Relationships or Relations Slip?

Eight weeks ago

Apyrrhicvictor asked me to name that one thing that I missed most about my life in London. I had to say – the morning coffee and good television. The extra hot lattes helped we wake up to an energetic working day. CSI, Law and Order, NICS and the many more entertaining and enthralling crime dramas helped me unwind late at nights and filled the lazy weekends.

In Mumbai, the usual coffee does not suit my palate and television is pumped with regressive soap operas which horrify my grey cells. The lack of coffee is made up by the abundantly available refreshing masala chai but there is no antidote for the torturous television routine in India. All soap operas revolve around a scheming witch like mother-in-law, a martyr like duty bound girl child or a conniving uncle trying to squander the family wealth.

Apyrrhicvictor’s one line verdict was – Hindi television serials to a large extent depict real life. I conceded. May be the scripts exaggerate the truth but tele-fiction is not far away from reality

The Day before Yesterday

I went to see a play, Sex, Morality and Censorship with my cousins. It was a good play albeit too slow. The one hard hitting and deserving long scene was one that highlighted the torture of the financially dependent housewife. The senseless physical and mental abuse borne by these women who cannot stand up to their husbands is the distressing truth of the world’s largest democracy. No law or police intervention can help these women till the time that they stand up on their two feet. With this thought in mind we walked out of the theatre.

We went on to a café before heading home to dinner. We were almost through with our drinks, when I saw a man approach a table not far away form us and throw the mobile phone of the woman at the table in anger and disgust. The lady in question was having a quiet coffee with a friend when suddenly this agitated man came in and started hurling profanities at her. He was upset that she was not answering his calls; he slapped her, pulled her from the chair and dragged her out of the coffee shop. All the while he was abusing her. It was as if we had just seen a rerun of the play we had walked out of!

There was pin drop silence around the little café when suddenly our villain in question re-appeared on the scene, demanding if the bill had been settled. An elderly gentleman walked up to the man to tell him how vile his behaviour was. The youngster raged in contempt and asserted that if his wife did not respond to his calls another time, he would leave an important meeting as he just had and deal with her once again in a similar manner. He was the husband and so this behaviour was his birthright. This time he walked out without a commotion; but he left behind a chaos behind in those who had witnessed the regressive and harsh reality still thriving in urban India. We were stunned with the realisation that amongst the educated and the upwardly mobile, there still exist men who treat women worse than pets.

Today

Despite the rise in the education and disposable income in urban India, the lifestyle has not progressed. With money defining every social interaction from friendship, to professional equations to family bonding in majority; as a society we have forsaken the healthy growth of relationships to the benefit of puffing up of our bank balances. We do not want to utilise our education to deduce what aspects of our tradition and culture we must follow and what about the same should we leave behind. Those who need financial independence the most are the ones who have no access to it in the name of tradition. Women are still home bound and without options. Despite increasing education and financial stability, relationships that could have sailed have failed. We are a society, slipping from being a warm and hospitable one into a cold and selfish one. Zoltan was probably right; materialism has overtaken the spiritual India.

Whose responsibility is it anyway?

The most recent edition of Economist has a very comprehensive coverage of the current credit crisis. In particular the view on bankers’ responsibility and accountability was most interesting. Not because I am one of the many in the world who make a living thus, but because I see myself agreeing to quite a bit of what was written. At some point I do think bankers need to take responsibility for their actions and look beyond the short term P&L and compensation. Difficult though it might be, some balance has to be struck.

Banking as an industry is ferocious. There is cut throat competition to reign supreme. Most bankers want to out do their peers by doing bigger and better deals, both in terms of money and glamour. In some ways the thrill of the chase and the pleasure of the kill keep the momentum up. In pursuit of this hunt many a times bankers start believing that it is their duty to “deliver what the client wants”. With this skewed perception when bankers take on deals, they are bound to be overtly aggressive and dig holes for themselves and many other innocent coworkers.

In line with this theory, it can be said that bankers have engineered the present situation. While the world speaks of sub-prime, in my view, the problem is that of credit markets in general. Banks have not been prudent even with corporate credit. In the hay days they dished out credit lines to small, unrated and non-profitable corporations at ludicrous levels. In many instances these facilities did not have any security or even financial covenants. Bankers who could monitor credit were too busy signing deals and investors who should have done due diligence were too busy trying to milk all available deals. So yes, to some extent the investor community is also a cause of what the world is facing. Does this absolve the corporates at all? Not in my opinion. Corporate clients have expectations which are far removed from reality. They push bankers and investors alike to meet their terms. While some say no there are other bankers who succumb. As deals are lost the one upmanship game amongst bankers starts. Corporate clients love to exploit this weakness of bankers without realizing that if markets shut down (as they have now) in future, their funding requirements will not be met down the line. So I guess it is collective responsibility.

A very interesting example of collective responsibility is the current derivatives crisis in India. Indian capital markets are still young and derivatives are still not main stream products. While larger corporations have the infrastructure and know how to use these instruments, the smaller guys are still novices. However, in an attempt to be “cool” a lot of the smaller fish signed derivative contracts. When the going was good no one complained. However, as the tide turned, CFOs started pointing fingers at bankers, claiming that the contracts they signed had not been clear. Bankers in turn pointed fingers at the regulatory authorities stating that regulations were weak and faulty.

Can there be something more ridiculous than this circus? Firstly, in my opinion, it is the responsibility of every CFO to understand the financial contracts he is risking his balance sheet to. All doubts should be cleared and the worst case scenario should be well thought of before any legally binding contract is signed. Secondly, bankers should be transparent in their dealings and explain the worst case scenario to the client. Now what if the poor banker does not understand the product herself? She should not be entrusted with the job. That is the responsibility of the line managers. Thirdly, the regulator (especially in India) needs to ensure that instead of drafting complex guidelines which are unnecessarily restrictive, they should consult bankers and CFOs (to understand the products and their use first) to structure rules which can minimize abuse of structured products.

I guess I am looking at things a little too simply and this might not be real. The bottom line, however, in my view remains that there has to be some amount of realism that needs to sink in at all levels. Banking community in particular should take note and prevent a similar crisis from surfacing another decade from now. After LTCM and sub-prime we should have learnt our lessons well enough. If we can be financial innovators and geniuses, I am sure we can quite easily learn from these two last disasters. The question that remains to be answered, however, is – do we want to learn?