Due Diligence
Your due diligence is probably wrongGlobal Advisors: a consulting leader in defining quantified strategy, decreasing uncertainty, improving decisions, achieving measureable results.
Our latest perspective - What's behind under-performing listed companies?
Outperform through the downturn
Experienced hires
We are hiring experienced top-tier strategy consultants
Quantified Strategy
Decreased uncertainty, improved decisions
Global Advisors is a leader in defining quantified strategies, decreasing uncertainty, improving decisions and achieving measureable results.
We specialise in providing highly-analytical data-driven recommendations in the face of significant uncertainty.
We utilise advanced predictive analytics to build robust strategies and enable our clients to make calculated decisions.
We support implementation of adaptive capability and capacity.
Our latest
Thoughts
Global Advisors’ Thoughts: Getting the Balance Right
By Kate Barnes
I am a working mother, as are many of my friends and past colleagues. Naturally we often debate the challenges of getting the balance between work and family right.
Personal circumstances vary widely and have a big impact on the choices one has, but my solution has been to work on a part-time basis. I have been lucky enough to do so for the past seven years and to me it seems like an excellent compromise. Yet there are many times when it feels like balance is the last thing I am achieving – in fact, I have the distinct feeling that I am failing on every front – my kids, my husband, and my boss, colleagues or direct reports, all want more of me.
Perhaps the truth is that I want too much. I want to be stimulated, challenged and to feel like I am adding value in the work place, but I also want to see my children more than the average, full-time working mother.
Many working mothers have made decisions involving changes to their working day in order to manage the work-family balance better. Unfortunately, I have found that one of the biggest issues is that one cannot simply decide on an approach, agree it with your employer, and then settle into whatever routine that entails. You might agree an arrangement to work 5, or 6 or 7 hours a day, or 30 hours a week, or to arrive at work early and leave by 3 or 4pm. But in most jobs, you will have to consider the balance equation on a daily basis, sometimes multiple times a day. Is today the day I give more to work because there is a demanding deadline and everyone else is working late, or is it the day I give more to my child, because he is receiving an award at school or swimming in a gala?
And often the call has to be made taking into consideration not only what is happening today, but also looking at where the pendulum fell yesterday, or last week, or over the past couple of weeks.
As with any decision there are consequences, even if at first they are unforeseen. In the early stages of my career, I like many, was an idealistic youngster with dreams of holding a very senior, leadership position. I was ambitious, and some might say that I had much of what it takes to achieve my goal. Some years down the track I was being interviewed for a prospective job and the potential employer noted from my CV that the achievements in my career (or lack thereof) were not in line with my academic record, and he wondered why this was. I can’t remember what my response was, but I know I knew the answer. I even knew at exactly which point in my career the upward trajectory slowed. It was the day I was working at a large corporate, and I asked for flexitime. I negotiated that on two afternoons a week, I would be allowed to leave at 2pm and I would make up the time in the evening, after my young children were asleep.
Shortly thereafter, when a potential internal move to a new position was being discussed I was informed that I could not be considered for the role as I was “part-time”.
This was a wake-up call.
Read more at http://www.globaladvisors.biz/thoughts/20170719/getting-the-balance-right/
Strategy Tools
Strategy Tools: Growth, Profit or Returns?
By Stuart Graham and Marc Wilson
Stuart is a manager and Marc is a partner at Global Advisors.
Both are based in Johannesburg, South Africa.
Growth, profit or returns? It’s all three, however we find that the relationship between these and shareholder value creation is poorly understood – if at all.
All three measures become critical to the way forward as companies navigate the Covid-19 crisis.
After ensuring business survival, navigating through the Covid-19 crisis requires returns on invested capital AND growth to deliver shareholder returns. S&P 500 companies averaged 13% RONA and 5% revenue growth (CAGR) through the financial crisis (2008-2012) .
Monolithic survival approaches may starve compensating growth opportunities – a portfolio approach is required.
Key insights
Returns are not enough – companies must also grow to create value.
Profits and cash flows cannot increase indefinitely through cost-reduction, efficiency, business mix, etc – top-line growth is critical.
Returns must be above costs of capital to be value accretive.
S&P 500 companies averaged 13% ROIC and 5% revenue growth (CAGR) through the financial crisis (2008-2012).
