Showing posts with label Succession Planning. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Succession Planning. Show all posts

Monday, March 5, 2012

New Demographics about older populations in the US: Old-Age and Divorce

Two recent articles in the Wall Street Journal address new information about demographics in the US, in particular, older populations and divorce. For those whose markets/products are affected, these may be of  particular interest.

This data DOES affect most companies, in one form or another. Anywhere from pools of employees, possible absences due to employees having to care for parents/grand parents, to employment benefits long term insurance, succession planning, visioning and social media, to just mention a few.

The link to each article is at the end of the two articles, if you desire to access the original ones.

Death Gets in the Way of Old-Age Gains

A new research paper, and a census surprise, are calling into question some long-held beliefs about a morbid bit of math: how much mortality rates increase with age.
It's no surprise that the older a group of people get, the higher the percentage of them who will die in any given time period. Benjamin Gompertz, a 19th-century British mathematician, charted the increase in mortality rates as very regular. His Gompertz law of mortality says that each additional period brings a constant percentage increase in mortality rates.
[NUMBGUY]
In the 20th century, though, as the world population aged and demographers' data improved, Gompertz started to look fallible. Researchers have found that, starting around age 80, mortality keeps increasing, but more slowly. More 100-year-olds die before turning 101 than 80-year-olds do before their 81st birthday, but the difference was less than Gompertz predicted.

But Gompertz may be right after all. In a study published last year and publicized last month, two longtime researchers of aging and believers in the late-life mortality slowdown reported that they and others were wrong. Death rates among Americans born between 1875 and 1895 kept on climbing steadily as they aged, they found, all the way through age 106, when their numbers got too sparse to follow.

This is bad news for anyone who wants to reach the century mark, but could provide an odd measure of relief for pensions, retirement programs and medical insurers, whose costs rise as people live longer.
The result came as a surprise to the study's authors, Leonid Gavrilov and Natalia Gavrilova, a husband-and-wife team at the Center on Aging, part of the research center NORC at the University of Chicago. They married in 1975 after he proposed—with a promise he would discover how to halt aging if she would accept.

In their jointly written papers and books over the past three-plus decades, they have advanced what they call a reliability theory of aging. This suggests that the body, like a machine, amasses more flaws as it ages. Redundancies in design meant to keep it from failing become more heavily loaded with time, increasing the probability of breakdown, or death. Past a certain point, these layers of defense have fallen away and mortality approaches a constant rate.

Their model therefore predicted a slowdown in mortality increases with age, which their new study calls into question. "We are confronted with inconvenient truth for our theory, and we have to accept what the data say," the authors wrote in a response to questions, that, like most of their writing, was a collaborative effort. "Now we are trying to reconcile the reliability theory of aging with our new observations."

Their findings have created a stir among demographers and others who study the very oldest people. Some hail the findings as offering important insight into how people age, and in explaining an unexpected slowdown in the rise in the ranks of American centenarians.

In 2004, the Census Bureau projected that there would be 114,000 people aged 100 or older by 2010 and 1.1 million centenarians by 2050. But the 2010 census counted just 53,364, a slender 5.8% increase from 2000. And now the Census Bureau is projecting there will be 592,000 Americans age 100 or older by 2050.

"Centenarian data have a long history of being affected by various data-quality issues," says Julie A. Meyer, an analyst in the Census Bureau's population division. She adds that the bureau's projections staff "is continuing to improve the accuracy of mortality estimates."

Robert Young, who administers the database of the Gerontology Research Group, which tracks the world's oldest people, says the new study "helped to explain why this error was made." He adds, "It seems that predictions of future centenarian counts are often unnecessarily rosy."
However, other researchers question the findings. Underlying the controversy is that many other studies have documented the plateau in death rates the new study rebuts. "There is actually a very deep controversy underlying the results presented," says Laurence Mueller, a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of California, Irvine.

