Paul Wallbank | Paul Wallbank - Communications Professional

Technology Cannot Save You – the limitations of relying on IT

Managerialism will always trump technology which is why IT can’t solve problems caused by management incompetence.

One of the great conceits of modern times is that technology can solve any problem – the problems of Sydney’s transport system is an example of how IT can’t overcome managerial incompetence.

The irrepressible New Australian has a good post about Sydney transport system and its battles with the opal card.

Australian governments have been troubled with smartcard ticketing systems for decades, the Opal Card itself was promised in time for the Sydney Olympics thirteen years ago. Little has been done since.

The fundamental problem is that governments are being sold technology solutions to fix management and political challenges.

In Sydney’s case the problem is a complex fare structure and a Balkanised public transport system – check the situation for a commuter wanting to travel from Parramatta to the city.

Ferry fare $7.20
Train fare $5.00
Bus fare $4.60

The above fares are the standard single journeys, to make matters worse there’s a mind boggling range of concession, off-peak and periodic fares whose structure owes more to political opportunism, managerial incompetence and agency jobsworths protecting their turf than any logic or fairness.

Without a logical or consistent to calculating the fares, computer algorithms have no hope – managerialism trumps coding every time.

Basically Sydney has no chance of getting their system working properly without having an integrated fare and management structure. Technology cannot fix this problem.

This is not just a Sydney problem A great example of how incompetent management can screw up what should be a straightforward implementation is in Melbourne which has a comparatively simple time based price structure.

Melbourne’s Myki card has had a similarly troubled life being delivered decades late, hundreds of millions over budget and being so user unfriendly it seems designed to solve the city’s transport overcrowding problem by chasing away passengers.

Basically management incompetence by arrogant bureaucrats and ignorant ministers doomed Melbourne’s project from the start.

Australian governments aren’t the only organisations that fall for the fallacy that technology can solve their problems, around the world corporations and public agencies have made the same mistake.

This is something technologists, and more importantly taxpayers and shareholders, should keep in mind when a CEO or minister is trumpeting the latest technology to fix their organisation’s woes.

Image of the Opal Card brochure courtesy of The New Australian

ABC Nightlife technology – April 2013

For the April Nightlife tech spot Tony Delroy and I be talking about the mobile phone turning 40, the end of the Internet and Windows 8.

For the April 2013 Nighlife spot Tony Delroy and I looked at the mobile phone turning 40, Windows 8 coming to an end, Blackberry’s chances of succeeding and what happens when the internet goes dark.

Danny Hillis gives a great discussion of what could happen if the internet was turned off along with the history of the net in this TED talk.

If you missed the show, you can download it from the Nightlife website.The next show will be on May 16 and we hope you can join us then.

Are Australians too risk adverse for startups?

Does a culture of property speculation hinder new businesses and startups?

Last week I had coffee with Clive Mayhew who chairs the board of Sky Software, a Geelong based student management cloud service.

Clive covered a lot of interesting aspects about Sky’s business; including the opportunities for regional startups, government support and his experiences in Silicon Valley during the dot com boom. All of which I’ll write up in more detail soon.

One notable point Clive raised was how he struggles to get Australian staff to take equity in the business – people want cash, not shares.

The question Clive raises is why and that question is worth exploring in more depth.

My feeling is that it’s a cultural thing related to property – four generations of Australians have been bought up believing housing is the safest way and surest way to build wealth.

As a consequence young Australians are steered into getting a ‘safe’ job and plunging as much money into accumulating property equity as early as possible. Just as mum and granddad did.

Even those who don’t want to play the property game are affected as property speculation pushes up prices and rents; the landlord or bank won’t accept startup stock to pay the bills so employees need cold, hard cash to keep a roof over their heads.

The other angle is tax and social security policies, through the 1970s and 80s various business figures used share option schemes to minimise their taxes and successive Australian governments have passed laws making it harder for businesses to offer these incentives.

Interestingly this not only affects the Silicon Valley tech startup business model but also hurts the aspirations of Australia’s political classes to establish the country, or at least Sydney, as a global financial centre.

Putting aside the fantasies of Australia’s suburban apparatchiks – which if successful would see the country being more like Iceland or Cyprus than Wall Street or the City Of London – it’s clear that the existing government and community attitudes toward risk are reducing the diversity of the nation’s economy.

That the bulk of the nation’s mining and agricultural investment, let along startup funds, comes from offshore despite the trillion dollars in compulsory domestic superannuation savings is a stark example of risk aversion at all levels of Aussie society, government and business.

