It just hit me this morning why the US seems to dominate the world in the creation of innovative companies and products and I think we’ve gotten it all wrong. The Americans aren’t better than the rest of us at research and development and product creation, they’re just better at us in market development.
If you’ve been following my recent research you’ll have seen that I’m on a path to discover why Canada lags many of its peers at the development of an innovation economy. My thesis is that our problem has been misunderstood for years and the problem is not that Canada fails at research and development, patenting or financing startups. The problem is that we’re no good at market development.
I’ve recently started to look at why the US is so good at launching new products and companies. The general consensus seems to be that the US and in particular Silicon Valley is more innovative than the rest of us. But wait a second, this is the country that hasn’t adopted the metric system or replaced low denomination paper currency with coins. This is the country without universal medical care, that still executes citizens, even minors. It is a country with a completely dysfunctional political system and one that is still embroiled in debates over abortion and gay marriage while the rest of the world has moved on. Is this evidence that they lead the world at innovation?
Despite what they claim about innovation and what we think, I think they’re wrong. There is no evidence that the US is better than the rest of us at research and product development. But if they seem to be so good at creating products and companies, what are they better at? I think they’re better at market development.
Over the years across the US, entrepreneurs and companies have perfected the art of market research and in particular design thinking. They have perfected product marketing, developing alliances through business development. They have perfected marketing communications and even more so, sales. They have perfected the art of incubation through such entities as Y Combinator. They have perfected the use of private venture capital and how to best assist the companies reach markets through the assistance these VC firms provide. They have created a machine that can turn average research into world-leading products and companies.
If we want to improve our ability to help innovative new products reach markets we have to stop focusing on the research and development side and focus, as the US has on market development.
Scientists from the internationally respected magazine Nurture vs Nature have disclosed that researchers in Silicon Valley have identified the mutant gene that causes entrepreneurship. This disease involves a recessive mutation and leads to extensive market disruption.
Having discovered the genetic cause of entrepreneurship will help its inclusion in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-6). Entrepreneurship was not included in DSM-5 as it was felt that it was already covered by the recent inclusion of Internet Addiction, particularly when paired with a Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
The scientists who discovered this genetic variant focused on a region of chromosome 47 that contains several genes involved in the movement of a brain chemical called LEANSU between neurons. One version of the gene, FOUNDR, was found statistically linked (associated) with entrepreneurial success.
Apparently, researchers Hewlett and Packard identified a genetic pattern in their laboratory at 367 Addison Avenue in Palo Alto in the late 1930s. This early genetic discovery was suppressed and not published or patented so that the discoverers and close associates could profit from it. Recent historical research has discovered their original research notes and published these for the benefit of humanity.
The discoverers profited from the research by developing a genetic test that could be used to identify individuals carrying this recessive gene. Having identified carriers, the discoverers would follow up by investing in their technology start-ups. Recipients of investments made resulting from this technology include Gordon Moore, Jeff Bezos, and Larry Page.
Eugene Kleiner and Tom Perkins were early licensees of this technology, which they sub-licensed on a selective basis to co-investors on Sand Hill Road. For many years, the licensees invested in business ideas that had been sketched out at lunch on napkins. According to Vinod Khosla, a recent licensee, the napkins were taken back to secret labs where they could test the saliva deposited on the napkins at lunch, for this mutant gene. Founders with the mutant gene were then cleared for investment by leading Silicon Valley firms.
According to insiders, a recent licensee is Paul Graham. He extended research into the gene using Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR) and has been able to edit the genetic makeup of Y Combinator start-up founders to make them more entrepreneurial, thus improving the success of his investees.
Research is continuing in order to identify a more rare expression of the gene that causes unicorns. Protests are arriving from around the world for full disclosure of this discovery so that other regions can begin to replicate the success that Silicon Valley has had due to the the use of this disruptive technology.
OK, this is it. I’ll stop with all these posts about Toronto House Prices metrics after today. I’ll find another way to annoy people next week.
