Leadership Series - Part 3

The Five levels of Leadership

John C Maxwell wrote on the Five levels of leadership explaining the source of a leaders following.  From a base level of power lead followership to the more evolved level of inspired followership, leaders operate at different levels. 

I shall briefly cover the five levels of leadership and also discuss how to become a Level 6 leader.

Level 1 – Position (Rights)

At the base level of leadership, the key is the position; at this level people follow because they have to follow, because the leader is the ‘boss’. The Level one of leadership derives followership because of the authority that is given to the leader and the position, without which the person can’t lead.  This level of leadership is essentially hierarchical and often prevalent in the bureaucracy, defense forces and political parties.

Level 2 – Permission (Relationship)

The leader operating at this level focuses on building relationship with the people. In order to enhance their leadership they strive to develop a relationship and this often results in people wanting to follow. Leader likes the people and the people begin to like the leader and are ready to move the next mile. So in this level leader’s ability to connect with people is very important. 

Level 3 – Production (Results)

Leaders who drive results develop following because they ooze confidence and positivity. In this level the people follow because of the leader’s outstanding contribution to the organisation.  They start to talk about the leader in term of the organization’s results. In Level 3 the leader starts to taste the feeling of success and a winning atmosphere and is seen as a person who can make things happen.  Leader’s in commercial organisations enjoy this form of followership when the results of the entity are in a continuous uptrend.

Level 4 – People Development (Reproduction)

At this level, people follow because of what the leader has done for them, they love to follow the leader because of the interest the leader takes in developing them and the leader is feeling happy because the people are doing better, and become loyal to the leader and gives the leader the credit.  This form of leadership is prevalent in academia.

Level 5 – Pinnacle (Respect)

At this level, people follow you because who you are and what you represent, it's the personhood level.   The level-five leader, the Builder, strives not to reach a goal but to build an institution. Builders are legendary leaders such as IBM's Tom Watson Jr., Apple’s Steve Jobs, GM's Alfred P. Sloan, and Harpo's Oprah Winfrey. These people serve their institutions by managing for the long term and not allowing themselves to be seduced by the twin mirages of short-term profit or stock market valuations. They have a grand vision for the future of their organizations, and they infect others with their energy, enthusiasm, and integrity. These are the leaders we write books about, study, try to understand, and lionize.

The leader at level 6 – Transcendental

Making a difference

Builders are few and far between, but there is an even rarer type of leader who transcends the Builder: the Transcendent. Level-six leaders transcend their political party, their ethnic or racial group, and even their institutions. They focus on how to benefit all of society and are "global citizens,".

Leaders at this level are motivated by the need to make a difference to the world. They’re interested in creating mutually beneficial partnerships and strategic alliances with other individuals or groups who share the same goals. They will work with customers and suppliers and produce win-win situations.

They are active in the local community, building relationships that create goodwill. They know how important it is to look after the environment, going beyond mere compliance to operate in an ethical and environmentally-friendly manner. They also recognise and demonstrate inclusiveness in all their work.

When dealing with people, they display empathy, and actively find ways to help their staff find personal fulfilment in their work. They create a nurturing working environment where people can excel, mentoring and coaching staff, to build a pool of talent for the organisation. Their values are so embedded in their personalities that they make decisions intuitively.  Level 6 leaders are at the top of their game. They are true servant leaders.

There is no better example of what it really takes to be a Transcendent than the first black president of South Africa, Nelson Mandela. He was able to soar above hatred for his white jailers, the political tug of the African National Congress, the pull of his racial and tribal group, and the rejection by the Afrikaners to build a South Africa for all South Africans. Now in his 90s, he is perhaps the world's greatest living leader.  Nelson Mandela’s leadership is so beautifully captured in the movie ‘Invictus’ where Morgan Freeman brings it out so powerfully.

The Dalai Lama, another Transcendent, mentioned that the first thing he does in the morning after he finishes his prayers is to ask himself, "How can I help to make the world better today?"

Imagine if our senior political and business leaders started their day by asking that question and acting on the answer.  The world would be a much better place!

Leadership Series - Part 2

This Part of the series will explore the different leadership styles and their respective effectiveness in a given situation. As I had emphasised in Part 1, leadership is situational and it is important to understand that leaders should be able to:

• recognise the different demands of each situation; 
• develop flexibility to be able to draw on the style that is most appropriate for the situation; and
• adapt frequently and meet one’s own needs.

