to be crooks, but Madoff became one when his talents proved lacking. There is your “why.”
It’s not new. This was the Enron story: They lost tons in water ventures and Indian power plants, so concocted fraudulent entities to cover up their losses. Same for Sam Israel and his Bayou hedge fund. And even (without the fraud) the Citigroup/Wall Street story, too. They tried to be investors to make up the difference of their bread-and-butter business deteriorating and were awful at it, so they levered up in off-balance-sheet vehicles.
So why are smart people seduced into these kind of strategies (ie bloody-mindedly pursuing disappearing returns to the point of destruction)? Obviously any trite answer on a blog post will fail miserably to do justice to this question, but if I had to venture a pithy hypothesis, it would be that – like it or not – most people are wired to prefer risking conventional failure over embracing unconventional success. Just ask the behavioral finance guys…I think it has something to do with continuing to dance.
So I can get my head around a ‘Madoff’ happening. What is harder to understand is what on earth the fund-of-funds who invested so much money with him were thinking? I may be obtuse, but I thought the main (the only?) reason for these businesses to exist was in order to identify, understand and monitor good investment managers. On this I have to say I agree with Martin on this (that financial companies who made money selling Madoff products should return their commissions.) And it is worth pointing out that regulators haven’t exactly covered themselves in glory either (which should be a cautionary tale for those who suggest that regulation is a panacea…)
Perhaps the only good thing to come out of all of this is that the cult of secrecy that for too long permeated finance will disappear. Don’t misunderstand me, there is a time and place for confidentiality. But too often it is indiscriminately invoked like some sort of fantastical talisman – out of all proportion and context – to hide not skill but incompetence.
And to end on a more optimistic note, the problem is with the ‘traditional’ (ie 19th/20th) business models in finance, not finance itself. And here at the dawn of the 21st century there is an abundance of opportunity to discover, invent and build the financial services industry of the future. This hasn’t changed in 2008. It just became a bit more likely to happen sooner rather than later. Remember the wise words of William Gibson:
The future is already here – it is just unevenly distributed.
This year we wanted to go one step further to give you extra peace of mind. We will give passengers who book flights, car hire and hotels direct* with Flybe in January 2009 free of charge travel cancellation cover in the event of redundancy prior to travel. Offer excludes the self employed and those who have had less than 2 years continuous employment and who do not qualify for statutory redundancy pay as per Statutory Redundancy legislation.
It seemed potentially interesting as yet another example of risk management tools being given to consumers. So I thought it would be interesting to look at the fine print…
Ignoring the irony that the policy backing up this offer is underwritten by AIG UK Limited…I was pretty disappointed (but not surprised) by what I found. Firstly, you are only paid if you cancel your trip. This is totally lame. If you lose your job, you’ll likely be more inclined to take the holiday/family visit/etc. you have booked. Further I’m not sure everyone will realize they only get reimbursed if they cancel, (even though to be fair to flybe they make it clear that it is cancellation coverage…)
On the other hand, I guess if it were true redundancy insurance, you might have a serious adverse selection problem (and AIG would charge more?) even though the terms state that “at the time of booking your trip, you had no reason to believe that you would be made redundant” (does that exclude then everyone who works for a bank? or for AIG UK?)
Anyhow while this particular offer is more gimmick than substance (as opposed to the iTravel Let it Snow promotion underwritten by Weatherbill for example), I think it is indicative of a growing trend to providing consumers with granular risk management tools.
Normally this is the sort of thing I would post to my ‘tumble blog’ Everything you can imagine is real. (This is where I now post links to articles and items I find interesting but don’t have the time or inclination or need to add any comment of value.) But since many of you may not subscribe / read that blog, and because I think this is such a well written – concise, insightful, eloquent – essay, I wanted to post a link to John Kay’s latest editorial here.
How could banks have persuaded themselves, their shareholders and the public that they were making so much money when in reality they were losing it? The history of financial deception and self-deception is as old as humanity, but a few themes recur. A Ponzi scheme offers a high return using the funds of newcomers to make payments to earlier subscribers, and collapses when the supply of suckers runs out. The New Economy was the greatest of Ponzi schemes. It has been different this time. But not so different.
You see it was those nasty short-sellers and journalists and well we’re not entirely sure who else was in on the conspiracy but a lot of bad people. A lot.
