The Smalrus Web Site

John Varley is a genius.

For all the “it looks like RBS sunk Barclays chance at ABN Amro,” the CEO of Barclays Plc has managed to lay out the ace in his company’s hand.  On Monday, it was announced that the China Development Bank and the Singapore investment arm, Temasek, were to take a 5.2% stake in Barclays, thus propping up the share price toward matching the RBS deal.

And while business publications such as the Financial Times focused on discussing the potential exit strategy if the RBS bid wins, the new investments are relevant for an additional reason: they give the new, combined group access to the Asian markets.

Yes, the new offer raises the cash element of the original deal–which still lacks in the actual euro figure as opposed to the RBS bid–however the potential for accessing China is an immense proposition that neither RBS, Santander, or Fortis can offer on the table.  Not only does Barclays’ new bid raise the cash element, it taps into a market that, when ultimately served, can create far more value for the ABN shareholders than does the RBS bid.  Additionally, this will allow for Barclays to walk away from the bidding process if necessary, without becoming a takeover target itself.

At this point, I think that ABN shareholders would be wise to bank on this proposition for a couple of reasons.  First, the cash component of the Barclays bid has been raised, inching it toward more equal footing with the RBS bid (who apparently, had been in merger discussions with ABN for almost 2 years).  Second, synergy savings estimates can be revised and re-revised, but there are only so many costs that can be saved.  RBS may have had the upper hand on this aspect of its bid, but it could easily enough miss the target. Third, this would set up the merged bank as a truly international bank.  Though both bidders have foreign market exposure, the Barclays merger allows for greater expansion into the Asia region - something that ABN has had a history of successes with, but the RBS consortium doesn’t.  Barclays already operates massive investing in the region and, combined with its new investors, has even more access to a broader Asian market.  As a result, there is more growth potential (and thus, more value potential) than there is for RBS.

It is this last point that is perhaps the most key to the Barclays bid.  In the long run, the difference in €3.1bn between bids will be negligible compared to the potential.  But that’s what a merger is about, no?  The potential for growth?  ABN Amro CEO Rijkman Groenink has said from the get-go that he believes Barclays to be the right choice.  I couldn’t put my finger on it, but it made sense before, it makes sense now, and I think that if Barclays is chosen, it will make sense in the future as well.

Start Slide Show with PicLens Lite

Bookmark to:

Hide Sites

I’ve been to a couple of cities in my (almost) quarter-century on this Earth - from terrorist-prone London to earthquake-ridden San Francisco.  I’ve even lived in an international city for nearly 20% of my life.  So after all this urban experience and observation, I’ve come to a conclusion: New York City is one of the least safe cities in America.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m living in New York now in a time when crime has never been lower; A time when wealth generation has created favourable living conditions; A time where a renewed sense of optimism post-9/11 makes New Yorkers a nicer bunch of people.  However, what I’ve seen today is proof that New York is always one step away from annihilation.

The problem is that the city, unlike most of the world’s other major cities, is completely outdated.  New York as we know it was really founded early in the 1900s.  Regretfully, not much has happened in the way of modernisation - save for a few gentrified buildings here and there.  However, its infrastructure is vastly outdated and suffers from the everlasting vagaries of taxpaying naysayers failing to allow for capital improvement projects.

Case in point: the NYC subway.

Today was an exercise for me in patience and determination, as my usual 40 minute commute to work turned into 2 1/2 hours.  I could get into the ins and outs of the trip, but all that is relevant to my argument lies in the suspension of all Manhattan-bound service from 8am to 5pm.  The cause of the suspension?  Rain.  That’s right, San Francisco has earthquakes, New York has rain. And San Francisco can actually recover well for itself.

I understand that NYC’s subway was built nearly 100 years ago however, if it cannot function when the rain comes, it’s pointless.  Queens has a population of approximately 2.2 million, not all of who are trying to get to Manhattan at once.  But if they were, subway suspension would put them all out from the downtown.  If something worse happened to the subway lines, there would be no reconciliation of Queens and Manhattan.  Instead, only utter chaos would ensue.