The main leadership challenge that arises is in adapting the natural leadership style to a different one based on the demands of the situation while maintaining a balance with one's own needs.


This is none more obvious than in the situation of coalition politics where the demands of the situation is conflicted with one’s own needs or preference.

It is, therefore, essential to anwer these questions:

• What is your natural leadership style? 
• What leadership style does the situation demand? 
• What do you have to do to be a successful leader?

Leadership demands finding the right balance between both your natural leadership style and the style demanded by the situation. Not only do you need to recognise your own strengths and exploit them, but you also have to adapt your style to different situations frequently in order to be effective. 

Leadership Styles

There are many classifications of leadership styles but they can be broadly categorised into the following:

1. Authoritarian, Dictatorial, Autocratic

2. Participative, Consultative,  Democratic

3. Delegative, Laissez Faire, Collaborative

4. Bureaucratic, Rule bound, Process focussed

5. Charismatic, Transformational, Inspirational

Authoritarian, Dictatorial , Autocratic

The leaders tell their employees what they want done and how they want it accomplished, without getting the advice of their followers. Some of the appropriate conditions to use this style is when you have all the information to solve the problem, you are short on time, and your employees are well motivated. This style is also well suited in dealing with emergencies or crisis or in conflicts where the leader has to direct actions.

Some people tend to think of this style as a vehicle for yelling, using demeaning language, intimidating the team, using their administrative authority to harass the staff, leading by threats and abusing their power.


This is not the authoritarian style, rather it is an abusive, unprofessional and unethical style also called “bossing people around.” It has no place in a leader's repertoire and is often resorted to by some to neurotic or insecure managers.

Participative, Consultative, Democratic

This style involves the leader including employees in the decision making process (determining what to do and how to do it). However, the leader maintains the final decision making authority. This not only increases job satisfaction by involving team members, but it also helps to develop people's skills. Team members feel in control of their own destiny, so they're motivated to work hard by more than just a financial reward. Using this style is of mutual benefit — it allows them to become part of the team and allows you to make better decisions.

Because participation takes time, this approach can take longer, but often the end result is better. The approach can be most suitable when working as a team is essential, and when quality is more important than speed to market, or productivity. 

Delegative, Mentoring or Laissez faire 

In this style, the leader allows the employees to make the decisions. However, the leader is still responsible for the decisions that are made. This is used when employees are able to analyze the situation and determine what needs to be done and how to do it. The leader sets the priorities, milestones and takes on a monitoring / mentoring role.

This style is adopted in highly creative organisations or functions and is very effective. Organisations in the IT sector, media, advertising etc. predominantly apply this style.

Delegation does not mean that the leader is absolved of the responsibility nor can the leader blame others when things go wrong. Rather this is a style to be used when the leader has full trust and confidence in the team. The leader continues to be responsible for the actions and hence it is important that interim milestones are established to ensure that the program or task is on course.

Most often, laissez-faire leadership is effective when individual team members are very experienced and skilled self-starters.

Bureaucratic leadership

This style is often associated with red tape or civil service. Believe you me, even this style has a place and relevance!

Bureaucratic leaders work "by the book”. They follow rules rigorously, and ensure that their employees follow the procedures precisely. This is a very appropriate style for work involving serious safety risks (such as working with machinery, with toxic substances, or at dangerous heights) or chemical plants, Inland Revenue etc.

Charismatic leadership

A charismatic leadership style can seem similar to transformational leadership, because these leaders inspire lots of enthusiasm in their teams and are very energetic in driving others forward. However, charismatic leaders can tend to believe more in themselves than in their teams, can act like control freaks and this creates a risk that a project, or even an entire organization, might collapse if the leader leaves. In the eyes of the followers, success is directly connected to the presence of the charismatic leader. As such, charismatic leadership carries great responsibility, and it needs a long-term commitment from the leader.

People with this leadership style are leaders who inspire their teams constantly with a shared vision of the future. While this leader's enthusiasm is often passed onto the team, he or she can need to be supported by "detail people”. That's why, in many organizations, both transactional and transformational leadership are needed. The transactional leaders (or managers) ensure that routine work is done reliably (lime Tim Cook of Apple Inc), while the transformational leaders look after initiatives that add new value.