For those Australian entrepreneurs prepared to take risks, the risk adverse nature of most people becomes an opportunity as it means there’s local markets which aren’t being filled.

The problem for those local entrepreneurs is accessing capital and that remains the biggest barrier for all small Australian businesses.

How this works out in the next few decades will be interesting, it’s hard not to think though that Australians are going to have to be weaned off their property addiction – whether this takes a harsh recession, retired baby boomers selling down their holdings or government action remains to be seen.

In the meantime, don’t base your business plan on staff taking equity as part of their employment package.

Too many presidents spoil the enterprise computing broth

Oracle has an interesting management problem as revenues stagnate.

Last week Oracle, the world’s third largest software vendor, had an eight percent drop in its stock price after the company missed earning estimates.

Part of the research for are article I’m writing on the company involved digging into the organisational structure of the company and interestingly it has a pair of ‘co-presidents’ – Mark Hurd and Safra Katz.

Safra is the Chief Financial Officer who has a pretty powerful CV and seems well qualified for the job of controlling the finances of a $150 billion dollar company.

Mark on the other hand is my favourite IT executive, his tenure at HP is a case study in the entitlement culture of modern managerialism and no small reason for that company’s present day problems.

The analyst briefing (free subscription might be required) following Oracle’s disappointing reports betrays a little bit of tension between the two. First Safra;

We’re not at all pleased with our revenue growth this quarter. So it didn’t help that our quarter ended on the same day as the sequester deadline. What we really saw is the lack of urgency we sometimes see in the sales force as Q3 deals fall into Q4.

Since we’ve been adding literally thousands of new sales reps around the world, the problem was largely sales execution, especially with the new reps, as they ran out of runway in Q3.

It seems there’s a touch of ‘dog ate my homework’ in mentioning the US political sequester, but the message is clear – “what we really saw is the lack of urgency we sometimes see in the sales force.”

These are IT sales people we are talking about, ‘a lack of urgency’ is an insult to a group of people who have been known to work 120 hour weeks and sell their grandmothers if it means getting a fat commission.

Mark is in the poo. We quickly learn why when it’s his turn to speak,

We’ve added over 4,000 people to the Oracle sales force in the last 18 months. We’ve significantly expanded our customer coverage. We’ve seen material growth in our pipeline. But Q3 [conversion rates] were below what we expected, while our actual win rate went up.

An investor would hope there’s material growth in the sales pipeline when you’ve added 4,000 salespeople to your workforce.

In Oracle’s case though revenues have fallen .8% for the year and are only up 2% over the time Mark’s added all those go-getting Willy Lomans to the company’s payroll.

The interesting thing with Oracle’s figures is the company has spent nearly $400 million on restructuring costs over the last year, has hired over 4,000 new sales people and yet total operating costs, and margins, have barely moved in that time.

Which indicates somebody in Oracle is bearing the costs of Mark’s hiring spree.

During Hurd’s tenure at HP, he was notorious for penny pinching and cutting worker’s benefits. While staff were finding they were stuck in economy for international business meetings, Mark himself was staying at some of Europe’s best hotels and showing off his bank account to attractive employees.

Hopefully history isn’t repeating itself.

Probably the most perplexing thing with Oracle today are Mark’s and Safra’s roles of c0-Presidents. What on Earth are those roles?

Most telling with the co-Presidents is that they aren’t really in charge – if Larry Ellison, the CEO and founder, wakes up one morning and decides either Safra or Mark have to go then they’ll be out of the company well before lunchtime.

Along with carparking spots, inflated executive job titles are good indicator an organisation’s management is focusing on it’s perks, benefits and privileges rather than delivering for customers and shareholders.

Perhaps Oracle’s analysts and common stock holders should be focusing more on management’s behaviour more than the details of the company’s sales performance.

Apple and the argument for hybrid cloud computing

The argument between cloud computing purists and hybrid advocates continues with both sides suffering setbacks

There’s two different philosophies about cloud computing, hybrid and ‘pure’. In recent days the hybrid school hasn’t been doing so well, but the matter isn’t settled yet.

Pure cloud computing means doing everything in the cloud with all your software running over the net with the data stored on other people’s computers and everything is accessed through web browsers.

Hybrid cloud is where some of the work is done on your computer or smartphone with data often being synchronised between the device and the cloud storage.