Now I know it is hard to believe but… true. True! It seems they snuck in at night – after New York closed and before Tokyo opened – and stuffed more and more assets on to our books. Mostly illiquid stuff – they knew what they were doing! The scoundrels… Night after night. Like clockwork. And at least to start, the income and mark-to-market gains from this stuff juiced our profits. Since we’re very good at what we do, we didn’t notice – didn’t think the doubling of our profits suspicious – and just adjusted our comp accordingly.
And then POW. They set off their nefarious trap. Told the world we were levered 60 to 1. Hell even I know on a bad day you can wipe yourself out trading 2-year notes with that kind of leverage… sheesh. Like, whatever dude. But you know what??? It was true… We dug deeper and found the leak – they’d hacked in from a little pension fund in New Zealand or something and bunged us so full of assets that we were like a turkey the day before Christmas. Bastards. I blame it on IT. Or operations. But mainly I blame it on these evil speculators who pushed our leverage through the stratosphere just to make a quick easy buck. But I feel horrible about it.
Information technology, more specifically the development of parallel processing, “gigabit-terabit-petabit” bandwidth and networking logic, is changing the way we conduct our lives today. While jet-setting executives (or policymakers) of this decade can be present in more places in less time than any predecessor, corporate information, corporate processes and corporate controls can now be shared around the world in real time via information superhighways. These advances in information technology are catalyzing the globalization of business and finance in ways far more important to global central banks than something as basic as physical transportation. These advances are driving the age of financial networking, and what has been described by some as leading to the vastly narrowing ecologies of finance.
Basically what I’ve been thinking for coming on a decade and evangelizing for the past 5 years or so, and now a defining part of the thesis underlying my new business.
The first phase of this “age of financial networking” has unsurprisingly driven the creation of a very tightly coupled system, with a relatively small number of very large, very important nodes or hubs (the global financial services mega-fauna*), in effect create a “scale-free network”, which has a number of advantages (played out nicely from 1987-2007 in financial services) but also some key – potentially fatal – vulnerabilities. John Robb (someone everyone involved in senior policy and management decisions should read) describes it better than anyone:
A scale-free network is one that obeys a power law distribution in the number of connections between nodes on the network. Some few nodes exhibit extremely high connectivity (essentially scale-free) while the vast majority are relatively poorly connected. The reason that scale-free networks emerge, as opposed to evenly distributed random networks, is due to these factors:
Rapid growth confers preference to early entrants. The longer a node has been in place the greater the number of links to it. First mover advantage is very important.
In an environment of too much information people link to nodes that are easier to find. This preferential linking reinforces itself by making the easier to find nodes even more easy to find.
The greater the capacity of the hub (bandwidth, work ethic, etc.) the faster its growth.
The Strength and Weaknesses of Scale-Free Networks
The proliferation of scale-free networks and our increasing dependence on them (particularly given their prevalence in energy, transportation, and communications systems) begs the question: how reliable are these networks? Here’s some insight into this:
Scale-free networks are extremely tolerant of random failures. In a random network, a small number of random failures can collapse the network. A scale-free network can absorb random failures up to 80% of its nodes before it collapses. The reason for this is the inhomogeneity of the nodes on the network — failures are much more likely to occur on relatively small nodes.
Scale-free networks are extremely vulnerable to intentional attacks on their hubs. Attacks that simultaneously eliminate as few as 5-15% of a scale-free network’s hubs can collapse the network. Simultaneity of an attack on hubs is important. Scale-free networks can heal themselves rapidly if an insufficient number of hubs necessary for a systemic collapse are removed.
Scale-free networks are extremely vulnerable to epidemics. In random networks, epidemics need to surpass a critical threshold (a number of nodes infected) before it propogates system-wide. Below the threshold, the epidemic dies out. Above the threshold, the epidemic spreads exponentially. Recent evidence indicates that the threshold for epidemics on scale-free networks is zero.
…the networks of our global superinfrastructure are tightly “coupled”—so tightly interconnected, that is, that any change in one has a nearly instantaneous effect on the others. Attacking one network is like knocking over the first domino in a series: it leads to cascades of failure through a variety of connected networks, faster than human managers can respond.
“Recent evidence indicates that the threshold for epidemics on scale-free networks is zero.” “…leads to cascades of failure through a variety of connected networks, faster than human managers can respond.”