Transformational leaders create something new by changing the basic political and cultural systems. This differs from transactional managers who make adjustments to the organizational mission, structure, and human resources.

Transformational leadership accomplishes this by challenging and transforming individuals' emotions, values, ethics, standards, and long-term goals through the process of charismatic and visionary leadership. On the other hand, transactional leaders engage with their followers to create a connection that raises the level of motivation and morality in not only the followers, but also the leaders themselves.

In some situations, a leader will be required to use multiple styles of leadership. For example:

• Telling your employees that a procedure is not working correctly or performance is below par and a new approach must be established (Authoritarian). 
• Asking for their ideas and input on creating a new approach (Participative). 
• Delegating tasks in order to implement the new approach (Delegative).

So, how does one determine the appropriate style of leadership for a situation?

Some of the factors that one should consider before choosing a specific leadership style would be:

• What is the issue at hand? If it big goals setting or creating a vision for the future?
• Is it a major crisis or a disaster scenario?
• Does it entail significant change to the organisation?
• Type of task: Is it structured, unstructured, complicated, or simple?
• Are relationships based on respect and trust or on disrespect?
• Who has the information — you, your employees, or both?
• How well your employees are trained and how well you know the challenges of the task?
• Are there Internal conflicts?
• Level of staff morale
• How much time do you have to make an impact?

To sum up, an effective leader has to be able to adapt his style to the needs of the situation and balance it with one’s personal needs.

The next part of the series will cover the five levels of leadership and what does it take to become a Level 6 leader!!

Leadership Series - Part 1

Leadership is a huge subject that cannot be covered in one article…and hence, this is first part in a three part series on leadership.

Let's deal with key questions up front:

·         What is leadership? and

·         What makes a good leader?

Leadership is a term that we often associate with leaders, but most leaders lack leadership.

What is leadership?

When we pose this question, the usual explanations are about styles of leadership or qualities one expects in a leader.

Leadership entails:

·         Inspiring people to take action;

·         Doing the right thing for the right reason;

·         taking tough decisions in the face of adversity without trying to be populist;

·         having the humility and the courage to accept that they do not have all the answers;

·         helping others to succeed

Leadership is NOT about:

·         the Leader

·         being the most popular or trying to win popularity contest; (the more one tries to be populist, the more the alienate themselves!)

·         your business title or size of your office;

·         seniority or power or having answer for everything

So having defined leadership as what it is and what is not, let’s examine what makes a good leader and the typical qualities one looks up to in a leader.

So what makes a good leader?

What makes a good leader largely depends on the degrees to which an individual’s qualities match the demands of the situation / context.  More importantly, the leader should be able to adapt his style to the nature of the demands of the times and inspire people into action.  They should be able to make the people feel that they are very core to the task and each one of them makes a difference to the success of the enterprise.  The greatest myth is that the leaders are born.  Most leaders have emerged because of the circumstances and their courage.

A very good example that comes to mind is Winston Churchill and his inexorable attitude during WW II. A sense of urgency was created in the course of very few days and no delays were condoned; telephone switchboards quadrupled their efficiency; the Chiefs of Staff and the Joint Planning Staff were in almost constant session; regular office hours ceased to exist and weekends disappeared with them.

Churchill’s robust optimism is excellently showcased in a speech he made in the House of Commons on June 4, 1940, when he spoke these famous words:

“We shall go on to the end.  We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be.  We shall fight on beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.”

Yet, he steadfastly refused to take the credit for the victory.  When commended for the victory, he responded, “I have never accepted what many people have kindly said, namely that I inspired the nation.  It was a nation and race dwelling all round that had the lion heart. I had the luck to be called upon to give the roar.”

There were many great leaders in the 20^th century who inspired people to give everything for the cause, viz. Gandhi, MLK Jr,, Mother Teresa, Swami Vivekananda, Florence Nightingale, Nelson Mandela, Mikhail Gorbachev and many more…

…core qualities that makes a good leader…

No matter what, there are some leadership qualities that are context-independent, that is essential to be a good leader.  Some of these qualities that a good leader to have would be:

Vision	Capability	Courageous	Consistent
Collaborative	Creative	Respect	Caring
Cooperative	Innovative	Act with Integrity	Fairness
Honest	Listener	Knowledge	Understanding
Above all have a good sense of humour

In Summary

Leadership is situational and a good leader is one who can adapt himself to the demands of the situation.