Most smartphone and tablet computer apps do this and increasingly software like Microsoft Office and Apple iLife have a hybrid cloud computing angle.

Apple’s hybrid cloud service, iCloud, promised Apple users the ability to work on any device – laptop, desktop, tablet or smart phone – with the synchronised with central servers. Every Apple product you own can then access your iCloud data.

Recently though stories in the The Verge and Ars Technica report how Apple’s developers and customers are becoming steadily irritated by the lousy reliability of the company’s iCloud service.

Incumbent software and hardware vendors like Microsoft and Apple are pushing the hybrid idea for a good reason, it allows them to maintain their existing PC and laptop based products while being able to offer cloud services like their competitors.

For Microsoft and Apple, along with companies like Oracle, Dell and MYOB, the hybrid cloud gives them an opportunity to wriggle out of what Clay Christensen called The Innovator’s Dilemma.

Customers actually like the hybrid cloud as many distrust ‘pure’ cloud offerings as they don’t trust the providers or their internet connections. Basically they like to have a copy of their data stored in house.

The problem with the hybrid cloud is that it’s complex as Xero’s founder Rod Drury, one of the ‘pure cloud’ evangelists, said at his company’s conference last year, “hybrid technologies are cumbersome and add far more complexity into software. Cloud technologies are the right technologies.”

Complexity is what’s bought Apple’s iCloud unstuck as even some of best developers struggle with getting their programs to work with it.

All is not well for the ‘pure cloud’ evangelists either, as the shutting down of Google Reader has shaken many technologists and made them question whether the cloud is as safe as they would like.

Added to this uncertainty about the cloud is lousy service by providers, arbitrary shutting down of user accounts and the corporate boycott of Wikileaks – all of which have forced people to reconsider the wisdom of saving all their data or running applications in the cloud.

So the debate between the cloud purists is by no means over and it may well be that some form of hybrid, even just for local backup to your own computer, may turn out to be the common way we use cloud services.

What is for sure though is cloud software is biting deeply into the revenues of established software companies as people find the attractions of running programs and storing data on other people’s computers outweighs the risks.

Like all relatively new concepts it’s going to take a while for us to figure out how to use cloud computing most effectively in our business. The first step is how we manage the risks.

Social media’s irrational exuberance comes to an end

With the tech industry’s irrational exuberance ending, the focus is now on building good businesses rather than worrying about hype, spin and fools with more money than sense.

Last week saw the annual Y Combinator demo day where the startups funded by the incubator get to strut their stuff and it appears the age of social media hype is over.

In the Wall Street Journal’s Digits blog, Amir Efrati reports Social is Out, Revenue is In as the companies showed off their income streams rather than the number of users which has been the measure for free social media apps.

That social media is out shouldn’t be surprising as the services have been tracking a standard Gartner Hype Cycle with a boom in services, coverage and investments that’s now turning into the inevitable bust and a fall into the trough of disillusionment.

Coupled with that fall for social media services are the disappointing stockmarket floats of Facebook and Groupon which have cruelled the enthusiasm for investing in tech startups with lots of user but not much revenue.

Last week’s headlines featuring Yahoo!’s purchase of Summly for $30 million and Amazon’s acquisition of Goodreads for an estimated $150 million show how the days of greater fools writing billion dollar cheques is over as more sensible valuations take hold.

Amazon’s purchase of Goodreads is more interesting than Yahoo! buying a teenage wunderkind’s venture in that Amazon is cementing its position at the centre of the global book publishing industry.

Goodreads has been one of the quiet social media success of recent years having built its subscriber base to over 16 million members sharing book reviews and reading lists.

The book review site is a natural fit for Amazon although the head of the US Authors’ Guild rightly worries the company is becoming a monopoly.

Of course the obvious retort to this is that someone else could have bought the site and Forrester’s James McQuivey speculates on why an established publisher didn’t do so much earlier.

This year’s Y Combinator Demo Day and the acquisitions of Goodreads and Summly show the era of irrational tech exuberance is over.

For good businesses operators and investors this is not a bad thing as everyone can now focus on building good businesses rather than worrying about hype, spin and fools with more money than sense.

Photo of Ashton Kutcher speaking at Y Combinator by Robert Scoble through Wikimedia commons

Walmart pays for cutting staff

Cutting staff numbers is costing Walmart dearly as customers desert the retailer for better stocked competitors.

Along with the carpark test, a lack of customer service is one of the best indicators that a company has lost its way.