But more than that, there doesn’t seem to be much of a contingency plan for if something as small as rain makes the plans go haywire.  Citizens aren’t told of the prevailing problems, nor the solutions, nor the alternatives.  Instead, there is a sense of panic and confusion - probably no different from that shortly after 9/11.

In fact, a second event occurred today that instilled nearly as much fear of a terrorist attack.  A steam pipe blew up on 41st St., between 3rd and Lexington Aves.  The pipe was laid out in 1924 - 83 years old.  The impact on the street left a giant crater and rumblings underground.  And even Mayor Bloomberg said it’s “a failure of our infrastructure.”  If a blast in central New York makes the top headlines of the BBC website, it means business.  Now, it remains to be seen what the air quality is like following the disaster.

So, is there any reason for me to leave New York once I’m done with my degree?  Probably.  But risks are managed everywhere and even urban planning and development tries to assess and fix problems.  New York’s problem is that it doesn’t put enough money into its problems, nor does it fix them fast enough.  If London can warn riders about services failures and alternative courses of action, why can’t New York do as such when it rains in the subway (or at least rebuild the subway above the water tables)?

It should.  But until it does, New York will just remain an unsafe city.

Bookmark to:

Hide Sites

Lest anyone reading this post think that this article is on the miniaturization of TV for your mobile phone (ie, Verizon’s VCAST), it’s not. This article is a more visceral response to the dumbing down of American society. For Myspace has finally hit the apex of our Short Attention Spans: the Minisode.

Here’s how the minisode works: Myspace takes a 22-minute sitcom such as “Facts of Life,” “Diff’rent Strokes,” or “T.J. Hooker,” and they distill the plotline down to six minutes.

The sitcom has always been a part of American history, ever since its inception with Amos ‘n’ Andy on the Radio, to “The Burns and Allen” and “The Abbott and Costello” TV shows. However at its core, the sitcom is a chance for us to establish a comedic link between a series of characters and each week (or if syndicated, daily) pick up where we left off in the ensuing antics and lessons that these characters learn. Sans-commercials, the American sitcom has worked best in the 22-minute format, allowing enough time to setup a episodic plot, sideplot, resolution of plot, and tie-in resolution to the sideplot. My problem here is not with the formula of the sitcom but rather, with the idea that it can now be boiled into 6 minutes.

We always knew that sitcoms were a little pedantic.  Look at the Brady Bunch, Full House, or Friends.  There’s nothing overly complex about them; the gags are often very corny and although the characters have individual quirks, they are none-the-more-complex.  Thus, the sitcom is an adaptation of our own lives, condensed to fit a timeframe within our busy schedules.  Additionally, our attention span falls short when we reach a certain time.  If not for commercial breaks, American audiences would probably drop off after about 10 minutes.

I suppose this works in favour of the minisode, however it also testifies to the American inability to stay focused on anything for too long.  In particular, it demonstrates that our attention spans are getting even shorter than they once were, as the formula of the “sitcom of yore” is now starting to fade away.

Perhaps this is smart of Myspace and of the other TV networks that are cognizant of this pattern of waning attention spans.  Perhaps it demonstrates that American lives are too busy to sit through a half-hour of television.  Instead, it must be relegated to 6 minutes on the computer.

I would disagree.  I think it’s a psychological failure of our society to accommodate 30 minutes out of our day to enjoy some entertainment.  If we do not have that much time to submit to entertainment, it doesn’t just mean that we are overworked, but that we don’t care enough to take the time.  What little time we have becomes condensed.

I’m sure some psychological studies back me up on this - we’ve always known that Americans have increasingly been suffering from Short Attention Spans.  Chalk it up to the Protestant work ethic.  However, I’ve already spent too much time on this entry to perform actual research.  I should be looking for something else to write about instead.

Bookmark to:

Hide Sites