We shall explore more on leadership styles and its effectiveness to a given situation in my next part… 

The Euro Drama

After several false starts, Europe’s leaders failed, yet again, to come up with credible steps to solve the euro crisis.  The markets are getting weary and as investors lose faith and patience, the task of saving the single currency will become a lost cause. Sooner or later, the euro will be beyond saving. The way things are headed; this may be sooner than most people think!

In the run up to the Summit, the ECB has been extending its support to euro-zone banks—in effect lending them unlimited cheap money. That will help the banks and might in theory feed the demand for euro-zone sovereign debt. But it hardly counts as the “big bazooka” investors want, if only because the banks are wary of taking losses on ever larger stashes of government debt. What is required is not more liquidity but more capital for the banks.  Further, the ECB cannot intervene as the lender of last resort to euro-zone sovereigns.

In light of the above, the main objective in Brussels was to draw up a plan to save the euro. Governments needed to commit to credible fiscal rules that provided incentives for good fiscal governance. In return, the solution was expected to be in the form of joint liability for debts, with only the conforming countries benefiting from the purported Eurobonds. The European Central Bank (ECB) was to support to all solvent members. In addition to that the government’s were expected to announce measures to strengthen the banks and plans to drive economic growth.

But none of that happened.  Instead what we got was a British veto to a plan for ‘a plan’!  The proposal was to write fiscal discipline into national constitutions and enable the EU’s institutions to punish profligate countries and enforce fiscal discipline. The package focussed too much on austerity, and too little on economic growth.

Clearly, the leaders were hurtling down the wrong path. Forcing further austerity measures would further aggravate the recession and potential cause further civil disorder in most countries.  Besides, this could prompt a downgrade of most of the Eurozone’s credit ratings and cause economies to miss their deficit targets, increase borrowing costs — triggering still more austerity or sovereign default.  A downward spiral in the making!

Although the plan was greeted as a demonstration of European solidarity, it is more likely to provoke conflict. The summit rejected the idea of Eurobonds, in which all members would share some or all of the troubled economies’ debt burden.  Instead the pain is being imposed almost entirely on deficit countries, making it a bitter pill to swallow. If further austerity measures stir up civil unrest, the external enforcers from the EU will become a target for popular rage.

Already governments that agreed to the idea are warning that its ratification depends upon the detail and some countries may be pressured to hold a referendum. France and Germany, two of the major orchestrators can’t agree on the way to resolve the crisis, with France backing the Eurobonds idea while Germany is opposed to it.

Meanwhile the British government, having fallen out with its EU partners after exercising the veto, is promising that it will remain a central part of the union—and that London will remain Europe’s financial capital.  It must be conceded that an EU without Britain would be less liberal and Germany (and some of the smaller Eurozone members) recognises the importance Britain can play within the EU.

What is the hullaballoo about Britain’s veto

David Cameron’s plan was to seek safeguards for the financial sector and to subject some parts of financial regulation to unanimous approval, in exchange for backing a new treaty. When he failed to get what he wanted, he withheld his support.

Britain has real cause to worry about financial regulation. London is host to by far the biggest financial-services industry in Europe—in some areas it has as much as 90% of the EU’s business. The European Commission, encouraged by the French and others, has produced many ill thought out proposals to regulate it, as well as suggesting a financial-transactions tax a.k.a. ‘Tobin Tax’ named after the Nobel laureate economist James Tobin.

Mr Cameron’s veto was if anything symbolic as it fails to serve much more. He may have briefly basked in glory for his bold stance but if his aim was to protect the City and the single market, he has failed. Both are threatened more by Britain’s absence from the summits of up to 26 leaders that will now take place than by Britain’s participation in a treaty of 27 that placed no constraints on it. Britain could have achieved more by staying inside the tent that being outside.  After all, Britain has not been outvoted on a serious piece of financial-services legislation.

What next?

Germany has played down the significance of Britain’s veto and expects Britain to play an important role within the EU. As the balance of power shifts in Europe, there will be opportunities to mend the fences.  A compromise that gives Britain some reassurance about the financial sector and would let Britain return to the table may still be possible.

Ultimately, the euro zone faces tough choices. Its members could agree to deploy the ECB’s balance-sheet (much like the FED) and issue some form of Eurobond in exchange for fiscal integration. The question is not whether they can save the currency but whether some of them are prepared to pay the price for the profligate ones. This summit suggests not and it remains to be seen whether there will be a change of approach. Given the cultural, historical, political and historical divergences, this will remain a pipe dream.