If you’ve been paying attention I said the press is consistently using entirely the wrong metric to look at house prices. It doesn’t matter what the average house costs compared to the average income, what matters is the percent of income required to buy the average house.
But even that isn’t a good metric, as existing homebuyers who have built up great equity really aren’t hurt much by the run-up in prices.
So in this price escalation, the one thing that really matters is the effect on new homebuyers. And to look at that I’m introducing my third and final metric.
The banks will lend let’s say up to a level where a person’s housing debt service ratio is 30% of income. (The actual number may be higher but given potential credit card debt, I’m using this number as the limit for the sake of analysis – it’s called “Fun With Assumptions.”)
What matters given this limit is how long it takes to save a down payment (or borrow it from relatives.) The only way we can look at this effect is to look at the number of months it takes a new buyer to save enough money so that debt service payments are 30% of income.
You can berate my assumptions in comments but I’m assuming for the sake of analysis that the average buyer can save 10% of their pretax income for a down payment. So the question becomes then how long does it take to save for a house?
And this is where we have a problem and our mini-bubble is in crisis mode. The graph above shows house prices in blue and the red line represents the number of months savings required. This number is well above historical norms and is exceeded in level, only by the years 1988 – 1990. If you remember that time we had a huge correction in house prices
But here’s the problem. As we saw yesterday, the run-up in progress isn’t a problem for people who already own houses. It may not be a problem for foreign buyers, many of who will see Toronto as a reasonably priced market. But it will be a major problem for first time buyers. And this is really the only metric that matters now.
Is this going to be enough to bring the market to its knees? Who knows? The last time we had a big crash, prices were bad for everyone. Now they’re only bad for a few. And that’s the problem with this bubble. Since it isn’t caused by rates and is caused by price run-up it is a different type of bubble.
Only when you use the right metrics can you see what the bubble really means.
Today’s article on the front page of the Globe and Mail, calling for something to be done about surging house prices, is another example of bad metrics creating potentially bad policy.
As I explained in Monday’s post, the comparison of house prices to average income is just a bad metric as what matters is not the price of a house but how much mortgage interest is paid. Yesterday’s post uses a better metric to show that we are in the midst of a tiny bubble that bears no comparison to past bubbles.
Today’s Globe article says that “While some industry observers argue that foreign buyers are playing an increasingly influential role in the GTA, Mr. Henderson said the bulk of housing demand is from Canadian citizens or permanent residents who have been emboldened by low interest rates and a healthy economy.”
I must admit that I don’t know whether foreign buyers are fueling demand. What I do know though is that for existing house owners who want to trade up, things look pretty good and I imagine that there is a large component of pricing run-up that is due to existing house owners trading up.
In order to look at the cost of trading up I created a brand new chart. It attempts to show what someone trading up can get in today’s market as compared with the past. (Yippee, I get to do more analysis.)
Let’s say you, Ms. Average Income Earner bought the average house way back 15 years ago (which I did a little research on and computed as the average time someone owns a house before trading up.) And let’s say you put 20% down. Since then you have paid your mortgage payments religiously and with the recent surge in house prices, you have a pretty good nest egg built up. The question is, since you’re still earning an average family income, what can you now afford?
As it turns out, you can afford a house that is 55% more expensive than the average house. You can see from the red line above, while that is the bottom of the range we have seen for over 25 years, it is by no means totally wacky. Yes, most of the time you could have gotten a better deal trading up but there have been a few times that we’ve been in the same range.
The point is here that while things are on the high end of normal, we are by no means in a bubble. For the average homeowner, there is still no problem getting a better house by trading up. In fact, this factor may be a partial cause of the rapid increase in prices as existing owners decide to capitalize on the enormous equity they have and move on up.
The risk is that we use a bad metric such as the one we’ve outlined Monday to create a policy to dampen house prices when the bubble is a lot smaller than everyone thinks. That’s stupid.