Margins and revenue growth, or even profit growth in themselves don’t answer that question of whether shareholder value was created or destroyed. There are many examples of where growth and high margins actually destroy value.
Company valuations reflect an aggregate of their business portfolio – rebalancing segments based on their growth and return profiles can lift company value.
Growth requires investment – at the very least in the working capital required to support revenue growth.
Measuring RONA or ROIC and Revenue growth shows whether business activity is value accretive or destructive.
You can use the Global Advisors Market Cap (valuation) framework to map your business – and agree action to deliver improved shareholder returns.
Fast Facts
The use of full absorption or average costing in asset-intensive industries with under-utilisation can lead to self-defeating pricing strategies
The use of full absorption or average costing in asset-intensive industries with under-utilisation can lead to self-defeating pricing strategies
- The use of full absorption or average costing in a manufacturing environment with under-utilisation can lead to self-defeating pricing strategies
- The increase in price to cover costs results in volume decreases – lowering factory utilisation and increasing unit production costs. This is the start of the utilisation-pricing “death spiral”
- Costing according to factory utilisation – partial absorption costing – offers the opportunity to be more strategic about costing and utilisation
- “Unabsorbed” costs can be targeted through OEE and volume improvements. At the same time, the “disadvantage” of having a large factory is normalised and pricing can compete with more fully-utilised factories
- A recent manufacturing client saw 60% of unit costs arise from factory under-utilisation – sub-optimal OEE levels (non-conformance), low volumes and work-centre bottlenecks contributed to the utilisation gap
- These principles can apply to any asset-intensive business – for example banking
Selected News
Quote: Stephen Schwartzman – Blackstone Founder
“I always felt that somebody was only capable of one super effort to create something that can really be consequential. There are so many impediments to being successful. If you’re on the field, you’re there to win, and to win requires an enormous amount of practice – pushing yourself really to the breaking point.” – Stephen Schwarzman – Blackstone Founder
Stephen A. Schwarzman is a defining figure in global finance and alternative investments. He is Chairman, CEO, and Co-Founder of Blackstone, the world’s largest alternative investment firm, overseeing over $1.2 trillion in assets.
Backstory and Context of the Quote
Stephen Schwarzman’s perspective on effort, practice, and success is rooted in over four decades building Blackstone from a two-person start-up to an institution that has shaped capital markets worldwide. The referenced quote captures his philosophy: that achieving anything truly consequential demands a singular, maximal effort—a philosophy he practised as Blackstone’s founder and architect.
Schwarzman began his career in mergers and acquisitions at Lehman Brothers in the 1970s, where he met Peter G. Peterson. Their complementary backgrounds—a combination of strategic vision and operational drive—empowered them to establish Blackstone in 1985, initially with just $400,000 in seed capital and a big ambition to build a differentiated investment firm. The mid-1980s financial environment, marked by booming M&A activity, provided fertile ground for innovation in buyouts and private markets.
From the outset, Schwarzman instilled a culture of rigorous preparation and discipline. A landmark early setback—the unsuccessful investment in Edgecomb Steel—became a pivotal learning event. It led Schwarzman to institutionalise robust investment committees, open and adversarial (yet respectful) debate, and a relentless process of due diligence. This learning loop, focused on not losing money and fact-based challenge culture, shaped Blackstone’s internal systems and risk culture for decades to come.
His attitude to practice, perseverance, and operating at the limit is not merely rhetorical—it is Blackstone’s operational model: selecting complex assets, professionalising management, and adding value through operational transformation before timing exits for maximum advantage. The company’s strict approval layers, multi-stage risk screening, and exacting standards demonstrate Schwarzman’s belief that only by pushing to the limits of endurance—and addressing every potential weakness—can lasting value be created.
In his own words, Schwarzman attributes success not to innate brilliance but to grit, repetition, and the ability to learn from failure. This is underscored by his leadership style, which evolved towards being gentle, clear, and principled, setting high standards while building an enduring culture based on integrity, decency, and open debate.
About Stephen A. Schwarzman
- Born in 1947 in Philadelphia, Schwarzman studied at Yale University (where he was a member of Skull and Bones) and earned an MBA from Harvard Business School.
- Blackstone, which he co-founded in 1985, began as an M&A boutique and now operates across private equity, real estate, credit, hedge funds, infrastructure, and life sciences, making it a recognised leader in global investment management.