It is more likely that some of the profligate countries may be forced out of the Euro and may only be readmitted post the criteria for fiscal rules are properly met.

But one thing is certain that this is not the last of the Euro Drama. Most certainly not!  In the coming weeks we will witness many more episodes of this epic!!!

What does this mean for global economy?

The unravelling of the Euro would impact the West severely denting growth and most definitely throwing the West into recession.  Already Europe is likely to face recession and the US would suffer recession should some of the Euro economies were to default given large exposure of US banks to Europe sovereign debt.

Rest of the world will experience a significant slowdown and overall global growth will falter.

While the drama plays itself out, in the interim brace for increased market volatility, further aggravating the poor economic outlook.

Greece – will it all end in tears?

-->

-->

The rampant violence and social unrest at Syntagma Square in front of the Parliament in Athens tells a tale of EU riches gone wrong. The dream of rich lifestyle, strong currency, single common market and above all an easy life have all come unstuck. The Government has been firing tear gas with an alarming regularity in a week where the Greek capital has witnessed extraordinary scenes of violence.  The people are protesting against the fiscal reforms and spending cuts and are not convinced about the economic reform measures.

All this creates a climate in which young people are struggling to see a future. Wages are low, the cost of living is high and they are wondering how they will find jobs. This generation is now looking for answers from the country's politicians, and they are not getting them from New Democracy and PASOK, which have ruled Greece since 1974.  The unemployment rate is currently at 16% with a total labour force of 5.5million.

So what's the problem in Greece?

Years of unrestrained spending, cheap lending and failure to implement financial reforms have left Greece in a financial mess. Greece currently runs a fiscal deficit of 10.5% against the EU limit of 3%.  Only 5000 people out of total workforce of 5.5 million declare income in excess of USD140,000p.a.!! Almost a million have managed to retire in their 50s while the official retirement age is 61 (rest of EU 65) with full state pension through nepotism.

Such is the state of tax evasion and corruption that almost USD 20bn is lost annually in tax collection as tax returns are accepted as filed facilitated by backhanders!  That amount represents 15% of its total revenues.  Technically Greece could run a surplus with proper tax administration but corruption is so deep rooted that it is nigh impossible!!

How big are these debts?

Greece’s debt (at USD 470bn), already the biggest in the euro’s history at 143 percent of gross domestic product last year, will jump to almost 158 percent this year and 166 percent in 2012 as per the European Commission.

Greece was badly exposed when the global economic downturn struck. Greece’s Finance Ministry blames the deeper-than-forecast recession for the government’s failure to meet its 9.4 percent deficit target last year and for a 1.9 billion-euro revenue shortfall in the first four months of 2011.  Greek GDP contracted 4.5 percent last year. The economy is forecast to shrink 3.5 percent this year, according to today’s report.

So what happens now?

The government next week will submit to parliament a 76 billion-euro package of spending cuts and asset sales to help meet its fiscal targets. The government has started slashing away at spending and has implemented austerity measures aimed at reducing the deficit by more than €10 billion ($13.7 billion). It has hiked taxes on fuel, tobacco and alcohol, raised the retirement  age by two years, imposed public sector pay cuts and applied tough new tax evasion regulations.

The country faces two pressing issues. First, although the fiscal deficit was reduced to 10.5% of GDP in 2010 from 15.4% in 2009, this year has seen a renewed deterioration due to weak revenue collection and higher-than-targeted spending. New austerity measures to cut EUR 6.5bn in 2011 and altogether EUR 28bn over five years need to be agreed.

Greece's credit rating -- the assessment of its ability to repay its debts -- has been downgraded to junk status, meaning it will likely be viewed as a financial black hole by foreign investors. This leaves the country struggling to pay its bills as interest rates on existing debts rise.

So in short, it has liquidity problem and solvency problem!  A state on the verge of declaring default!!

A Greek default is just a matter of how and when 

Greece was bailed out a year ago to the tune of USD150bn EU/IMF bailout, Greece has the lowest credit rating of any sovereign state (CCC at S&P) and the most expensive debt to insure (5Y CDS above 2,000bps). The government promised to slash the budget deficit - the annual shortfall of state spending minus the tax take. 