Unattended reception desks, closed cash registers and deserted delivery docks are reliable indicators management has focused on short term staff savings which will ultimately cost the business dearly.

Walmart is the latest example of this with Bloomberg Businessweek reporting that US shoppers are deserting the chain because shelves are empty and stores don’t have enough staff.

The claim stock is piling up out the back of stores is particularly concerning, the just in time inventory management of modern retail chains means there’s little room for error as outlets don’t have a lot of space whil the cash flow of the business and its suppliers is based on getting goods quickly into the hands of eager consumers.

Some of Walmart’s pain will be spread among suppliers as the store’s contracts will push undoubtedly some of the costs of rejected deliveries back onto logistics companies, effectively creating problems through the entire supply chain.

No doubt there’s plenty of angry suppliers and truck drivers who are grumbling about lost time and payments on Walmart contracts. That won’t be good news for the company’s buyers when contracts come up for negotiation.

Even though Walmart’s management can throw some of their problems over the fence, the fundamental issue of losing customers can’t be missed.

Walmart’s isn’t the only retailer who’s fallen for the short term fix of cutting store staff to give a quick profit boost as department stores and big box outlets around the world struggle with the damaging effects of not being able to serve customers.

That Walmart, one of the industry’s global leaders, would make such a mis-step shows the pressures on managements as economies deleverage and credit wary consumers decide that don’t need more junk in their homes.

Cutting costs isn’t going to address those bigger trends, it’s going to take original thinking and management commitment to adding real value to customers.

Service is just the start of a long process of refocusing the retail empires.

Image of Albany Walmart courtesy of UpstateNYer through Wikimedia

Dodging an internet apocalypse

If the internet is destroyed by a digital apocalypse, we can be sure the tech industry’s cockroaches will survive.

There’s nothing a like a little hiccup to the internet to bring the tech charlatans and other coackroaches out of the woodwork, although wiser heads are now starting to prevail.

Sam Biddle’s article in Gizmodo, the last link in the above paragraph, is a good overview of how the internet wasn’t “shaken to the core” by a childish spat between two groups of self-righteous geeks.

It’s worthwhile keeping non-events like this in mind the next time you read a breathless article about an evil hacker, cyber terrorist or rogue regime threatening to bring the online world down.

What’s really disappointing with hysterical stories like this is there are real risks to the internet, ranging from telephone exchanges burning down, divers cutting subsea cables to solar flares toasting the planet’s electronics.

Interestingly, 2013 is predicted to be a year of intense solar activity. So we might get to test some of the doomsday scenarios.

Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) is the main marketing tool of the technology scoundrel, events like the online squabble of the last few days bring out those scoundrels.

The irritating thing with these people is their snake oil rarely addresses the real risks we have to deal with.

Watch out for them, they want to scare you into buying something.

Three screens, one screen

Is Blackberry, Apple or Microsoft right about the way we’ll use computers in the future?

One of the points that came out of Blackberry’s Z10 launch last week was CEO Thorsten Heins’ talking about the company’s ‘one screen’ strategy.

Blackberry sees the smartphone as being the centre of people’s computer usage with them replacing personal computers and tablets as the main computing tool.

This is at odds with the rest of the phone and computer industries who are struggling with managing the three or four devices that most people use.

Apple overcame this by having different operating systems – OS X and iOS – and even then the mobile iOS is subtly forked for the different ways people use tablets versus smartphones.

With Windows 8, Microsoft chose to go the opposite way with an operating system which works on all devices. Sadly it doesn’t seem to have worked.

Blackberry’s strategy is to assume smartphones will be their main communications device. It’s a big bet which doesn’t align with what seems to be experience of most people.

Over the last few years Blackberry’s smartphone market share has collapsed from 40% to 4%, so it’s the time for brave bets although its hard to see that customers will use smartphones instead of PCs or tablets is the right call.

It’s an interesting question though – can you see your smartphone being your main computer?

A question of relevance – why the PM welcomes bloggers

The Prime Minister’s courting of bloggers in the run up to the Australian Federal election later this year shows how credibility and relevance are most important asset of any media outlet

The Prime Minister’s courting of bloggers in the run up to the Australian Federal election later this year shows how credibility and relevance are most important assets for any media outlet.

Late last year the Prime Minister invited bloggers to Kirribilli House for lunch then to dinner during her Rooty Hill adventure a few weeks ago.

The press gallery grumbled and wrote patronising articles about North Shore mummy bloggers but failed to recognise the real threat to the established media outlets – these writers are more relevant to people’s lives than the machinations of ‘anonymous political sources’, sports stars or Hollywood celebrities.