- Under Schwarzman’s leadership, Blackstone institutionalised patient, active ownership—acquiring, improving, and timing the exit from portfolio companies for optimal results while actively shaping industry standards in governance and risk management.
- He is also known for his philanthropy, having signed The Giving Pledge and contributed significantly to education, arts, and culture.
- His autobiography, What It Takes: Lessons in the Pursuit of Excellence, distils the philosophy underpinning his business and personal success.
- Schwarzman’s role as a public intellectual and advisor has seen him listed among the “World’s Most Powerful People” and “Time 100 Most Influential People”.
Leading Theorists and Intellectual Currents Related to the Quote
The themes embodied in Schwarzman’s philosophy—singular effort, practice to breaking point, coping with setbacks, and building institutional culture—draw on and intersect with several influential theorists and schools of thought in management and the psychology of high achievement:
- Anders Ericsson (Deliberate Practice): Ericsson’s research underscores that deliberate practice—extended, focused effort with ongoing feedback—is critical to acquiring expert performance in any field. Schwarzman’s stress on “enormous amount of practice” parallels Ericsson’s findings that natural talent is far less important than methodical, sustained effort.
- Angela Duckworth (Grit): Duckworth’s work on “grit” emphasises passion and perseverance for long-term goals as key predictors of success. Her research supports Schwarzman’s belief that breaking through obstacles—and continuing after setbacks—is fundamental for consequential achievement.
- Carol Dweck (Growth Mindset): Dweck demonstrated that embracing a “growth mindset”—seeing failures as opportunities to learn rather than as endpoints—fosters resilience and continuous improvement. Schwarzman’s approach to institutionalising learning from failure at Blackstone reflects this theoretical foundation.
- Peter Drucker (Management by Objectives and Institutional Culture): Drucker highlighted the importance of clear organisational goals, continuous learning, and leadership by values for building enduring institutions. Schwarzman’s insistence on codifying culture, open debate, and aligning every decision with the brand reflects Drucker’s emphasis on the importance of system and culture in organisational performance.
- Jim Collins (Built to Last, Good to Great): Collins’ research into successful companies found a common thread of fanatical discipline, a culture of humility and rigorous debate, all driven by a sense of purpose. These elements are present throughout Blackstone’s governance model and leadership ethos as steered by Schwarzman.
- Michael Porter (Competitive Strategy): Porter’s concept of sustained competitive advantage through unique positioning and strategic differentiation is echoed in Blackstone’s approach—actively improving operations rather than simply relying on market exposure, and committing to ‘winning’ through operational and structural edge.
Summary
Schwarzman’s quote is not only a personal reflection but also a distillation of enduring principles in high achievement and institutional leadership. It is the lived experience of building Blackstone—a case study in dedication, resilience, and the institutionalisation of excellence. His story, and the theoretical underpinnings echoed in his approach, provide a template for excellence and consequence in any field marked by complexity, competition, and the need for sustained, high-conviction effort.

Polls
No Results Found
The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.
Services
Global Advisors is different
We help clients to measurably improve strategic decision-making and the results they achieve through defining clearly prioritised choices, reducing uncertainty, winning hearts and minds and partnering to deliver.
Our difference is embodied in our team. Our values define us.
Corporate portfolio strategy
Define optimal business portfolios aligned with investor expectations
BUSINESS UNIT STRATEGY
Define how to win against competitors
Reach full potential
Understand your business’ core, reach full potential and grow into optimal adjacencies
Deal advisory
M&A, due diligence, deal structuring, balance sheet optimisation
Global Advisors Digital Data Analytics
14 years of quantitative and data science experience
An enabler to delivering quantified strategy and accelerated implementation
Digital enablement, acceleration and data science
Leading-edge data science and digital skills
Experts in large data processing, analytics and data visualisation
Developers of digital proof-of-concepts
An accelerator for Global Advisors and our clients
Join Global Advisors
We hire and grow amazing people
Consultants join our firm based on a fit with our values, culture and vision. They believe in and are excited by our differentiated approach. They realise that working on our clients’ most important projects is a privilege. While the problems we solve are strategic to clients, consultants recognise that solutions primarily require hard work – rigorous and thorough analysis, partnering with client team members to overcome political and emotional obstacles, and a large investment in knowledge development and self-growth.
Get In Touch
16th Floor, The Forum, 2 Maude Street, Sandton, Johannesburg, South Africa
+27114616371