Yet lenders still didn't believe the country could service its existing borrowings. The debt pile Greece had already built up was just too great.  So they slashed the value of Greek government bonds, driving up the yield. If Greece tried to borrow today, it would have to pay up to a whopping 30% p.a as interest!! That indicates just how little faith investors have in the country's ability to repay any loans. Small wonder.

By the end of this year, the Greek government will owe over 150% of the country's annual output, reckons the International Monetary Fund (IMF). By 2016, even with huge state spending cuts, that figure will only have fallen to 146%.

History shows that once a country's debt/GDP ratio rises above 150%, a default is just a matter of time. Greece is going to be no different.

What will it really mean for investors if Greece goes bust? 

In other words, Greece is about as bust as can be. Trouble is, Europe's finest can't agree on what to do about it. The EU authorities want to buy time, first to allow European banks to rebuild their capital bases, second to give Greece the opportunity to enact structural reforms that could boost the country’s productive potential, and third, to allow the other peripheral countries to strengthen their finances so that they have some protection in the event of the crisis escalating. As time passes, official creditors will hold a higher share of Greek debt and so will remain reluctant to trigger a debt default.

But Germany isn't keen. It wants private investors in Greek debt to take some of the pain as well. And the Germans are trying to delay a second bail-out package until September, according to Reuters yesterday.   And the French are preparing to extend the maturing debt into new 30 year term facility.

Unfortunately, time is running out fast. Protests against cuts on the streets of Athens are getting nasty, and could pull the government down. That increases the risk of a 'disorderly' default, where Greece just turns around and tells its creditors and the rest of the Eurozone where to stick their austerity. 

Could Greece become Europe's Lehman Brothers? 

What happens then? Let's look at who's got what on the line. 

At the end of 2010, according to data from the Bank of International Settlements (BIS), Italian banks held $2.3bn of Greek debt, and UK lenders were in for $3.4bn. They should be able to cope with those losses. 

But then the numbers get much scarier. French lenders held $15bn of Greek sovereign bonds, while German banks were exposed to more than $23bn. The total for European banks was $52bn.  This does not include the ECB debt, which itself has bought €47bn-worth of Greek bonds in a failed attempt to boost confidence in the country. It's become an enormous dumping ground for bad loans. No expert can say how it can jettison these without dealing a fatal blow to the European banking system.

On top of this, exposure to Greek banks in emerging Europe "is rife". Greece's banking sector is largely Romania's and Bulgaria's banking sector. Subsidiaries of Greek banks in these countries have accounted for a large slice of domestic lending. As these subsidiaries are forced to send more money back home, the least bad outcome, is that lending will collapse in Romania and Bulgaria. That would be damaging for growth. 

But if those Greek bank subsidiaries run out of money, they in turn could be forced to default. And in a mad scramble for cash, that could lead to the worst-case scenario: "a fire sale of emerging European assets". 

And then there's the question of what happens to all the credit default swaps (CDS) written as insurance against Greece going bust. If Greece defaults, would the banks who wrote this insurance be able to pay out? 

This may all sound familiar. That's because we've seen it before. The probability of a Euro Zone “Lehman Brothers” moment is increasing. Markets are looking at a scenario of a Greek debt default becoming disorderly. 

The big worry is that, as happened with the Lehman collapse in 2008, banks will stop trusting one another as fears over exposure to the country's debt contaminate the Euro Zone.  'Counterparty risk' will become an issue once again, as banks that once looked credit worthy will have their capital eaten up by Greece-related debts going bad. So banks will stop dealing with each other - which is key to a functioning economy.

Finally, the combination of defaulted bonds and a likely acceleration of withdrawal of deposits from Greek banks would place the Greek banking system under particular strain.

The pressure to abandon the euro would doubtlessly increase from some Greek politicians and public – an apparent “quick fix‟.

You are beginning to see a - very, very messy - picture by now. Eventually a disorderly exit of Greece from Euro. And it's likely to prove to be bad news for the Euro. 

So where are the safe havens?

Clearly, GOLD is one. If ever there's a time to stick with it, now is that time. 

The other is less obvious. America is hardly trouble-free, as reflected by the weak dollar. But compared with Europe's looming woes, US's problems are small. The Euro land outlook has to be dollar-positive for the balance of 2011. 

In summary, tighten your seat belts for a bumpy ride!!! And REMEMBER...CASH IS KING!!!