If you read yesterday’s post, I spent it ranting on about how I was fed up seeing bad metrics used to explain what is going on in the housing market in Toronto. So today I thought it might be useful if I showed you a better metric. So get ready for it, another day, another exciting metric.
What I said yesterday was that it is silly to compare the price of the average house to average income. That’s because what people are committing to is not the price of a house but a stream of mortgage payments. If they can afford the mortgage payments, who cares what the price of the house is?
The chart I so elegantly constructed above with the help of my best friend, Mr. Excel, shows with the red bars, the price of the average house in 2016 dollars in Toronto. (That way you can see real increases instead of seeing the effect that inflation had in the 1970s and 1980s.)
The blue line shows a much better metric, the percent of monthly income required for the average family to afford the average house. Banks will only lend up to a certain point and that lending doesn’t care what the price of a house is, only what the percent of a person’s income will be spent on housing. So this metric has real applicability. At some point the average house becomes too expensive and the market for housing dries up and crashes.
Let’s look at a few prior crashes. Mortgage interest rates went wild in 1981 and 1982, reaching almost 20%. (Can you imagine what that would be like now?) The result was a spike in the percent needed to buy the average house. During this period, you can see that the real price (inflation adjusted) of housing declined steadily from 1976 until 1984. This decline was masked by inflation which made everyone feel prices were actually going up
The next major peak was in 1989/1990. Interest rates at the time weren’t as much of a problem. They went from 11.25% in 1987 to 14.25% in 1990. During that time, an irrational exuberance in the market coupled with a boomer influx caused house prices to climb rapidly. But interest rates spiked, caught the market off guard, made banks tighten lending, and made it unaffordable for the average person to buy the average house. The result was a precipitous decline in the market.
The next real dollar decline in prices was in 2007/2008 but this one was small. Interest rates at the time were hovering around six and seven percent. They weren’t the cause of the crash though. I’m sure how you haven’t forgotten that we had a bit of a banking crisis and guess what happened, mortgage lending tightened up due to the unavailability of capital.
But the big surprise to me at the time was how rapidly interest rates declined. They fell from about a 7% posted rate to rates last year that were hovering in the mid threes. That decline in the rates, dramatically lowered lending costs and the price of houses climbed every year since. We’re seeing another sign of irrational exuberance. It has created a small bubble as you can see on the chart. Interest coverage is sitting at 35% for the average buyer of the average house. This is up from an average 25% level where it has been sitting since 1997. But this is nothing like the bubbles of 1982 and 1990
So we have a little bubble, not a major one. Before I opine on when our mini-bubble is going to pop, I’m going to show you another couple of metrics. Tomorrow I’ll look at a metric that applies to people who are already house owners and Thursday I’ll look at new buyers. (If you’re still reading, congratulations and thanks for being a metrics geek.)
There has been a lot of talk recently about Toronto’s housing bubble. In fact, I think if you check, the talk has been filling up the press for several years. Well if all of these people are right about the bubble, when is it going to pop? I don’t think in fact that there is much of a bubble, I just think it is bad metrics. (I can feel you getting all excited out there…”oh, goody”, you’re saying, “we get to talk about metrics.” Calm down there, let’s not get too excited.)
Let’s look first at the common metric used to declare there is a housing bubble. That metric shows the relationship between the average house price and the average income earned. You can see that ratio demonstrated on the lovely graph I created showing data for the city of Toronto.
Going back to 1976, the graph shows the average house price in blue and the ratio between house prices and income in the red line. It looks just terrible doesn’t it? This is the metric that everyone is using to show a bubble.
Unfortunately in the land of metrics, comparing house prices to income is just silly. What matters isn’t the price of the house but what you pay on mortgage to own the house. So there is another factor which is left out of the bubble analysis and that is interest rates. I’ll explain how that all works in tomorrow’s post.
