Fundamentally, there are only two drivers of business value. The ability to generate returns on capital in excess of cost of capital, and the ability to grow. A thread breaking down these two elements 👇
In theory, in the long run, in the absence of moats, returns on capital will reduce to cost of capital. But in reality, many businesses manage to generate high returns for long periods of time. How do they do this?
If we just look at the problem mechanically, or from an accounting lens, we see that return ratios can be improved by:
1. increasing working capital efficiency - eg: better inventory management, improving collections, better sourcing deals, process improvement in multi-stage processes.
2. increasing asset turns - this is not only in terms of working capital but also fixed assets. Essentially, sweat your assets more.
3. improving margins - there's a whole lot of ways to do this. Discussed below.
4. optimizing capital structure - this can affect returns on equity but not really return on capital employed.
5. outsourcing less efficient processes - this potentially reduces margins but can improve returns to removing now redundant assets from the balance sheet.
Improving margins is one goal that is discussed a lot any way. Here is a list of just a few ways this is achieved. Most of these are obvious, but still worth listing out.
1. controlling cost of goods - better sourcing, reducing wastage, product design changes to reduce inputs.
2. better utilization of fixed cost items - improved asset utilization by improved process management. This also happens naturally as a business scales to utilize its factories and machinery more fully.
3. changes to the product mix, to get to higher margin profiles. In FMCG, this is strategy is often implemented as premiumization. But this also includes refocusing marketing budgets and other things to higher margin products.
4. optimizing marketing spends - both above the line and below the line. Again this probably matters more in advertising heavy businesses such as consumer staples and discretionary.
5. differentiated/tiered pricing - for example airlines charging more for last minute business travel, or packaged water companies creating separate pricing tiers of restaurants, airports, etc.
6. reducing SKU variety (especially in retail and FMCG) - this can often bring operational efficiences due to specialization, focused sourcing, etc.
7. automation - effectively improving labor productivity, and possibly reducing waste in the production process.
The other dimension to value creation is growth. Provided the business generates returns in excess of cost of capital, growth creates value. Again, there is endless variety in which to do this. I list just a few.
1. aggressive pricing - probably the least preferred method to get growth. This can only work if you're a cost leader or have the potential to destroy competition and then re-raise prices.
2. greater/better marketing - incredible marketing can often drive both growth and margins. (thinking about Apple here)
3. incentives in distribution network - well designed incentive structures for distributors can skew growth away from your competitors to you. Particularly relevant in FMCG.
4. increasing product variety - in margins, we said reduce variety. Here we say increase it. Fine balance.
5. cross-selling, up-selling, bundling - essentially increase wallet share with your existing customer base.
6. entering new markets - this could include customer demographics (income levels, age groups, industries (for B2B players)) as well as geographies.
7. acquisitions - inorganically acquire growth. Done wrong, this can destroy return ratios. Done right, it can be accelerate growth and drive value creation for long periods of time.
A lot of these ideas are often counter to the desire to maximize return ratios. Hence the art of business is a fine balance between growth and the maintenance of return ratios.
These lists cannot be comprehensive. What other strategies do businesses employ to create value?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
If you were born after the 70s, you probably think of Intel as a giant that has always dominated the microprocessor industry. But late in 1979, it almost got knocked out completely. This is the story of Operation Crush, that planted the seed for Intel's massive success. 👇
It is also an object lesson in marketing - one that is much better understood today than it was then. That people don't buy products. They buy solutions to their problems. In Ted Levitt's words: people don't want to buy a quarter-inch drill. They want a quarter-inch hole.
In 1971, Intel had kicked off the microprocessor revolution with the introduction of its 4-bit device, the 4004. And in the race they were joined by National Semiconductor, Texas Instruments, Motorola, and a clutch of other players.
A few days ago, @mysandz asked me for a list of my favorite books. As I started thinking about that, I realised there are at least two different categories.
In one category are books which I really enjoyed reading. These could be works of fiction or even non-fiction that taught me something. The other category of books actually changed my world-view or my behavior. This thread has the list of books in that second category.
I'm going to try and club books together based on themes. It's possible there were better books I read on the subject. But it is in the nature of reading that the first good book that exposes you to an idea leaves the deepest impact. This list is of books that did that for me.
Over the last few years, quantitative value investing has been denigrated relentlessly. The main criticism is that in an intangibles-heavy world, using book value as a measure of a company's worth is misguided. That is true! But these criticisms make one flawed assumption.
They assume that quant practitioners build value portfolios they way Fama and French first described them in 1992. No actual portfolios today hold stocks simply because of low p/b ratio. Why? Because accounting rules don't correctly capture the value of intellectual property.
Consider this. Facebook's 2020 balance sheet shows intangible assets of just $623 million. This is after FB spent a staggering $40+ billion on R&D in the last 3 years. Surely, FB's intangible assets are considerably higher than the listed $623 million.
Investors talk a lot about their investment process. Some of them are very good. But few ever break down their investment process into what I think are five major steps. As an investor, it is worth articulating what your process is for each of those five steps.
An investment starts with "idea generation". Where do you get your ideas from? Screens...magazine articles...cloning? There are many possible sources and you don't have to choose just one. Having a well-defined list helps focus and also tracking where your best ideas come from.
The next step is "analysis". It can range from checking technical indicators to a feet-on-the-ground scuttlebutt process. This depends on what kind of investor you are. But define exactly what you do, and what you look at. It helps avoid biases and mistakes due to missed steps.
Of late, there has been a lot of chatter that "value" is making a comeback after a decade of underperformance. While this is broadly true, there is a large amount of nuance that such a statement glosses over.
In most circumstances, it doesn't matter. But if you are a quant investor, or an investor in a quant fund, understanding these nuances matters a lot. After all, not all large cap funds are the same. Why should all value strategies be the same?
The textbook definition of value in the quant sense is the p/b ratio. Fama and French, the duo that proposed this idea, sorted the investment universe based on price to book. Roughly speaking, 1/3rd of the stocks with the lowest p/b ratios were considered value stocks.
Finally finished reading Kochland by @CLeonardNews. Took me 2 weeks to get through it but totally unputdownable. If I'd realised it was a 700 page tome before I picked it up, I might have shied away. Thank God I didn't.
1/n
For one thing, it's brilliantly written. There's an excellent balance between giving us details about the various characters' history and sticking to the main points. This is in contrast to Ron Chernow - a brilliant writer in his own right. 2/n
More importantly though, it has incredible detail about so many things that have happened both in in American politics as well as American business. From a far clearer explanation of what happened during the California electricity... 3/n