Now the Prime Minister is giving one on one exclusive interviews to some of those bloggers, something that will irritate the nation’s political journalists even further.

Old media’s loss of relevance

The press galleries’ problem though is relevance, which lies at the heart of any successful media outlet.

In 1831 when The Sydney Herald’s first edition was published, the front page was made up of advertisements and shipping notices as it was with all newspapers of the time.

That was relevant to the readers, they paid 7d – not an insubstantial amount in 1831 – to find out the latest in shipping movements, real estate sales and livestock prices which were essential to life and business in the colony.

It wasn’t until 1944 that the now Sydney Morning Herald moved news to the front page, the London Times held out until 1966. What was now relevant to readers were photos and wire stories from around the world.

Papers continued to do well despite the introduction of radio in the 1930s and TV in the 1950s because they were continued to be relevant to their readers. If you were looking a job, a house or where to take your mum for her 60th birthday then the local newspaper was the place to look.

The shift to sensationalism

In the 1980s all the media – newspapers, TV and radio stations – started a shift to sensationalism and infotainment and steadily all became less relevant to the populations they served.

At the time media outlets got away with it as there was no-where else for people to get news. If you didn’t like stories about Princess Di’s wedding dress then you had to curl up in the corner with a good book.

Then the web came along.

All of a sudden engaged readers could get relevant information from all over the world.

With social media and blogs, reporting Kim Kardishian’s latest wardrobe malfunction raised a ‘so what’ from an audience that learned about it two days ago on TMZ, the Huffington Post or Facebook.

Making matters much, much worse were the advertising rivers of gold moved to specialist websites and Google.

Newspaper executives found their revenues were evaporating and they worked their way deeper into the quicksand by cutting costs in the areas where their editorial strengths lay, making them even less relevant to the readerships they want to serve.

Relevant lifestyles

Today the mummy bloggers – along with the food bloggers, travel bloggers and political bloggers – are attracting audiences with relevant, useful content that the audience can engage with.

Last week’s embarrassing circus in Canberra was an example of how irrelevant the media, and much of politics, has become to the average Australian.

Indeed it’s interesting to contrast the self important Canberra press gallery pushing non-stories while fawning over their discredited ‘anonymous party sources’ with the genuinely questioning tone of the some of the bloggers.

So the mainstream, established media can kiss the mummy bloggers’ backsides; if they can’t find relevance in today’s society then they may as well shut up shop.

For politicians relevance is important too – political parties that pitch themselves to 19th Century class struggles or 1980s corporatist ideologies are as irrelevant to today’s society as the Soviet Communist Party.

It would serve the Prime Minister and her staff well to listen closely to what the mummy bloggers and their readers are saying.

The Five Stages of abandoning a product

Microsoft show us how to kill a product with the slow abandonment of Windows 8

Killing a technology product is never a clean process, as Google well know. Microsoft show the way to deal with a failed project and we’re seeing their five stages of abandoning a product as they prepare to retire Windows 8.

The stages of Microsoft are abandoning a product are well known – the failure of Microsoft Vista is the best example, but not the only one.

As Microsoft smooths Window 8’s pillow and prepares for its imminent demise we can see the process at work.

Denial

At first the company denies there is a problem, the flashy advertising campaigns are boosted and the various ‘in the camp’ commentators get informal briefings from company evangelists to fuel their snarky columns about people getting Microsoft’s latest product all wrong.

This usually goes on for around six months until the market feedback that the product is dog becomes overwhelming – usually this happens at the same time the first reliable sales figures start appearing.

Anger

As the consensus in the broader community becomes settled that the new product isn’t good, the company’s tame commentators turn nasty and lash out at the critics for ‘misrepresenting’ the new product.

This is usually a touchy period for Microsoft and other vendors as they can’t risk being too aggressive but they have to allow their allies to both let off steam and try to recover the credibility they lost in hyping what’s clearly been a market failure.

Bargaining

Once it’s clear the perceived wisdom that the product isn’t very good isn’t going to be shaken, the vendor comes out with special offers and pricing changes to try and coax users over to the new service.

With Windows 8 Microsoft tried something unusual, rather than cutting prices, Microsoft announced they would increase the cost of Windows 8.

The idea was probably to panic people into buying the product and giving Microsoft a revenue and market share bounce for the quarter.

It didn’t work – the consensus that Windows 7 is a better product meant people stayed away.

