Video

#SaxoStrats
Today's edition of the Saxo Morning Call features Saxo Bank Head of Forex Strategy John Hardy, Head of Equities Strategy Peter Garnry, and fixed income specialist Althea Spinozzi discussing a renewed decline in Chinese shares overnight, the status of the US yield curve post- last week's upside Average Hourly Earnings surprise, the Brexit/GBP complex, and RUB.
Article / 20 January 2017 at 13:02 GMT

In DC, the deal-making Don takes centre stage

Managing Partner / Spotlight Group
United Kingdom
  • Donald Trump has promoted himself as the master deal maker
  • He repainted his jet to signal a move from promoting Trump to promoting USA
  • Will his negotiators seek common ground, or always push for “America First”?
  • Let’s hope he acts to establish areas of optimal, mutual benefit
trump and his golden tower
 Will Trump continue to use the brash and bullying tactics that have characterised his business career? Pic: iStock

By Stephen Pope

Charles (Charlie) Thomas Munger, an American businessman, lawyer, investor and philanthropist is vice chairman of Berkshire Hathaway. He is reported to have once told Warren Buffet, who controls that firm:

“... it was far better to buy a wonderful business at a fair price than to buy a fair business at a wonderful price. ...”

These are wise words indeed. Given that today at noon Eastern Time in Washington DC, the self-styled master of the deal, Donald J. Trump becomes the 45th US President I am minded to consider what makes a good deal. I also wonder if a good deal in business can be scaled up to be a good deal between nations.

The structure of a deal

Most business deals are based around three basic components that carry a specific question:

1. Expected return. “...What do we expect to happen? ...”
2. Upside potential. “... What is the best possible scenario? ...”
3. Downside risk. “...What is the worst possible outcome? ...”

Where deals sometimes go wrong is that naïve parties will sense that to get a good deal, they must “win” and therefore other party must “lose.”

Now, if only money is up for negotiation then one can argue that the agreed deal is a zero-sum game. However, in the clear majority of deal arrangements and trade agreements, the issue of money is not usually the principal object of interest of either party.

In trade talks, it not just how much in dollars and cents or pounds and pence can be sold, rather, it is also about the depth and breadth of sales and purchases. Any nation that just sells vast amounts of one product will soon be left in the lay-by of technological change.

I ask the reader to reflect on the opening quote. It is clear that Charlie Munger has stressed that the quality of the business was a superior consideration to achieving the best possible price.
Anyone who has purchased a rug or a piece of jewellery in the Middle East will know that the enjoyment of the “haggle” is just as important to the process of exchange as is the final price.

To consider this point let me lean on the social science of economics. As the US gained its independence in 1776, so Adam Smith penned “The Wealth of Nations” in which he discusses the invisible hand.

It teaches that one may trade once with a counterparty and press them at every stage for such advantageous terms in price or quantity that all one will achieve is that one trade. Word will get around that one is not a good counterparty. Far better to achieve an agreement where all parties feel they are deriving an advantage from the deal. That way the counterparty to that deal and other interested parties will come back for more.

In short, the goal of creating a good deal for both parties is not simply possible; it is really the only sustainable way to do business. It produces the best long-term returns for everyone involved.

Let me borrow more from economics as I see this proving to be in effect what we may call a “Nash Equilibrium”.

This is a concept of game theory where the optimal outcome of a game is one where no player has an incentive to deviate from his chosen strategy after considering an opponent's choice.

Staying with that theme, a good deal is a “Pareto Efficiency” or “Pareto Optimality” i.e. a state of allocation of resources in which it is impossible to make any one individual better off without making at least one individual worse off.

Adam Smith and Donald Trump

President Trump would be better served by reading Adam Smith than his own (ghostwritten) autobiography. Images: Amazon

Theory to practice

The theory put forward by both Nash or Pareto sounds elegant and simple, however, as we know, humans and as a direct consequence, nations, have varied and complicated motivations. To be a successful deal the finalised agreement must satisfy the primary motivations for the parties involved.

This is tricky enough in a bilateral deal, however, increase the parties involved and one can see that a multilateral deal requires even more delicacy and consideration. Therefore, those that will seal the deal, so to say by adding their signature to the agreement, must ensure that they have made the most use of bright minds to accommodate as much as it possible of the real interests of all players. It is an exercise in creating the largest area of overlap in a multi-circle Venn Diagram.
Venn Diagram Source: Spotlight Ideas

Typical high motive factors are prestige, enhanced consumer choice and welfare, risk mitigation, flexibility, the well-being of employees and of course monetary considerations such as a consistent cash flow, taxation benefits and profitability.

For these reasons deal negotiations have to focus on what is of principal importance and to ignore what is not.

No deal, best alternatives and creativity

There will be times when a deal cannot be agreed. As the UK prime minister said on Tuesday this week that when it comes to the UK negotiating its exit from the EU, “...no deal is better than a bad deal...”.

Therefore, the negotiating parties will consider what may be regarded as the “Best Alternatives” if a deal cannot be reached. This has been referred to as the best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA) and will determine the incentive each party has to make a deal happen.

On the eve of the inauguration, the BBC (Radio Four PM programme) reported that in his corporate career, Trump had a reputation of starting most deal negotiations by seeking to intimidate his counterparts by taking an extreme, outrageous stance and making several provocative statements. As his would-be deal partners were left reeling or simply stunned, Trump would launch an all-out charm offensive by suggesting both parties seek common ground whereby a deal could be brokered.