One aspect of how the latest study was conducted may help explain some of the discrepancy. Dr. Gavrilov and Dr. Gavrilova used a data set of deaths from the Social Security Administration that allowed them to track all Americans born between 1875 and 1895 who died before 2011—presumably, all of them. This presents two advantages over other data sets. One is that birth and death dates are derived from the same source, rather than potentially inconsistent data. Another is they can track monthly rather than annual changes in mortality, which can help correct for understated death rates.
It remains to be seen, though, if this pattern will apply to other sets of aging populations. Dr. Gavrilov and Dr. Gavrilova say they will be watching. "For people born after the 1940s, there is only one way to get mortality data above age 80 years," they write. "That is to wait."

The Gray Divorcés

The divorce rate for people 50 and over has doubled in the past two decades. Why baby boomers are breaking up late in life like no generation before.


For years, 51-year-old Dawn and her husband of two decades, Tim, had buried their differences over finances, child-rearing and religion. But when the last of the Wisconsin couple's three daughters was finishing high school in 2009, those differences were all that Dawn could see. "I had gone back to school to advance my career as a paralegal, and his work had dwindled, so he was just basically hanging out with his buddies," she says. "We had nothing to talk about, and when we did, it was bickering."

They had stayed together all those years because of the kids, but now nothing was left. "He was so uncompassionate, and I had turned to my religion, and he would never go to church with me," she says. "I realized that I was alone in the marriage and would be better off with someone whose values and interests were more like mine." She seized the moment and left, filing for divorce.
While divorce is declining overall, the divorce rate among those 50-plus has doubled over the past two decades. Susan Gregory Thomas on Lunch Break discusses why gray divorce is on the rise.
For the new generation of empty-nesters, divorce is increasingly common. Among people ages 50 and older, the divorce rate has doubled over the past two decades, according to new research by sociologists Susan Brown and I-Fen Lin of Bowling Green State University, whose paper, "The Gray Divorce Revolution," Prof. Brown will present at Ohio State University this April. The paper draws on data from the 1990 U.S. Vital Statistics Report and the 2009 American Community Survey, administered by the U.S. Census Bureau, which asked all respondents if they'd divorced in the past 12 months.
Though overall national divorce rates have declined since spiking in the 1980s, "gray divorce" has risen to its highest level on record, according to Prof. Brown. In 1990, only one in 10 people who got divorced was 50 or older; by 2009, the number was roughly one in four. More than 600,000 people ages 50 and older got divorced in 2009.

What's more, a 2004 national survey conducted by AARP found that women are the ones initiating most of these breakups. Among divorces by people ages 40-69, women reported seeking the split 66% of the time. And cheating doesn't appear to be the driving force in gray divorce. The same AARP survey found that 27% of divorcés cited infidelity as one of their top three reasons for seeking a divorce—which is not out of line with estimates of infidelity as a factor in divorce in the general population.
So what is going on with these baby boomers? Are they finally seeking adventure, now that their kids are out of the house? Are the women exacting their revenge, at last, against the feminine mystique?

In 1990, 1 in 10 of all divorces were by people ages 50+. In 2009, 1 in 4 of all divorces were by people ages 50+.
The trend defies any simple explanation, but it springs at least in part from boomers' status as the first generation to enter into marriage with goals largely focused on self-fulfillment. As they look around their empty nests and toward decades more of healthy life, they are increasingly deciding that they've done their parental duty and now want out. These decisions are changing not just the portrait of aging people in the U.S., as boomers swell the ranks of the elderly, but also the meaning of the traditional vow to stay together until "death do us part."

"Some of those marriages that in previous generations would have ended in death now end in divorce," says Betsey Stevenson, assistant professor of business and public policy at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, who studies marriage and divorce. In the past, many people simply didn't live long enough to reach the 40-year itch. "You can't divorce if you're dead," says Ms. Stevenson.

But that's not the whole story, given that the bulk of the increase in late-in-life divorce has come among people ages 50-64. As a generation, boomers have changed American notions of marriage—and in the process, they have sown the seeds of their own discontent.

