Select Page

Due Diligence

Your due diligence is probably wrong

Global Advisors: a consulting leader in defining quantified strategy, decreasing uncertainty, improving decisions, achieving measureable results.

Learn MoreThe Global Advisors due diligence practice

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

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/

read more

Strategy Tools

Strategy Tools: Growth, Profit or Returns?

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.

read more

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

Non-conformance costs can distort pricing decisions 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
read more

Selected News

Quote: Alex Karp – Palantir CEO

Quote: Alex Karp – Palantir CEO

“The idea that chips and ontology is what you want to short is batsh*t crazy.” – Alex Karp -Palantir CEO

Alex Karp, co-founder and CEO of Palantir Technologies, delivered the now widely-circulated statement, “The idea that chips and ontology is what you want to short is batsh*t crazy,” in response to famed investor Michael Burry’s high-profile short positions against both Palantir and Nvidia. This sharp retort came at a time when Palantir, an enterprise software and artificial intelligence (AI) powerhouse, had just reported record earnings and was under intense media scrutiny for its meteoric stock rise and valuation.

Context of the Quote

The remark was made in early November 2025 during a CNBC interview, following public disclosures that Michael Burry—of “The Big Short” fame—had taken massive short positions in Palantir and Nvidia, two companies at the heart of the AI revolution. Burry’s move, reminiscent of his contrarian bets during the 2008 financial crisis, was interpreted by the market as both a challenge to the soaring “AI trade” and a critique of the underlying economics fueling the sector’s explosive growth.

Karp’s frustration was palpable: not only was Palantir producing what he described as “anomalous” financial results—outpacing virtually all competitors in growth, cash flow, and customer retention—but it was also emerging as the backbone of data-driven operations across government and industry. For Karp, Burry’s short bet went beyond traditional market scepticism; it targeted firms, products (“chips” and “ontology”—the foundational hardware for AI and the architecture for structuring knowledge), and business models proven to be both technically indispensable and commercially robust. Karp’s rejection of the “short chips and ontology” thesis underscores his belief in the enduring centrality of the technologies underpinning the modern AI stack.

Backstory and Profile: Alex Karp

Alex Karp stands out as one of Silicon Valley’s true iconoclasts:

  • Background and Education: Born in New York City in 1967, Karp holds a philosophy degree from Haverford College, a JD from Stanford, and a PhD in social theory from Goethe University Frankfurt, where he studied under and wrote about the influential philosopher Jürgen Habermas. This rare academic pedigree—blending law, philosophy, and critical theory—deeply informs both his contrarian mindset and his focus on the societal impact of technology.
  • Professional Arc: Before founding Palantir in 2004 with Peter Thiel and others, Karp had forged a career in finance, running the London-based Caedmon Group. At Palantir, he crafted a unique culture and business model, combining a wellness-oriented, sometimes spiritual corporate environment with the hard-nosed delivery of mission-critical systems for Western security, defence, and industry.
  • Leadership and Philosophy: Karp is known for his outspoken, unconventional leadership. Unafraid to challenge both Silicon Valley’s libertarian ethos and what he views as the groupthink of academic and financial “expert” classes, he publicly identifies as progressive—yet separates himself from establishment politics, remaining both a supporter of the US military and a critic of mainstream left and right ideologies. His style is at once brash and philosophical, combining deep skepticism of market orthodoxy with a strong belief in the capacity of technology to deliver real-world, not just notional, value.
  • Palantir’s Rise: Under Karp, Palantir grew from a niche contractor to one of the world’s most important data analytics and AI companies. Palantir’s products are deeply embedded in national security, commercial analytics, and industrial operations, making the company essential infrastructure in the rapidly evolving AI economy.

Theoretical Background: ‘Chips’ and ‘Ontology’

Karp’s phrase pairs two of the foundational concepts in modern AI and data-driven enterprise:

  • Chips: Here, “chips” refers specifically to advanced semiconductors (such as Nvidia’s GPUs) that provide the computational horsepower essential for training and deploying cutting-edge machine learning models. The AI revolution is inseparable from advances in chip design, leading to historic demand for high-performance hardware.
  • Ontology: In computer and information science, “ontology” describes the formal structuring and categorising of knowledge—making data comprehensible, searchable, and actionable by algorithms. Robust ontologies enable organisations to unify disparate data sources, automate analytical reasoning, and achieve the “second order” efficiencies of AI at scale.

Leading theorists in the domain of ontology and AI include:

  • John McCarthy: A founder of artificial intelligence, McCarthy’s foundational work on formal logic and semantics laid groundwork for modern ontological structures in AI.
  • Tim Berners-Lee: Creator of the World Wide Web, Berners-Lee developed the Semantic Web, championing knowledge structuring via ontologies—enabling data to be machine-readable and all but indispensable for AI’s next leap.
  • Thomas Gruber: Known for his widely cited definition of ontology in AI as “a specification of a conceptualisation,” Gruber’s research shaped the field’s approach to standardising knowledge representations for complex applications.

In the chip space, the pioneering work of:

  • Jensen Huang: CEO and co-founder of Nvidia, drove the company’s transformation from graphics to AI acceleration, cementing the centrality of chips as the hardware substrate for everything from generative AI to advanced analytics.
  • Gordon Moore and Robert Noyce: Their early explorations in semiconductor fabrication set the stage for the exponential hardware progress that enabled the modern AI era.

Insightful Context for the Modern Market Debate

The “chips and ontology” remark reflects a deep divide in contemporary technology investing:

  • On one side, sceptics like Burry see signs of speculative excess, reminiscent of prior bubbles, and bet against companies with high valuations—even when those companies dominate core technologies fundamental to AI.
  • On the other, leaders like Karp argue that while the broad “AI trade” risks pockets of overvaluation, the engine—the computational hardware (chips) and data-structuring logic (ontology)—are not just durable, but irreplaceable in the digital economy.

With Palantir and Nvidia at the centre of the current AI-driven transformation, Karp’s comment captures not just a rebuttal to market short-termism, but a broader endorsement of the foundational technologies that define the coming decade. The value of “chips and ontology” is, in Karp’s eyes, anchored not in market narrative but in empirical results and business necessity—a perspective rooted in a unique synthesis of philosophy, technology, and radical pragmatism.

read more

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

Global Advisors | Quantified Strategy Consulting