Kevin Spacey in House of Cards
Major Danby: ‘Ideals are good, but people are sometimes not so good. You must try to look up at the bigger picture’.
Yossarian: ‘When I look up, I see people cashing in. I don’t see heaven or saints or angels. I see people cashing in on every decent impulse and every human tragedy’.
(Catch 22, Joseph
Heller, 1961)
As a technophobe in the eyes of my children, I marvel at being able to order an entire drama series at the blink of an eye, downloaded to my Amazon ‘Fire Stick’ before the charge has even hit my credit card.
Happy Mary, happy Barclaycard. One such series was Showtime’s cutting-dialogue drama, Billions, allegedly based on the financial crimes crusader, ‘Preet’ Bharara, US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, via his fictitious persona, Chuck Rhoades Jnr.
Pitched against him is genius hedge-fund trader, Bobby Axelrod (cue enormous injections of testosterone just for that name alone).
Even female characters seemed infused with male hormones in this gloriously over-the-top sparring match, with bags of conflicted interests and oodles of greed and fear, not to mention an absolute screamer of a short-squeeze (this is a financial term, should anyone think otherwise) thrown in for good measure.
While I largely enjoyed this capitalist romp and the superb acting of Paul Giamatti (Rhoades) and Damien Lewis (Axelrod), my husband, whose feet are more firmly planted in the realities of life than in the abstracts of finance, found the series entertaining, but also rather tiresome.
scheming
The same verdict followed the US version of ‘House of Cards’ starring Kevin Spacey and Robin Wright as the scheming Mr and Mrs Underwood.
In his summation, the words ‘selfish’, ‘cruel’, ‘greedy’ and ‘shallow’ featured heavily, and while I could not disagree, I found myself instantly regretting the pleasure attained from watching this riot of slander and blackmail.
After all (my argument went), this is only fiction. If this were reality, I would be ashamed of it. But is this reality? Would I thrive on it? Am I in denial?
In late August, the acclaimed FT columnist Martin Wolf suggested that ‘if the legitimacy of our democratic political system is to be maintained, economic policy must be oriented towards promoting the interest of the many, not the few’.
As entertaining as Bobby Axelrod was, on more than one occasion I heard myself saying indignantly: ‘but we’re not like that! We have the interest of the many at heart’.
Not long after our domestic debate, James Anderson, lead manager of the Scottish Mortgage Investment Trust, differentiated between investing in shares of a company for its long-term future (the primary tenet of capitalism) executed by traditional ‘long-only’ investment managers, and the jet-fuelled short-term speculative activity of short-trading, borrowing shares in a company to make a quick turn.
As Mr Anderson rightly defined, owning part of a company versus borrowing stock are two very different things. One is intentioned towards the creation of value and shareholder rights while the other is primarily designed to destroy capital value (but to make ‘billions’ for the Axelrods of the world). I can just hear the army of super-smart CFAs galloping towards me in an indignant herd (more horses) to protest or perhaps not: one of the benefits of living on a small island surrounded by rough seas.
On the US attorney’s team, another lawyer, Bryan Sacker, is warned by his father that ‘principle doesn’t go away all at once, it’s a creeping erosion’ referring to both civil servants and their hedgie prey.
justify
Here lies the rub: do we justify our actions as investment managers as being purely for the good of our clients, even if it might be to the detriment or disrespect of others?
Am I just another ‘money changer in the temple’, as I was once described by a friend?
It is not the first time I have considered this dilemma during my 23 years as an investment manager, my stomach turning over the cross examination of Wells Fargo CEO, John Stumpf, by senator Elizabeth Warren, concluding that he “squeezed…employees to the breaking point so they would cheat customers”, firing 5,300 “twelve-dollar-an-hour employees” with no detriment to management or the executive.
One of the biggest sticking points of ‘Billions’ was Bobby Axelrod’s decision to trade as the twin towers fell on 9/11.
Paul Crocker reminded me of the general ban we had on dealing at Standard Bank that day; able only to watch the nightmare unfold on our screens with disbelief.
Nevertheless, at another firm, when the 7/7 London terrorist attacks took place, my colleagues and I took advantage of unexpected market bargains, confident that prices would bounce back quickly.
At FIM last year, we sold down holdings in shares of BHP Billiton, the failure of Brazil’s Fundao Dam and the flooding of Billiton’s Samarco mine giving management a perfect excuse to cut an already strained dividend (which they subsequently did).
ashamed
Was the loss of 17 lives a secondary consideration? I am ashamed to say that it was not foremost in my thoughts as I executed those trades, listening to the sound of my principles creeping away.
Deal now, repent later; like a bad dieter on a binge.
For the most part, investment is a positive experience, which is why I have stuck at it all these years; I have the increasingly rare pleasure of actually enjoying my job.
Yet, there is always that ‘Catch 22’, where doing good for one party may ignore the tribulations of another, not dissimilar to the actions of those short traders I vilify.
Like Captain Yossarian, I too may be denied my angels and saints when the time comes.