Most sociologists argue that boomers entered marriage with expectations very different from those of previous generations. "In the 1970s, there was, for the first time, a focus on marriage needing to make individuals happy, rather than on how well each individual fulfilled their marital roles," says Prof. Brown, author of the gray marriage paper.

According to Prof. Brown, over the past century there have been three "phases" of American views of marriage. First, there was the "institutional" phase, in the decades before World War II, when marriage was seen largely as an economic union.

This was succeeded in the 1950s and '60s by the "companionate" phase, in which a successful marriage was defined by the degree to which each spouse could fulfill his or her role. Husbands were measured by their prowess as providers and wives by their skills in homemaking and motherhood.
In the 1970s, the boomers initiated what Prof. Brown calls the "individualized" phase, with an emphasis on the satisfaction of personal needs. "Individualized marriage is more egocentric... Before the 1970s, no one would have thought to separate out the self as being distinct from the roles of good wife and mother."

None of this is especially surprising for the "Me Generation," but today's gray divorces include a generational twist: For many boomers, it is not their first marital split. Fifty-three percent of the people over 50 now getting divorced have done so at least once before.
More than 600,000 people ages 50 and older got divorced in 2009.
In fact, more "complex marital biographies," as Prof. Brown puts it, seem to be one of the driving forces behind gray divorce. Having been married previously doubles the risk of divorce for those ages 50 to 64. For those ages 65 and up, the risk factor quadruples.

For boomers who have had trouble maintaining commitments in the past, hitting the empty-nest phase seems to trigger thoughts of mortality—and of vanishing possibilities for self-fulfillment.
"With the children out of the house, boomers in unhappy marriages often look at each other and think, 'I may have another 25 to 35 years to live. Do I want to spend it with this person?' " says Deirdre Bair, author of the book, "Calling It Quits: Late-Life Divorce and Starting Over," a chronicle of nearly 400 interviews with people splitting in midlife. "There is an overwhelming, urgent feeling among them of, 'I have to strike out now, or I'll never have the chance again,' " says Ms. Bair.
Many of those now opting for gray divorces, however, fail to foresee its complications in today's bleak economic landscape. This is especially true of women.

[DIVORCE]

Though homes are often awarded to ex-wives, points out Pennsylvania divorce and family lawyer Elizabeth Bennett, this can be a burden instead of a blessing in a collapsed housing market. And when it comes to obligations to kids for things like continuing education, weddings and down payments on homes, according to Janice L. Green, a divorce and family law attorney in Texas, "it's always the mother who is willing to give up settlement money that should be on her side of the ledger."

Divorcing fathers have their own reasons to be concerned. According to a 2003 study from the University of North Florida, they are more likely to see a major decline in contact with at least one child, compared with stably married fathers, whereas divorced mothers tend to get closer to their children.
Still, many older divorcés say they're happy. According to the 2004 AARP survey, the vast majority of divorcés ages 40-79 (80%) consider themselves, on a scale from 1 to 10, to be on the top half of life's ladder. A majority of 56% even consider themselves to be on the uppermost rung (8-10). But "being alone" was nonetheless the top fear among both men and women, and those who had remarried reported significantly higher levels of life satisfaction.

So would some of these late-in-life divorcés have been better off trying to preserve their troubled marriages? According to John Mordecai Gottman, founder of the Gottman Institute in Seattle and author of "What Predicts Divorce?," the behavioral precursors to late-life or empty nest divorce are no different from those for younger couples—criticism, defensiveness, contempt and stonewalling. And, of course, the longer such behavior has persisted, the more deeply ingrained it becomes in a couple's personal dynamic.