And so Bear Stearns (and others) are caught out. But they could not fail. Nor can Fannie and Freddie. Given this understanding of the current global financial system as a tightly-coupled, scale-free network, the effects of stupid and fraudulent mortgage lending in Las Vegas mushrooming into generalized system-wide distress is easier to understand…
Loose coupling describes a resilient relationship between two or more systems or organizations with some kind of exchange relationship. Each end of the transaction makes its requirements explicit and makes few assumptions about the other end.
The risks inherent in this mode of organization are clearly unsustainable. The world’s financial network will need to adapt. (The same is true of many other critical infrastructures: telecoms, utilities, transportation…where progress in this direction is already starting, to emerge.) We need to (and I believe we will inevitably do so) move towards a more robust, loosely coupled financial system: and the beauty is by adopting and adapting lessons computing and networking technology (which ironically underpinned and drove the creation of today’s brittle financial system) we already have a roadmap (and some of the tools) to do so.
Furthermore, these ideas aren’t new. John Hagel (another person anyone running a large corporation needs to have read**) wrote about this in 2002 (!):
A good working definition: loosely coupled is an attribute of systems, referring to an approach to designing interfaces across modules to reduce the interdependencies across modules or components – in particular, reducing the risk that changes within one module will create unanticipated changes within other modules. This approach specifically seeks to increase flexibility in adding modules, replacing modules and changing operations within individual modules. (Note: if any of you have come across a better definition of loosely coupled, please let me know – I’d like to follow up on this in a future blog.)
Three things stand out from this definition. First, it assumes a modular approach to design. Second, it values flexibility. Third, it seeks to increase flexibility by focusing on design of interface.
…The desire for flexibility is a powerful force driving the move towards loosely coupled systems, but there’s an even more powerful reason to adopt loosely coupled systems. It has to do with experimentation, learning and performance improvement. Within well-designed, loosely coupled systems, there’s a lot more room for experimentation…
He goes on to make the point that this move towards loosely coupled systems in business will fundamentally change the way we manage and organize our corporations:
Rather than traditional hierarchies driven by command and control management styles, we are likely to see relatively independent organizational modules brought together to perform one set of processes and then different arrangements of modules to perform other processes. Some of these modules will belong to the same enterprise, but modules from other enterprises may be brought in to perform specific tasks on an as needed basis…Conventional business strategy approaches emphasize the need to develop a detailed strategic blueprint and then tightly couple operational initiatives to execute the blueprint. As uncertainty grows in business environments, these hard-wired approaches to business strategies are becoming less and less viable.
Reading Robb and Hagel, I hope it is as obvious to you as it is to me that: (a) the global financial system clearly not loosely coupled, and (b) would be infinitely more resiliant if it were. I don’t expect these changes to happen overnight. Given the human factor, I suspect it will occur alongside the generational shift over the next 10-20 years. That said, the opportunities for those that ‘get it’ and adapt sooner rather than later are enormous: this sort of discontinuity is one of the only occasions where it is possible to completely alter the competitive landscape, and is particularly perilous for ‘incumbents’ (everything to lose.) Furthermore, given the critical importance of the financial system to our globel economy and societies, and its manifest vulnerability in the current regime, some of this change needs to happen quickly (more quickly than is comfortable) if we are to avoid a potentially very bad outcome. I guess you could say that one of the good things about having swung to the fear side of the fear/greed pendulum is that change – albeit painfully and begrudgingly – is seen as unavoidable.
We are deliberately going to build our new business to align with this new paradigm, so no matter how successful we may be, expect our ‘ecosystem’ to grow exponentially in size and complexity in comparison to our actual firm. For better or worse, we will never be ‘too big to fail’…
* spent 15 minutes searching the web for a list of the world’s largest financial institutions by assets with no joy…a bit surprised, something for freebase?
** I often wonder about the paradox that our most powerful and important corporate and political leaders – the very people who need to be the most widely read and open to new ideas – are by the inevitable constraints and conventions of their position, are probably unable to do so. Think about it, how likely is it that the CEO of a giant corporation will be allowed to block out 4 hours in his diary on Wednesday afternoon to read and think? For the good ones this must be incredibly frustrating. As for the others, well let’s just say I would question the robustness of the process that got them there in the first place…
As you may recall, a couple months ago Weatherbill announced a partnership with Priceline, underwriting a promotion they ran that would reimburse the cost of your holiday package if it rained more than half the days during your stay.