As he starts shifting from “Brand Trump” to “Brand USA” I am sure the new president will tell his negotiators to always look out for what is the alternative for the US if a deal doesn’t get done?
He will be aware from his long business career that the better the alternative, the less the US will need the deal and the more risk he can allow his team to take in the negotiation process.

One just hopes that he will be open to impartial advice as deal making can become emotional, then in turn, irrational.

This is a trait that many commentators on economics and politics have raised about the next president. Certainly, the late night tweets against the press or intelligence agencies have not dispelled that opinion. One tried, tested and proven method of safeguarding against impulsive decisions is to seek counsel from someone trusted and not emotionally involved. Therefore, it will be wise to study the back record of the new cabinet members and closest presidential advisers.

A wise businessman will know that in the modern world, deals need to be creative. That will require a frequent reappraisal of one’s strengths, weakness, opportunities and threats (SWOT) so that Trump’s USA will be fully aware of all available national resources and will stand ready to deploy them in inspired ways.

This way one improves that chances of conceding on what is less important to you, but more important to them, and to get what is less important to them, but more important to you. This can widen the potential zone of possible agreement (ZOPA). This is the very heart of the Venn Diagram intersection.

As such the negotiated terms are simply servants of the underlying motivations. One must think creatively about how to satisfy the other party’s real interests. Pay attention to the other party. What do they like to do or eat? Book appropriate entertainment or restaurants. Do the homework on the other party and do not by making a foolish choice for socialising upset or insult one’s counterpart. It does not have to be a “zero sum” game.

Simple is superior

Complicated deals rarely work as complication, particularly across national boundaries and cultures creates confusion, uncertainty, misunderstandings. Inevitably that will lead to a bad taste and harbour resentment. So, keep the main thrust of negotiation focused around a few key points that serve the underlying interests, and any other issues should be as simple as possible.

After agreeing to something, immediately establish a definition. This creates a new baseline that the parties can return to if the negotiations become bogged down as against going back to the drawing board or scrapping the deal altogether. This is crucial if the BATNA is not attractive.
The definition itself can be simple but do it swiftly as an agreement that is undefined will create confusion later. That is the last thing wanted in long and complex deal negotiations, be it over permits, trade or certainly weapons.

As we set sail on the Trump era, the next few months and years will show if the new president really is the real deal or just a servant of self-interest.

– Edited by Clare MacCarthy

 

Stephen Pope is managing partner at Spotlight Ideas


1y
fxtime fxtime
Great piece Stephen :-)
The thought of Trump even reading Adam Smith made me LOL.
1y
C.A.L. gr C.A.L. gr
Excellent article! Unfortunately the voices of sanity and reason seem to be out of favor, for the time being at least. Brexit, Trump and at a smaller scale the neo-Bolshevik government of my country...
1y
Krunil48 Krunil48
I got the impression that Junker of the EU appears to have softened his tone since Theresa May's speech. For too long it has been the EU that has been the bully and perhaps still seeks to hold this country to ransom (now talk of a payment to leave the EU apart from anything else). One day these eurocrats, who have been floating on a cloud of their own self-importance and power (and bluffing) are going to realise that the UK is not a 'small' piece of their grandiose jigsaw anymore or is going to contribute to it. The timetable gets ever dragged out, with talk of negotiations going on far longer than 2 years, but one day this country will be free (hopefully) of their petty meddling in our affairs. I like Trump too, his opponent Clinton was negative, smug and self important. I do not know about his negotiating tactics or the subtleties described above, but if he presents a positive image for America, like Boris Johnson for the UK, I see that as a good thing.

Disclaimer

The Saxo Bank Group entities each provide execution-only service and access to Tradingfloor.com permitting a person to view and/or use content available on or via the website is not intended to and does not change or expand on this. Such access and use are at all times subject to (i) The Terms of Use; (ii) Full Disclaimer; (iii) The Risk Warning; (iv) the Rules of Engagement and (v) Notices applying to Tradingfloor.com and/or its content in addition (where relevant) to the terms governing the use of hyperlinks on the website of a member of the Saxo Bank Group by which access to Tradingfloor.com is gained. Such content is therefore provided as no more than information. In particular no advice is intended to be provided or to be relied on as provided nor endorsed by any Saxo Bank Group entity; nor is it to be construed as solicitation or an incentive provided to subscribe for or sell or purchase any financial instrument. All trading or investments you make must be pursuant to your own unprompted and informed self-directed decision. As such no Saxo Bank Group entity will have or be liable for any losses that you may sustain as a result of any investment decision made in reliance on information which is available on Tradingfloor.com or as a result of the use of the Tradingfloor.com. Orders given and trades effected are deemed intended to be given or effected for the account of the customer with the Saxo Bank Group entity operating in the jurisdiction in which the customer resides and/or with whom the customer opened and maintains his/her trading account. When trading through Tradingfloor.com your contracting Saxo Bank Group entity will be the counterparty to any trading entered into by you. Tradingfloor.com does not contain (and should not be construed as containing) financial, investment, tax or trading advice or advice of any sort offered, recommended or endorsed by Saxo Bank Group and should not be construed as a record of ourtrading prices, or as an offer, incentive or solicitation for the subscription, sale or purchase in any financial instrument. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, would be considered as a marketing communication under relevant laws. Please read our disclaimers:
- Notification on Non-Independent Invetment Research
- Full disclaimer

Check your inbox for a mail from us to fully activate your profile. No mail? Have us re-send your verification mail