Meanwhile, I saw an article on the weekend with even sillier analysis. BMO has done some extensive research (I think they actually just played with Excel one day) and come up with the claim that even Toronto’s 1% are being priced out of the housing market. You can see the article summarized in Huffington Post.
The research says that someone earning $225,000 (the 1% cutoff line) can’t afford the average house. The analysis says that with $100,000 down, the most that a 1%er could afford would be $987,000 but the average detached house is $1.2 million.
This is just crazy though. Since when do people who make $225,000 a year only have $100,000 for a down payment? Don’t you think that people earning $225,000 a year might have had a house for some time now. After all, I don’t know many people for whom $225,000 is a starting salary.
And if they have been earning $225,000 and had a house for a while, let’s say 10 years, don’t you think they would have a big chunk of equity in their house? In fact if they bought the average house 10 years ago with $100,000 down, their house cost $350,000 and after paying a mortgage for 10 years, they would have $537,000 of equity
On this basis they could, according to BMO’s statistics, afford a house worth $1.45 million, well above the $1.2 million average.
I know you’re finding this to be exciting stuff so tomorrow I’ll show you a better metric to use when evaluating the housing market and you’ll see why the bubble everyone claims might not be quite as alarmingly large as everyone thinks.
I was surprised that Finance Minister Bill Morneau warned Millennials that they should “get used to so-called job churn – short-term employment and a number of career changes in a person’s life.” Does this mean he’s giving up on the economy?
I looked around the other day and decided that as a group, my friends who had stuck with one job or one career all of their lives were on the whole, financially better off than the ones who skipped around between jobs and careers. Even the ones in lower paid jobs had done well financially as they could plan and save knowing how much they were earning.
So is Bill Morneau effectively stating that Millennials should get used to the idea that they are not going to be as well off financially as their parents?
Here’s what happens. If you don’t have a secure career, you won’t spend as much on a house or maybe you won’t buy one at all. After all, Bill’s saying that you better play it safe as you might not know when your next gig will start even though we’re going to train you so that you can keep switching careers regularly.
If you don’t buy a house or spend as much on one then you probably won’t need all sorts of furniture and will not be spending much on renovations. As for buying a cottage, to hell with that idea.
So what happens to the economy when all those job-churning millennials stop spending money? Well the economy tanks and who then will pay for all of us boomers to retire?
What’s the solution? Well it isn’t only training plans. Somehow we need to be de-risking this world of churning jobs so that millennials can plan properly for their future. (And in that way contribute better to boomer retirement – did I mention that it’s still all about boomers anyway?)
I was surprised to read in the Globe that Guy Laurence had been turfed as Roger’s CEO but I wasn’t surprised about why. Apparently he had a rocky relationship with the Rogers family who still have control of the company Ted Rogers built.
I had heard from people inside Rogers that he was doing some great work, work that changed fundamentally how they did business and served the customer but that work would take a while to pay off.
While he may have been doing good work he apparently had a brash style and was disrespectful in his dealings with certain members of the Rogers family. In the end, it didn’t matter how good a job he was doing, it only mattered how his bosses felt.
People, (and engineers), you really have to take this one to heart. It doesn’t matter how well you think you’re doing your job. If your boss isn’t happy then you’re toast.
It’s this emotional intelligence thing rearing its ugly head again. We can curse Maya Angelou for saying “I’ve learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel” but we can’t get around it.
It’s a bitter pill to swallow, particularly for left-brained professionals but technical merit alone won’t help you get ahead at work. Having the right answer all the time doesn’t matter. Delivering expected results will only get you so far.
Ultimately, it only matters how your boss feels about your work. Yes, I know you have to deliver baseline results so you don’t get fired for being a complete write-off but beyond that, success doesn’t come from excellence, it comes from happiness, in this case, your boss’s.
Now I must confess that it took me over 30 years to learn this lesson myself and perhaps that’s why I haven’t had many bosses in my career.
