One of the world's
most influential investors says that changing behavior on Wall Street will take
more than regulation.
Spencer Platt/Getty Images
In the fast lane: The financial world prefers quick profits today to strong companies later, says Melvin.
The global
financial crisis has wiped out billions in pension schemes and
retirement
savings. But Colin Melvin, CEO of Hermes Equity Ownership Services
Ltd., is
optimistic about the future of the $100 billion-plus under his advice. Melvin is
part of an
emerging class of investors who look to change, improve, and
remold the
companies they invest in -- boosting, they argue, the firms' value and
competitiveness in the long run. The model has gained particular
attention
after the financial crisis brought to bear the short-term risk taking
that had
come to characterize Wall Street. Now, investors from New York to
London are
looking for new models, and Melvin's is one they've found. Foreign
Policy's Elizabeth Dickinson sought Melvin's insight on investment
strategy, his reaction to recent G-20 actions to remold the global
financial
architecture, and the future landscape of the financial industry.
Foreign Policy: Wall
Street's management culture has been particularly demonized for its role in
provoking the the global financial crisis. What's your take? What were the
fundamental problems with the financial world, exemplified by Wall Street, that
led to the present downturn?
Colin Melvin: I
think there was a lack of accountability of quoted financial services companies
-- public companies -- to their ultimate owners, the shareholders. Another
factor at play is the culture within Wall Street and the city of London, which
focuses on short-term matters and returns. You have a situation where the link
between the company and the end owner is mediated by Wall Street. And Wall
Street is incentivized to trade rather than to own the asset. [Blame for the
crisis] isn't limited to the action or inaction of funds, but that's a big
part of it.
FP: Your firm,
Hermes, takes a longer term view of managing assets. How does that strategy
differ from the typical Wall Street approach? What are the benefits?
CM: Hermes is
owned by the British Telecom pension scheme, the country's largest. That gives
us a much longer horizon since a pension fund's horizon tends to be 15 to 20 years
or more. We also though understand that it's not possible to be a good long-term
owner of a company simply to trade the shares.
Hermes's Equity Ownership Services doesn't actually make
decision on buying and selling shares; we represent funds as owners of
companies. My team decides whether to engage or disengage with companies. The
kinds of discussions that we have with companies focus on the strategy in the
longer term. We assess capital structure, we look at risk management -- particularly
from a long-term perspective including social, environmental and ethical risks,
and we look at governance, broadly defined as the quality of the board, the
nominations process for the board, the way that directors are paid, incentives.
We focus on those factors we believe are linked to companies' long-term
profitability.
FP: You've had
success this year when most other investors have taken a hit in the market. Do
you attribute this to your different approach?
CM: We're
attracting a huge amount of interest. Banks have failed so spectacularly, and those
banks had owners -- they were you and me. It seems like somehow that ownership
link has been broken, and we were unable to fix it. Now, large public funds are
coming under pressure from governments to be better owners of companies. And
that's leading people to our door.
FP: The criticism
of an "activist" approach to investing in companies is that outsiders might
miss the insights that managers of companies themselves have. In essence,
outsiders might make changes that appear to them as appropriate, but might in
fact be the opposite. What do you make of this critique?
CM: We don't seek
to micromanage the companies; our goal is hold the management and the board to
account for their performance. If there's no problem, if the company's doing
well, they won't hear from us. It's just when there's a problem that we'll
raise it.
Of course, it would be exceedingly disappointing if I knew
more about the operations of a company than the board and the directors and
senior management. However, we do additional research, and we commission people
to help us understand companies from a long-term approach, and that's quite
unusual. Most people involved in the financial-services industry look at the
short-term financials. If you were a CEO of a large company in the United
States, your experience of talking to Wall Street would be pretty
disappointing. You'd be challenged about next quarter's earnings; you wouldn't
be asked about those things you're thinking about day to day -- the people in the business, long-term
strategy. Wall Street isn't interested in that. We are [interested], and we've
assembled a team of people here who are able to challenge companies on those
particular issues. So it's a question of business knowledge and understanding,
which again is very unusual in the financial-services industry.