In June, 12% of Priceline’s site traffic clicked on a promotion. While the Sunshine Guarantee promotion may attract only a niche audience (0.2% of Priceline shoppers), those who do click on this promotion are highly likely to convert – an impressive 24% of Sunshine clickers will complete a booking. Despite attracting relatively few clickers, it resonated with its audience and led to strong conversion rates, showing just how effective a smaller, targeted promotion can be.
I’m sure we’ll see more and more of these sorts of embedded derivatives in weather-sensitive consumer products. While you may go to the time and effort of directly hedging your wedding, the average person – even if they were aware of an easy-to-use product like Weatherbill – probably will be too busy/apathetic/forgetful to hedge something smaller – like a day out golfing. But embed the coverage into the product (or at least make it as easy as ticking a box) and I think demand will be very high. The days of “NO RAIN CHECKS” are surely soon behind us…
Well it seems that these same good folks have lost a bit of their nerve as 2008 hurricane season starts and the metaphorical roulette wheel starts to slow (from the Guardian):
Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway fund has taken a $224m (£113m) bet that Florida will not be hit by devastating hurricanes in the coming months. That is the amount the US state has agreed to pay Berkshire upfront in return for the fund coming to its rescue if hurricane damages cost more than $25bn this season, which runs from June 1 to November 1.
If damages exceed $25bn, Berkshire will buy $4bn in 30-year bonds issued by the state. The money will ensure Florida does not run into cash flow problems in the clean-up. Florida will have to buy the bonds back; the interest rate is 6.5%. State officials have agreed to the deal, even though they admit there is only about a 3% chance of damages going so high, because they believe the credit crunch could limit their access to funds if this is a particularly bad hurricane season.
So let me get this straight. Basically Florida lined up a loanshark, just in case they couldn’t pay their bookie if their bet didn’t come in. It looks like a pretty clever deal for Vinnie Mr. Buffett: if the terms have been correctly reported, effectively he is being paid $224mn for a ‘knock-in’ credit spread + interest rate lock. On $4bn of bonds, if the knock-in is exercised, the premium should protect Buffett up to c. 7% before he starts incurring mark-to-market losses on the overall trade. I’m no expert and it’s late so I’m not even going to try to hack a model together, but it seems like this is a pretty good deal for the man from Omaha. (And btw, a derivative by any stretch of the imagination…)
It’s also probably a relatively prudent thing for Florida to do, even though they obviously shouldn’t be in such a dire position to start with…and does beg the question, is this the best deal they could do? I can’t get the image out of my head of some hapless middle aged gambler, knuckles white as his nails dig deep into the felt, all the blood drained from his face, beads of sweat gathering on his pencil moustache, as the terror washes over him with the realization that the dice moving in slow motion down the table…might just come up snake eyes…
Under the limited-time Sunshine Guaranteed promotion launched today, customers who book a qualifying Priceline vacation package between June 2 and July 17, 2008 and travel between July 1 and September 7, 2008 will be eligible for a refund if their vacation is rained out. For full details on Priceline’s Sunshine Guaranteed promotion, visit: http://www.priceline.com/promo/sunshine_guarantee.asp
Brett Keller, priceline.com’s Chief Marketing Officer commented, “Ten years ago with our Name Your Own Price® launch, and more recently with our elimination of booking fees on published-price domestic and international airfares, priceline.com has demonstrated a commitment to continually innovate in order to get great deals for our customers. Now we’re also offering them great weather. Best of all, these Sunshine Guaranteed vacations are available at the same great prices we offer for all of our packages. Our customers can book their Sunshine Guaranteed trips and rest assured that there’s a silver lining waiting if Mother Nature doesn’t cooperate.”
There is no additional charge to book a Sunshine Guaranteed vacation package. Qualifying vacation packages must be 3-8 days in length. Travel must commence at least 12 days after a package is purchased. If it rains more than 0.50 inches per day on half or more of the days of a Sunshine Guaranteed vacation (including travel days), priceline.com will provide a refund for 100% of the cost of airfare, hotel, rental car and attractions and services components of the Sunshine Guaranteed vacation package.
