BPO - it's OK really

I've been sceptical about finance function outsourcing (actually, BPO in general) since a FTSE 100 FD told me he'd love to bring his dull, process-driven teams back in house and re-locate that "feeling" about the business, its suppliers and customers he got from having on-floor feedback from the "drones". But I had breakfast this morning with a BPO expert who assured me that many of the biggest issues - contracts, service level agreements and pricing plans - are being addressed by great minds in the BPO and consulting arenas.

Hmm. Still sceptical. But one thing she said did ring true: the biggest BPO problem is clients. I agree 100% - if the client doesn't know what they want, how they want it to happen and where the trip-wires are, who can blame the BPO provider for locking them into an expensive screw-up? Which is why I always think that unless you've done two BPO deals before - and seen how they go wrong - you shouldn't try it (at least not for a company you love). Catch 22? Well, pick a couple of companies you don't like and do it there first...

Doomed, we're all doomed!

I'm a bit of a doom monger. I've called the top of the property market at least three times (wrongly) since the mid-nineties, I'm sceptical about the stock market and really a bit of a neo-malthusian at heart. Worse, the current state of the economy - asset bubbles, financial market uncertainty, rampant consumerism, high levels of personal, corporate and government debt - means that this post about the parallels between the twenties and today is pushing at an open door marked "Richard's paranoia".

In short? Lack of regulation has encouraged the growth of an asset bubble and risky practices in financial markets that threaten to repeat the calamity of 1929. Add in social psychosis, environmental degradation, moral collapse and tribal conflict and... well, it ain't pretty. Run!

Not business, finance or management

But pure genius, nonetheless:

Um

What he said.

Well, up to a point. There are lots of private equity firms that invest in growing companies in need of capital, experience and contacts; and others that turnaround businesses that would otherwise fail - and they have my full respect. I know lots of guys in that line of business, and they work hard and get a buzz out of transforming businesses.

But these days "private equity" has become shorthand for the LBO merchants - who fall into three categories: merchant bankers (ugh), asset strippers (ugh) and megalomaniacs (ugh). Them, you can keep - read John Caddell at the above link for a fairly reasoned attack on them and their actions.

Facebook vs Linkedin

I've just seen this blog posting about Facebook. Here's my reply about the relative merits of two social networking sites:

About a month after I joined Facebook - and found it great for both social and professional purposes - I got an invitation to Linkedin. I'd had them before, but I was now intrigued by my FB experience, so I joined and used the site to tell me who from my address book was also "Linkedin". I added them as connections, asking them to tell me whether they thought, as existing users, it was worth it. Everyone, out of about 40 users, said they'd joined but then found it passable at best. Most hadn't visited the site in the last year and couldn't see the purpose of it. They understood the idea - but in practical terms, it sucked.

Facebook scores because it fits my own personal maxim: "never do anything for only one reason". I'm not checking Facebook for professional connections, but my social network takes me back every day. Then when I need to find a contact for a feature (I'm a journalist) I can search groups, professions and companies and come up with people to get in touch with. and other people see more about me and my approach by understanding me socially.

My tiny poll also suggests that Linkedin (and the frankly scarily bad eCademy) fail because being on there just looks "pushy" and smacks of personal salesmanship. That's not as true on FB. Maybe the reticence to seem "proactive" is peculiarly British. But on FB, all my "friends" are Brits and they have no problem with "projecting"...

Not business, but...

Colbert genius on Blair and Brown:



http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/index.jhtml?ml_video=86802

Debs delight for the burger boys

Apparently, Debenhams is looking for a fashion supremo. Well, no surprise there. Profits are down 40% and with PE gianr Texas Pacific Group still a major shareholder, you can bet that some feet are being held to the fire. Here's the thing, though. The PE investors have already cleared a huge return on their original investment. (Want to know how KKR might recover its $450m-odd commitment to Alliance Boots? Follows the Debs model and flog the property, natch...)

So if Debenhams folded tomorrow, there would be few tears shed. And that kind of burns me up. All of the other shareholders in Debs - many of whom will have bought in at the IPO for 195p a share - are looking at the current price of 148p-odd and wondering why they bought such a lame duck. After all, with no assets beyond a few leases and a brand, they'd get 87% of bugger all if things did take a turn for the worst, while TPG has already cleared its profit whatever happens to its 13% holding. As I say, I don't doubt they'll still push for their pound of flesh - and Debs is still profitable. But to say they have a long-term stake in the business in the same way as the other owners is... rubbish.

Oh, and TPG... that's the crowd who bought Burger King off Diageo - then flipped it like a Whopper with cheese kicking off the loudest howls of indignation around PE since RJR Nabisco.

And other sorts of accountants

The Onion was one of the first things on the web for which I made a beeline every week - this would be about 1997, I guess. (For the record, Suck was the other piece of web brilliance I checked every morning... Ah, the days before blogs...)

Anyway, if you don't already know him, check out Herbert Kornfeld, the accounts receivable supervisor whose Onion column has been amusing me for many years. I'm not saying he's a role model, but he's doing his thing to shake off the dull accountant tag. WARNING: Herbert is pretty "street" with his language...

Communicatin' accountants

For years now I've been banging on about how much more important communication skills have got for senior finance execs. Hey, the systems are doing all the number crunching and they're even moving into the analysis. So all you've got left is the strategy and the story-telling, right?

So it's a delight to find accountants who are truly brilliant communicators - especially when they appear on truly brilliant TV shows like the Colbert Report.