In its work with older couples in crisis, Gottman Institute therapists recommend that spouses "turn toward" each other—that is, that they actively respond to bids for reconnection—rather than, say, snapping: "Excuse me, I'm trying to watch 'CSI' here!"
Those boomers who can't manage to hold on to their marriages, though, will hardly be alone. Prof. Brown's paper predicts that the number of over-50 divorces in 2030, based on current trends, could easily top 800,000 per year. And all those new divorcés shouldn't have too much trouble finding a date. Indeed, over the past year, the number of dating-site users 50 or older has grown twice as rapidly as any other age group, according to comScore Inc., an online data-analysis and marketing company.
Dawn, the 51-year-old who divorced her husband of 20 years, found her current boyfriend of nine months on the over-50 dating site OurTime.com. He's a divorcé with no children, and Dawn describes him as "very religious and compassionate, the things I was lacking in my former husband." Her kids—19, 20 and 26—are less sure, she says. "You can't expect kids to be excited about a new person who isn't their dad…But I'm very happy."

Death Gets in the Way of Old-Age Gains  

The Gray Divorcés

Friday, March 2, 2012

Recent article in the WSJ about Fixing Executive Compensation

There is nothing earth shattering in this article but is it good for identifying concise issues. The essentials of including debt in the calculations is an excellent concept, long term growth, and flexible compensation packages (adapting to market changes) are important for CEO and Senior Executive Packages.

However, even beyond these issues, it might have mentioned the need for a pro-active Board that demands financial transparency and accountability, and good external financial audits to highlight problem areas. Human capital growth is also needed for sustainability and should be included in some form. Last, it is essential to identify organic growth from acquisition growth, as acquisitions can hide a number of sins and problems, not to mention, many times adding debt to the corporation.

Here is the article with a hot link to the original article at the end:

How to Fix Executive Compensation

For starters, don't link pay packages just to stock. Tie them to debt as well.


The secret to reforming compensation isn't so much looking at how much bosses get paid—but how they get paid.
It's easy to understand why critics focus on the gaudy awards of cash and stock that executives take home. And, yes, it's hard to deny that some bosses get paid a lot more than they deserve. But the structure of compensation is ultimately a lot more important than its level, because it gets to the heart of how managers run companies and create value for shareholders.
Pay packages should give managers strong incentives to run companies correctly, to make them think in the long term and avoid taking excessive and potentially destructive risks. In many cases, they are well-designed and provide CEOs with the correct motivation. But in others, pay packages not only fail to achieve that goal but push executives in the other direction.
There are creative ways—yet simple and easy to implement—to tie executives' fortunes to the long-term health of their companies. Tying bosses' pay to the levels of debt at the business, for instance, will dissuade them from taking risks that might alienate creditors. Preventing executives from selling company stock until several years after it's granted will give them a powerful incentive to think long term. And updating the compensation package to reflect changing conditions in the market and the company will ensure that managers' interests are always aligned with those of the company and its shareholders.
Here's a closer look at those proposals.
Pay Them in Debt
An effective way to deter executives from taking excessive risk is to compensate them with debt-based pay as well as equity. However, many compensation packages feature only cash and equity.