In a leader this week on banking in Africa, the Economist asks the question “A bank in every pocket?” making the point that “banking on mobile phones holds promise, provided regulators are willing to be flexible”:
Leonard Waverman of the London Business School has estimated that an extra ten mobile phones per 100 people in a typical developing country leads to an extra half a percentage point of growth in GDP per person. To realise the economic benefits of mobile phones, governments in such countries need to do away with state monopolies, issue new licences to allow rival operators to enter the market and slash taxes on handsets. With few exceptions (hallo, Ethiopia), they have done so, and mobile phones are now spreading fast, even in the poorest parts of the world.
I wholeheartedly agree with their point – indeed my post a year ago (!) A Trinity: Finance, Mobile Phones & Africa(from November 11, 2006) made many of the same observations:
It seems clear that mobile phones (as opposed to personal computers) will be the most important device for access and connectivity in the developing world, and probably everywhere eventually. But access to the internet and computing will become more and more common everywhere, with many different initiatives – both technological and financial – focused on bringing down the cost and expanding the market for computing in the developing world.
As has been written many many times before, mobile phones are changing everything. From politics to business to culture. The digital generation is but a subset of the connected generation, a worldwide phenomenon. Again, this is probably being felt more strongly in developing countries – not so much because the effect is greater or different – but because the contrast with what came before is that much more marked. This extension of connectedness enabled by mobile telephony taps into something that is inate in humans; it extends our ability to form communities unbounded by geographical or even political constraints.
The Economist goes on to highlight the flexible, adaptive regulatory approach to mobile banking being taken in the Philippines (something I was not aware of) as a model to emulate:
Rather than trying to work out the best rules in advance, which could hamper innovation, the regulator is working closely with the banks and operators behind the country’s two m-banking schemes. That way the regulator can see what is going on, so the schemes’ operators get more flexibility. The experience will feed into new banking regulations. Rules that are too tight will hinder adoption; rules that are too lax could allow fraudsters to bring the whole idea of branchless banking into disrepute. But if regulators strike the right balance, m-banking may provide the next example of the mobile phone’s transformational power.
In the same edition, “On the frontier of finance” gives a good overview of the state of the banking industry on the African continent, highlight that while recent growth and investment is encouraging, the opportunity remains vast with most of African’s – even in the richest countries like South Africa – remaining unbanked and having no or poor access to even basic financial services.
A couple weeks ago, in a special report in the FT on Tanzania, Tom Burgis wrote a very good article “Crops are starved of lending” on how the lack of access to basic financial services, working capital and markets hold back improvements in agricultural productivity and essentially trap much of Tanzania’s population in a vicious cycle of poverty:
Four in every five Tanzanians live in rural areas; most are subsistence farmers. Eighty-five per cent of cultivated land is still worked with hand-held tools, 10% with animals and just 5% with machines. For a decade, the sector’s growth has failed to match the overall expansion of the economy. Without a transformation in agriculture, Edward Lowassa, prime minister, admitted in a recent speech, there will be no escape from poverty.
…[in a village dependent upon cashew farming] The 1,006 vilagers are unable to bypass what officials say are illegal cartels of traders who keep prices cripplingly low, depriving farmers of capital to reinvest in raising quality and productivity. Their predicament is worsened by the near impossibility of borrowing.
I know that solving problems like these is not easy; that there are many social, cultural, institutional hurdles to overcome (on top of the operational and technological challenges) but it would seem to me that in the next decade or so, there really is a chance to ‘leapfrog’ using cheap, ubiquitous mobile communications and devices as a substrate and deliver the power of modern financial services and markets to every corner of the planet. Even the poorest. Especially the poorest. Indeed the maxim “go where the pain is highest (with respect to introducing new products and services)” means that it is not ridiculous to think that some of the earliest adopters of sixth paradigm markets and techology may well be found in some of the poorest and challenging regions on the globe.
Imagine these villagers armed with mobile phones giving them access to markets, risk management tools (weather, commodity risk), payment systems, and ultimately capital – breaking free from the bottlenecks and information barriers currently trapping them in a vicious circle of poverty. How is that for a big idea? We’re (I’m!) not quite there yet (in terms of being at the inflection point) but we are getting very close. Hey maybe this is worthy of a TED Prize wish in 2 or 3 years from now!