So all of you lawyers, accountants, engineers, scientists and programmers out there, if you want a successful career, repeat after me: “My job is to make my boss happy.”
The comments from my last blog got me thinking about MBA programs in general and Masters in Innovation programs in particular.
The businesses that are succeeding today (and by succeeding I mean are having huge growth in acceptance, revenue, valuation, etc.) are the ones that are disrupting the status quo in novel ways. So if these are today’s successful businesses, where can students go to learn these new ways of thinking, the new skills and the new business paradigms that create successful disruptors?
MBA programs are good at teaching people how to analyze everything that moves, preserve the status quo, and avoid risk. But they don’t do a very good job of teaching students to think outside the box. There may be courses within an MBA on disruption but I haven’t found one.
I thought that perhaps there might be Masters of Innovation programs that teach disruption in general but my quick review of these programs is that they seem to favour continuous innovation and fitting in to corporate norms. I’m still searching for a program in disruption but not having much success.
There are disruptive ideas in every part of a business. They crop up in human resources through the adoption of Holocracy. They create new means of financing such as crowd funding. They disrupt supply chains as Amazon has done. They change the face of marketing through social media. I could go on and on with how every facet of our lives is being disrupted but I think you get the point.
We are living through a time of massive disruption and yet I can’t find anyone focussing on disruption in a business program. I think we need to remedy this. We need to create a Masters of Disruption.
We could cover basic business topics in such a Masters but focus on how the world of business is being disrupted right now. Even more, we could challenge students to become disruptors themselves, to find new ways to alter the status quo.
I suppose we can’t call it a Masters if Disruption as I don’t think that would fly very well at an interview. (Can you see your typical HR manager actually want to hire a disruptor?) But we could easily focus on just such a topic through series of courses on innovation.
But to actually create just such a program I suspect that we need a disruption in business education. And how we do that is leaving me stumped.
There was a great article on the Harvard Business Review site yesterday that said that companies that have a founder’s mentality deliver returns to shareholders that are three times higher than in other companies. It goes on to say that a founder’s mentality has three traits that are insurgency, an owner’s mindset, and a frontline obsession.
The article that goes on to show that as a company gets bigger, it loses its founders mentality. While I was reading it, I suddenly thought that there is another thing that happens as companies get bigger; they hire more MBAs.
Now before I get jumped on for inventing a correlation between the number of MBAs that a company has, the loss of its founder mentality, and inevitable slow decline to irrelevancy let me say that I have an MBA. Not only that, I actually taught MBAs at York’s Schulich School of Business for seven years. And what did I learn and what do we teach?
Well there certainly isn’t much in an MBA about insurgency. We’re more likely to teach students how important it is to understand and develop process and ensure it is followed so that we can have a consistent level of quality. I don’t remember any courses on insurgency, just frameworks like Porters Five Forces, the BCG Matrix. Lots of analysis and risk reduction instead of radical wild ideas.
As to an owner’s mindset, students are more likely to learn about accounting, finance, and driving shareholder value through short term profit maximization. I just checked Rotman’s site and even in their specialization in Innovation and Entrepreneurship, there is no course that looks like it focusses on ownership thinking.
As to a frontline obsession, an MBA will spend a lot more time understanding the concept of materiality and how to look at the big picture than to obsess over operational details. In fact people who obsess over frontline details are told they are too operational, not strategic enough and they don’t get promotions.
The article says that owners “abhor complexity, bureaucracy, and anything that gets in the way of the clean execution of strategy. They are obsessed with the details of the business and celebrate the employees at the front line, who deal directly with customers.” That doesn’t sound very MBA like to me. MBAs celebrate process and analysis, not details.
So my hypothesis is that MBAs are being taught the wrong things. They are taught the things that make businesses predictable and safe instead of dynamic and bold. And when companies hire too many of MBAs, they begin to lose their founder’s mentality, they become predictable and safe, and they begin a slow decline to a merger (aka death).