Consider what happens when a boss who gets paid only in stock is facing a big choice that affects debtholders.
Let's say the company has $1 billion in debt but assets of just $900 million. If the CEO liquidates the business, debtholders get 90 cents on the dollar, but equity holders (like the CEO) are wiped out. Obviously, that's not an attractive prospect for the boss.
Now imagine that the CEO has before him a proposal that has an equal chance of gaining $200 million and losing $400 million. Clearly, the project is undesirable from a company-value perspective. However, since the manager holds only equity, he has little to lose by taking it. Stockholders are going to get wiped out anyway, so they're not going to lose more if the move fails. But if it succeeds, the company is worth $1.1 billion—and equity holders have $100 million to share, after the debtholders get paid off.
Looking at things from the debtholders' point of view, though, the move is clearly undesirable. If the boss doesn't take on the plan, they recover 90% of their money. If the boss goes through with it and succeeds, they get an additional 10% back. But if the strategy fails, they collect just 50% total.
Boards of directors, who design pay packages, are elected by shareholders. So, why should they care about debtholders at all? Because if potential lenders expect the CEO to take such gambles, they will demand a high interest rate and restrictive covenants, ultimately costing shareholders. A high interest rate cuts into profits, and restrictive covenants may prevent managers from undertaking desirable investment.
[DEBTFACTonline]
Qi Liu of Wharton and I have shown that the optimal pay package involves giving managers debt-based compensation as well as equity. Contrary to intuition, the CEO's optimal equity/debt ratio typically differs from the company's. If the business is financed with, say, 60% equity and 40% debt, it may be best to give the CEO 80% equity and 20% debt-based pay. The optimal debt ratio for the CEO is usually lower than the company's, because equity is typically more effective at inducing effort. However, the optimal debt ratio is still nonzero—the CEO should be given some debt compensation.
As for what kind of debt to give as compensation, it can take any number of forms. First, defined-benefit pensions and deferred compensation are already frequently used in practice. These instruments have equal priority with other unsecured creditors in bankruptcy, giving the CEO a strong incentive to look after their interests. And they seem to work: The research of Raghu Sundaram and David Yermack of New York University finds that CEOs with large defined-benefit pensions manage their companies more conservatively. Similarly, a paper by Divya Anantharaman and Vivian Fang of Rutgers University and Guojin Gong of Pennsylvania State University finds that debt compensation leads to fewer loan covenants and a lower cost of debt.
Second, compensation can be explicitly tied to debt values. American International Group Inc. used that kind of system in 2010, before its recapitalization, for certain elements of compensation for highly paid employees. In that plan, 80% of the pay was tied to the price of some of the company's bonds, and 20% was tied to the price of its stock. Third, the CEO can be granted actual debt securities such as corporate bonds, just as CEOs typically hold stock and options.
Make Them Wait to Cash In
Another critical change companies should implement is to lengthen the time that executives must wait before they can cash in their shares and options. All too often, stock and options have short vesting periods, sometimes as little as two to three years. This encourages managers to pump up the short-term stock price at the expense of long-run value, since they can sell their holdings before a decline occurs. A CEO can, for instance, write subprime loans to boost short-term revenue and leave before the loans become delinquent, or scrap investment in R&D. This is possible since, in many cases, stock and options immediately vest when the CEO leaves the company.
In a paper with Xavier Gabaix and Tomasz Sadzik of New York University and Yuliy Sannikov of Princeton, we show that optimal compensation packages involve long vesting periods. In particular, the pay packages don't vest more quickly when a CEO leaves a company—the executive must still wait several years before cashing in.
Just how long should a CEO wait? It depends on the kind of company. The waiting period should be longer in businesses where the CEO can take actions with very long-term consequences. It might be seven years or more at a drug company with a lengthy product pipeline. But the wait might be shorter at, say, a commodity chemical company, where CEO decisions usually don't have an impact more than a few years ahead.
Of course, there is a trade-off. If companies make CEOs wait too long to collect, the former bosses might be exposed to risks outside their control, such as regulatory changes that eat into profits. Companies need to find a balance that works best for their situation.
Change to Fit the Times
Even a compensation plan that's well-designed at the outset can fail to keep pace with the market and the company's fortunes. Take the case of a corporation that pays its boss in stock options. If the company hits a rough patch and its shares plummet, an executive's stock options become close to worthless and lose much of their incentive effect. This problem may still exist even if the executive has all stock and no options.
DEBTJUMP
Let's say the CEO is paid $4 million in deferred cash and $6 million in restricted stock. At the outset, boosting the value of the company by, say, 1% is worth $60,000 to him—a good inducement to put in more effort or drop a costly pet project. But if the share price halves, his restricted stock is now $3 million. So, this incentive is slashed to $30,000.
To maintain the power of the incentives, the CEO must be required to hold more stock after a stock-price decline. How much more? In the paper with Profs. Gabaix, Sadzik and Sannikov, we show that the CEO's stock should remain a roughly constant percentage of compensation.
In the example above, this target was 60%. At the start of the CEO's contract, that meant $6 million out of $10 million total compensation. We call this the CEO's "incentive account." Now that the stock has halved, the incentive account is worth only $7 million—$4 million in cash and $3 million in stock. To keep the equity level at 60%, the CEO must have $4.2 million of stock. This is achieved by rebalancing the CEO's incentive account: exchanging $1.2 million of cash for stock, so that the executive now has $2.8 million of deferred cash.
Since the additional stock is accompanied by a reduction in cash, it isn't given free. This addresses a major concern with the repricing of stock options after company value falls: Repricing rewards the CEO for failure by giving him a lower stock-price target to reach. Note that, even if the board is reluctant to amend the terms of previously awarded compensation by exchanging existing stock for cash, the desired rebalancing can still be easily implemented; next year, the board simply pays the CEO more equity and less cash.
If companies employ the three above principles—debt-based compensation to reduce risk, long vesting periods to dissuade short-termism and rebalancing to ensure incentives at all times—executives will be aligned with the long-term health of their companies. And that will not only help keep individual companies safe, it will reduce the risk of another financial crisis.
Dr. Edmans is a finance professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, a faculty research fellow of the National Bureau of Economic Research and a research associate of the European Corporate Governance Institute. He can be reached at reports@wsj.com.