Depression

As the realisation that pricing tweaks and promotional stunts won’t work sends the company, and its supporters, into a funk.

For experienced industry watchers, the silence around a product that’s been heavily hyped and defended for the previous year or two is a good indication that the next version is being accelerated.

Acceptance

Eventually the vendor accepts the product has failed and starts working on its own exit strategy – hopefully one that doesn’t see too many executives sacked.

With Microsoft’s this process starts with a quiet announcement that the replacement version of Windows is on the way, in this case Windows Blue.

At the same time, the tame commentators start talking about ‘leaks’ of the wonderful new system that is in the pipeline. Early beta versions of the new product start popping up in developers’ forums and file sharing sites.

Eventually you get stories like this one that appeared in The Verge yesterday – Windows Blue leaks online and we can be sure the Microsoft public relations machine has subtly moved onto the next version.

Vale Windows 8

So Windows 8 is coming to an early end. In one way this is a shame as it was a brave gamble by Steve Ballmer and his team to solve the ‘three screen’ problem.

Computer users today are using three or more screens or devices – a desktop, a smartphone and a TV or tablet computer.

Microsoft were hoping they could develop a system that unified all these platforms and gave users a common experience regardless of what they were using.

It appears to have failed, probably because the different devices don’t have the same user experience so a keyboard based system doesn’t work on a touchscreen while a touch based system sucks really badly on a desktop or laptop computer – which is Windows 8’s real problem.

Unrealistic expectations

Another problem for Microsoft were the unrealistic expectations that Window 8 would halt the slide of personal computer sales.

PC manufacturers have been baffled by the rise of smartphones and tablet computers – vendors like Dell, HP and Acer have miserably in moving into the new product lines and they hoped that Microsoft could help arrest their market declines.

This was asking too much of Windows 8 and was never really likely.

So the cycle begins again with Windows Blue, the question is whether it will be the last version of Windows as we move further in the post-PC era.

Privileges and princelings

Many companies have developed a culture of executive privilege in an era of easy money.

A strange thing about Australian business reporting is that its often full of gossip and name dropping as any third rate scandal magazine.

In a perverse way, treating business executives like the Kardashians gives the average mug punter – and shareholders – a glimpse into how these companies do business. Like this story in the Australian Financial Review;

Hamish Tyrwhitt was unaware of the latest drama unfolding within the Leighton board as he relaxed in the Qantas First Class Lounge in Sydney on Friday morning.

Indeed, the contractor’s chief executive officer was busy chatting to former Wallabies captain John Eales while waiting to board a flight to Hong Kong where he was due to close a recent deal to build the Wynn Cotai hotel resort in Macau and enjoy the Sevens rugby tournament.

The timing was not good. Tyrwhitt had only just boarded the flight when the news broke that chairman Stephen Johns and two directors had resigned. Tyrwhitt was forced to change his plans and is expected back in Sydney for a board meeting convened this weekend.

Nice work if you can get it.

A few pages further in the day’s AFR is another gem;

One July evening about four years ago, off the south coast of France between Cannes and St Tropez, two men sat in the jacuzzi on the top deck of a 116-foot Azimut motor yacht. It was about 3am and the sea was rough. The spa water was sloshing about and had given the latest round of caprioskas a distinctly bitter taste.

Dodo boss Larry Kestelman was telling his good friend, M2 Telecommunications founder Vaughan Bowen, about the challenges of growing his internet service provider business.

It’s tough doing business when the spa waters are choppy. One expects better from a seven million dollar boat.

That second article raises another point that’s often overlooked, or unmentioned, when reporting Australian business matters.

on Thursday the 14th, something unexpected happened. At 12.30pm, after no activity all morning, shares in the thinly traded Eftel started to rise sharply. By the time the market closed at 4pm, Eftel had soared 44 per cent to 39.5¢. Someone with knowledge of the deal was insider trading.

Insider trading? On the Australian Security Exchange? Somebody had better call those super-efficient regulators who were responsible for Australia cruising through the global economic crisis of 2008.

Somebody obviously wanted their own 116ft luxury yacht or corporate box at the Hong Kong Sevens.

Both of these stories illustrate the hubris and privileges of corporate Australia and its regulators.

One wonders how well equipped these organisations are for an economic reversal when their leaders are more worried about caprioskas and their spots in the first class lounge.

We may yet find out.

First class airline seat images courtesy of Pyonko on Flickr and Wikimedia.