I am fascinated by the application of modern information and communications technologies to help improve the lives of some of the world’s poorest and ‘infrastructurally challenged’ (don’t know if this term has been used before but seems to encompass the fundamental problem that holds back the people in developing countries from improving their economic prospects.) To be able to succeed (in providing meaningful, affordable, services) in such challenging environments to my mind offers great insights into how improvements can be made to how services are designed and sold in any environment – including the developed and wealthy western markets. A variation on the New York, NY theme of – ‘if you can make it here, you can make it anywhere’…
the Village Phone extends regular base station cellular coverage from around 15 kilometers to around 30 kilometers through the use of a village phone kit – an antenna and ten meter cable (shown above) and a coupler (shown below) connected to a regular Nokia 1100 mobile phone plus of course, a micro-finance loan. The net result? In a number of cases it provides the first convenient, reliable and affordable connectivity to the outside world for many rural communities as well as providing a stable income for the local entrepreneur that takes out the loan.
He also goes on to mention the development of essential services facilitated by access to mobile communications:
One example of the benefits of connectivity? Sente – the transfer of money via mobile phone that essentially also extends regular banking services such as the remittance of cash to these communities.
Another exciting initiative I stumbled accross (at the excellent Timbuktu Chronicles) is Sevak Solutions “commitment of developing the product specifications, business plans, and financial requirements to create an open architecture transaction system [for microfinance institutions.]” Rather than paraphrase, Sevak Solutions describe themselves as follows:
Sevak Solutions is a start-up initiative that has emerged from a consortium of microfinance institutions seeking to understand the role technology could play in scaling microfinance. Early work demonstrated a need for alternative, low-cost transaction solutions and business models that addressed the needs of microfinance institutions that do not have the client volumes required to afford, or piggy-back on, existing payment systems. Sevak Solutions is focused on interoperability, open architecture systems that can connect to cell phones, point-of-sale terminals, ATMs, or any other access devices available in the market. The company performs its own in-country research and development, supports technology innovators that are attempting to enter the market, and provides strategic and implementation consulting on a global basis. Sevak Solutions is interested in promoting a set of technologies and migratory path for microfinance institutions and microfinance banks to expand their reach to the unbanked.
So here is a non-profit organization focused on developing open-source solutions in order to open access to the formal global financial system to anyone, anywhere, irrespective of their wealth. Bringing banking to the unbanked. Historically one of the great impediments to economic progress has been the lack of a cost-effective and robust financial infrastructure, Sevak seems to be taking direct aim at contributing significantly to solving this problem. I hope they succeed. Will they build the equivalent of Linux or WordPress for banking/transaction processing? I hope so, I will certainly try to follow their progress and they are definitely on my ‘find out more’ list.
As if it weren’t long enough already, another initiative that bounced on to my ‘find out more’ list earlier this year when I read about it in the Economist is TradeNet, a new mobile2mobile trading platform for farmers and traders in Africa founded by Mark Davies:
TradeNet, a software company based in Accra, Ghana, will unveil a simple sort of eBay for agricultural products across a dozen countries in west Africa. It lets buyers and sellers indicate what they are after and their contact information, which is sent to all relevant subscribers as an SMS text message in one of four languages. Interested parties can then reach others directly to do a deal.
Listing offers is free, as is receiving the texts. TradeNet plans to earn revenue by putting advertisements in the messages, though it hopes the service will become so useful that recipients will eventually want to pay. For the moment, though, the company is busy signing up users and swallowing the cost of sending the messages.
I have to admit this is one of those ‘I-wish-I-had-done-that’ companies. The potential for this kind of platform seem to me to be enormous. I’ll leave it at that for now. Very exciting stuff.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_c.png?x-id=c4b61e72-ab96-45bb-999f-4d307f8cc524)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_c.png?x-id=051e0783-3a2b-4d82-ad50-f02f6a28bb11)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_c.png?x-id=888d987d-7782-4bda-9450-58b34c9fcd6e)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_c.png?x-id=9dc7e931-0a30-4e53-a9c4-e7bf881a17ad)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_c.png?x-id=9124a053-802a-4407-b9fd-5322e240f5bb)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_c.png?x-id=db6f515b-cef8-4e3f-82c3-dd65fe2703c4)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_c.png?x-id=d7473154-4083-455a-af19-4eecc01f3a0d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_c.png?x-id=eeeab338-4a70-4575-8d7b-a5ed7fb3f2dc)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_c.png?x-id=70132ae9-b8b3-4bce-ad18-1787449a246f)
