Precision in significant digits fascinates me. I had the great fortune of spending
considerable time with the world's leading industrial and financial policy
minds this week at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD). During the academic econometric
presentations, a few speakers seemed to relish their use of jargon-laden formulae
to reinforce their scholarly credentials. Most were content to focus on the conclusions
derived from the same. Paradoxically,
though precise in reporting subtle associations, all were stymied by the
limitations imposed by data latency, inadequacy, and error. Sadly, all were trying to force the present
global economic dynamic into a neo-Keynesian industrial output and labor elixir
in a feeble attempt to find the impulse that would jumpstart employment and
manufacturing. The Quixotic passion was
evident and laudable.
0.130216081
This is a really precise number. Its use variously evokes exuberance and
dread. Many find themselves inexplicably
and hopelessly enslaved by what this number does (or doesn't) do. When it figures into a rally, sentiment
soars. When it crashes…, well, it
crashes. This number is the legacy of Charles
Dow's and Edward Jones' most memorable contribution to the speculation impulses
of the 19th century - the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) first reported in
1896. More precisely, the number is the
published value of the Dow Divisor which currently exaggerates Dow component
stock financial activity by a 7.68 point increase for every $1 increase in
stock price.
When the DJIA was first launched, eight of the twelve stocks
were commodity trading and processing firms; three were utilities; and one was
a railroad industrial conglomerate. The
General Electric Corporation is the most persistent DJIA component with none of
the remaining inaugural firms (some of which are now acquired within other
firms) still factoring into today's numbers. Where prior to the 1940's, the DJIA was
predominantly commodity processors and infrastructure oriented manufacturers,
the post-war DJIA rapidly was biased towards consumer and communications over-weights. While adherents keep attempting to evolve the
components to reflect the nature of the drivers of the economy, the DJIA,
absent the media juggernaut that kept it in front of the minds of millions -
namely, The Wall Street Journal - would likely have long fallen from
its pedestal as one of the most emotionally charged macro indicators of market
sentiment. But does this venerated
statistical model serve the purpose for which it was created? Does it actually reflect the underlying
drivers of economic value? Far from it.
Together with my analytic team at M∙CAM, we decided to
critique the DJIA using a simple criteria. Taking the current 30 names that comprise the
Dow, we measured each of them and their corporate cohort (defined by principle
overlapping branding, innovation behavior, and published contracting
competitiveness) to see whether the metrics evolved from the DJIA still provide
an appropriate metric for the current economy. The graph below tells the story.
Corrected for a qualitative view of the companies that are
actually more effectively managing brand, reputation, proprietary contracting
and innovation, half of the Dow components are replaced! Without altering any of the
"industrial" exposure of the current DJIA, we can see that a current
economically sensitive Dow would stand nearly 5,000 points higher using the
Dow's own rules but selecting firms with a better handle on the assets of the
knowledge economy.
Now who has the correct "Dow"? Is the DJIA still an appropriate proxy for
observing the markets over a century and a quarter? Are assumptions created by a journalist known
for covering speculative extractive industries and his statistician business
partner in 1896 still suitable in 2013? The answer is less transparent than you might
think. If you're goal is to live in a Alfred
Marshall and John Maynard Keynes world where marginal utility, supply, demand,
and cost of production are still relevant, than maybe the DJIA is still
apropos. But if you recognize that the
cost of digital reproduction meets none of Marshall's assumptions and
that labor
and employment are not the mandates motivating individuals seeking
productive engagement with the world in which they find themselves, you may
conclude that other (or no) metrics are more suitable. In the world created by Marshall, Keynes and
Dow, we have succeeded in facilitating massive wealth aggregation for a few. We've industrialized 'survival' and applauded
our glacial assault on 'poverty'. But
we've failed entirely to establish systems where economic utilities -
productivity-coupled capital, market access, information symmetry, etc - are
ubiquitous. While applauding our
philanthropic façade, we see billions remaining largely ignored and have eyes
too myopic to apprehend our moral anemia.
Can metrics contribute to sociopathic immorality? Absolutely.
If we fail to count that which doesn't conveniently conform to our
selectively held dogmatic sense of empiricism in honor of frequently recited
regressions, we'll see more than 1/3 of the DJIA's value go missing. We'll see ever diminishing opportunities to
make less consequential policy and practices that impact ever fewer for the
benefit of the minority. And then we'll
stand back and muse over why the world doesn't conform to our image.
Innovation - that audacity emerging from the hubris of the
human spirit - which alleges to 'improve' upon those conditions in which
humanity finds itself is the single unifying utility embedded within the
species. When nurtured, it can render
transcendent beauty, facilitate unimaginable efficiency and interconnected
collaboration, and invite considered discourse for greater humanity. When stifled, it can unleash destruction with
equal gravity. It's time to tear down
the groves of industrial metrics and start counting what really matters -
fulfilling human engagement provisioned and transacted with all the dimensions
of integral accounting. While precision
has landed us squarely in a global economic quagmire from which none are
navigating escape, our cognition must be reminded that precision does not beget
accuracy, and accuracy does not portend truth.
Life, in all its dimensions, must be counted and, though messy, must
inform the shape of policies, practices, and conventions to come.