Fixing Executive Compensation 

Thursday, December 15, 2011

CEO Survey Says that in the Next 3-5 Years, Talent Shortages, Limited Skilled Candidates are Major Impediments to Growth in Asia Pacific

In a recent Summit held for CEO's, specifically concerning Asia Pacific Economies (APEC), the results from 320 Industry Leaders who participated in the PwC survey, were revealing and in many ways consistent with earlier postings.

"Talent Shortages" was ranked 2nd in barriers to growth, however it is THE one area that can be tackled by corporations compared to the number 1 barrier(s) identified. The number 1 barriers to growth were: "Corruption" and "Inconsistent Regulations across the Region"(these barriers are beyond the ability of a corporation to effectively address).

The 2 major identified challenges to having the right talent in place are: "Competitors recruiting our best people" AND "Limited supply of skilled candidates." These were followed by: "Difficulty in deploying experienced talent globally" AND "Difficulty recruiting and retaining employees under the age of 30." "High Staff Turnover" in Fast Growing Economies will also be a major challenge that will need to be addressed.

In Mature Economies in Asia, a very major issue is: "Retirement of a significant portion
of the workforce." While not addressed in this survey, this also applies to North America (US and Canada) and Europe, with our aging and low growth populations.

So from this survey, it seems apparent that hiring those with good "job fit" to reduce turnover and increase retention, while also providing training to upgrade Leadership/Management skills in preparation for growth, will be critical. Long these lines, succession planning and strategic planning need to be exercised, expertly.

So how is your company positioned in addressing these issues? Have you planned for them and are contingencies developed?

A link to the entire study is: The 21st century workforce. Re-envisioned. Key findings from the APEC CEO Survey

Monday, December 12, 2011

Talent and Skills Shortages Number One Risk in Asia Pacific and 4 Other Risks

In the earlier post about Corporate Risks ( Global Risks to Consider and Recent Analysis by Lloyd's- Has Your Company Considered These? ) that need to be considered. It was identified that Lloyd's had ranked these Global Risks, but they also identified Regional Risks. The  image below came from the report that they assembled for 2011. It is very interesting that Talent and Skills is the Number One Risk for Asia Pacific, given the unemployment rate and educational levels in the region and the flood of youth coming up.

So, CEOs and Senior Managers need to seriously consider this, not only if they are planning to expand in the region, but also if new entries (start-ups) are being planned. It will require expert Succession Planning and Strategic Planning efforts to address this risk issue and the others identified, as well as Coaching, Mentoring, Training and Team Development for key corporate members to help fill this gap.

The BPO industry in the Philippines, identified several years ago, that while the industry could do a good job of hiring and filling entry level positions, when they promoted effective call agents, for example, these people did not have the managerial skills to handle a "Front-Line Manager" position. In many instances they were promoted to their level of "incompetence." So the bottle-neck to growth was not having identified and trained potential new managers soon enough to handle the high influx of new candidates for entry level positions.

Consequently, they changed their processes in Pre-Hire to identify 5-10% of the people considered for the entry level position(s), who had the right IQ and EQ to fit into their organizations, and who had good "job fit" with the Benchmarks/Job Pattern /Performance Modeling for not only the entry level position (significantly reducing turnover), but also for the Front-Line Manager position. They would "mark/follow" these people by observation and possible early training to assume the higher level position. This experience was possibly the early warning signs that Lloyd's seems to be now reflecting in their study, now.

For the Asia Pacific Region, Lloyd's identified the following 5 areas of major risks to be considered or addressed:
    1) Talent and Skills shortages
    2) Currency fluctuations
    3) Inflation
    4) Loss of Customers/Cancelled Orders
    5) Company Reputation Risk

As also highlighted in the area: CEO, Senior Manager, Leadership, Strategic Planning and Charisma , it is essential that CEOs, Senior Managers, and Corporate HR Managers identify at least 3-5% potential Leaders within each level of the organization (bench strength) in order to help address sustainability for the corporation. Without bench strength, just like for a sports team, while the top players are available and not injured, the team does well; but without the organizational depth and strength, it can result in high fluctuations in corporate performance over time.

The question remains: How Well Positioned Is Your Company for the Upcoming Forecasted Risks within the Region - Presently and for the ensuing 5-10 years? The future and investments are yours to make to position the company for growth and profitability! To ignore these risks could be at the peril of the corporation and organization.


Risks - Then and now: what has changed?

Friday, December 9, 2011

Global Risks to Consider and Recent Analysis by Lloyd's- Has Your Company Considered These?

Evaluating risk is critical for any company and industry, and it is a necessary component in any Strategic and Business Plan. Of course, if CEOs and Senior Managers are looking at acquisitions and investments, there are additional kinds of risks that need to be identified, evaluated, determined, and compared to the internal hurdle rate required/desired by the company. Some of these risks are:
    Country (political and financial)
    Industry
    Company
    Competitor
    Geographical (likelihood of hurricanes, typhoons, tsunamis and earthquakes)
    GeoPolitical
    Terrorist
    Utility Interruption
    Cyber
    Environmental
    Global

Lloyd's recently identified various risks in 2011, which have changed significantly from 2009. In 2009 the top risks were: the cost of credit, currency fluctuation (which has moved down to number 4) and insolvency.

In 2011, on a global basis, they have now ranked the areas as:
1) Loss of Customers (because of economic contractions and dwindling number of companies),
2) Talent and Skills Shortages,
3) Company’s Reputational Risk,
4) Currency Fluctuations
5) Changing Legislation

Talent, in particular, is a surprising find given the high unemployment rates around the World. As a result, the link to the entire study is below, as well as including the specific portion on Talent and Skills Shortages which is include below.

To not consider many of these risks, if not all of them, could lead to a major folly. Has your company evaluated and considered these on a regular basis? If not, why not? If nothing else, it leads to thoughtful ruminations, but hopefully much more than that!


"2. Talent and skills shortages

Talent and skills shortages

The prioritisation of ‘talent and skills shortages’ as the second most important risk facing businesses - and one of only two risks respondents felt insufficiently prepared for - begs many questions.
In a time of business mergers and record unemployment, the pool of surplus talent should, in theory, be significant. And yet, at the very top of organisations, there is huge anxiety about the suitability of available staff for the roles required.
Concern over talent or skills shortages could be due to a number of factors, some of which are discussed in the Index. Respondents across all sectors agree this is a significant and widespread problem.
The resulting business risks could include everything from poor product development to inappropriate risk management strategies.
Many sectors are waking up to the risk and taking action. Some companies, for example, are undertaking audits to identify staff at risk of being poached and targeting packages accordingly.
But prevention is just part of the solution and many industries are investing in processes to identify and train the talent they need from scratch."
Risks - Then and now: what has changed?