Select Page

Insights

Strategy Tools

 

Global Advisors’ thoughts on classic, new and proprietary strategy tools and their applications.

Quote: James Carville, Former political adviser to President Bill Clinton

Quote: James Carville, Former political adviser to President Bill Clinton

“I would like to come back as the bond market. You can intimidate everybody.” – James Carville, Former political adviser to President Bill Clinton

James Carville’s famous quip speaks volumes about the immense, often unseen power wielded by the bond market over governments and economies. This power was vividly demonstrated in early April 2025, when a dramatic clash between US policy decisions and market forces played out.

The April 2025 Treasury Market Turmoil and Tariff Reversal:

In early April 2025, the Trump administration announced a set of aggressive new tariffs, including broad “reciprocal” tariffs targeting numerous trading partners. The reaction in financial markets was swift and severe. While stock markets tumbled, the real drama unfolded in the US Treasury market – typically considered the world’s ultimate safe haven.

Beginning Tuesday, April 8th, and intensifying overnight into Wednesday, April 9th, Treasury bonds experienced a sharp sell-off. This wasn’t the usual inverse relationship where bonds rally when stocks fall due to recession fears. Instead, both asset classes plunged simultaneously, a rare and alarming pattern previously seen during the acute phase of the COVID-19 panic in March 2020.

Yields on US Treasuries soared. The benchmark 10-year Treasury yield jumped by over 60 basis points (0.60 percentage points) in less than 48 hours, briefly touching 4.51% on Wednesday. The 30-year yield even breached the 5% mark. This surge in US borrowing costs rippled globally, pushing yields higher in the UK and Japan.

Several factors fueled this bond market rout:

  1. Policy Uncertainty & Inflation Fears: The new tariffs raised immediate concerns about escalating trade wars, potential retaliation, supply chain disruptions, and ultimately, higher inflation, which erodes the value of fixed bond payments.
  2. Weak Auction Demand: An auction for 3-year Treasury notes on Tuesday, April 8th, met with weak demand, signalling investor nervousness and contributing to the upward pressure on yields across all maturities.
  3. Technical Unwinding: The sudden spike in volatility triggered margin calls for highly leveraged hedge fund strategies built around Treasuries. Funds were forced to rapidly sell Treasuries to raise cash and reduce risk, creating a downward spiral in prices (and upward spiral in yields). Key trades affected included:
    • Basis Trades: Bets on tiny price differences between Treasury bonds and futures contracts, often leveraged 50-100 times. Unwinding these trades, estimated to involve hundreds of billions or even a trillion dollars, forced large-scale Treasury sales.
    • Swap Spread Trades: Bets on the relationship between Treasury yields and interest rate swap rates. Recent volatility forced an unwind here too, exacerbating the sell-off.
    • Off-the-Run Trades: Exploiting small yield differences between newly issued (“on-the-run”) and older (“off-the-run”) Treasuries. Widening spreads indicated stress and forced selling.
  4. Safe Haven Concerns: The simultaneous fall in stocks and bonds led analysts like former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers to suggest a “generalized aversion to US assets,” questioning the traditional safe-haven status of Treasuries. Speculation, though unproven, arose about whether major holders like China might be selling Treasuries in retaliation.

The speed and severity of the Treasury sell-off raised fears of systemic risk – a potential market freeze-up similar to March 2020, which could necessitate emergency intervention by the Federal Reserve. As Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent attempted to calm nerves, describing it as an “uncomfortable but normal deleveraging,” the pressure became undeniable.

President Trump himself acknowledged watching the bond market and noted people “were getting yippy.” Faced with this intense market pressure, the administration abruptly reversed course on Wednesday, April 9th, announcing a withdrawal or “90-day pause” on the most controversial “reciprocal” tariffs, though other tariffs remained.

While the stock market celebrated with a relief rally, Treasury yields remained elevated, reflecting lingering uncertainty. The episode served as a stark reminder: the bond market, through the collective actions of countless global investors reacting to perceived risks, could indeed “intimidate” and force a rapid change in government policy.

How Bond Trading Works:

At its core, a bond is a loan made by an investor to a borrower (like a government or corporation). The borrower pays periodic interest (coupon) and repays the principal amount at maturity.

  • Issuance: Governments (like the US Treasury) issue bonds to finance spending. They sell these bonds through auctions.
  • Trading: After issuance, bonds trade in the secondary market. Investors buy and sell bonds based on their views on interest rates, inflation, economic growth, and the creditworthiness of the issuer.
  • Price and Yield: Bond prices and yields (the effective interest rate) move inversely. When demand for a bond increases, its price goes up, and its yield goes down. When investors sell bonds, prices fall, and yields rise. Rising yields mean higher borrowing costs for the issuer.
  • US Treasuries: The market for US Treasury bonds is the largest and most liquid in the world. Treasury yields are a benchmark for interest rates globally and are crucial for pricing other financial assets. They are also widely used as collateral in other financial transactions (like repo loans).
  • Leverage and Complex Trades: As seen in the April 2025 event, sophisticated investors like hedge funds often use leverage (borrowed money, often via the repo market using Treasuries as collateral) to amplify returns from small price discrepancies between related instruments (e.g., cash bonds vs. futures, on-the-run vs. off-the-run bonds, bonds vs. swaps). While these trades can enhance market liquidity, the high leverage makes them vulnerable to sudden volatility, potentially triggering forced selling and market disruption.

Who is James Carville and Why He Said This:

James Carville, nicknamed the “Ragin’ Cajun,” is a prominent American political consultant and strategist, best known for masterminding Bill Clinton’s successful 1992 presidential campaign. He is famous for his sharp wit, populist messaging, and coining the phrase, “It’s the economy, stupid,” which became the unofficial slogan of the Clinton campaign, emphasizing the focus needed to win the election during an economic recession.

Carville made the remark about wanting to “come back as the bond market” likely during the early 1990s. At that time, the Clinton administration faced significant pressure from the bond market regarding the national debt and budget deficits. The term “bond vigilantes” was often used to describe investors who would sell government bonds (thus driving up interest rates and borrowing costs) if they disapproved of a government’s fiscal policies, effectively forcing policymakers towards austerity or deficit reduction.

Carville’s quote perfectly captures the frustration and awe politicians often feel towards the faceless, powerful entity that is the global bond market. Unlike voters or political opponents, the bond market operates on cold calculation of risk and return. Its judgments, expressed through buying and selling that moves yields, can impose discipline and constraints on governments far more effectively, and often more intimidatingly, than any political force. The events of April 2025 showed this power remains profoundly relevant.

read more
Quote: Jim Collins & Jerry Porras – Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies

Quote: Jim Collins & Jerry Porras – Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies

“Building a visionary company requires one percent vision and 99 percent alignment.” – Jim Collins & Jerry Porras – Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies

Jim Collins and Jerry Porras are renowned authors and management theorists best known for their influential book, “Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies,” published in 1994. This work emerged from a comprehensive six-year research project that aimed to identify the characteristics that enable certain companies to thrive over the long term, often outlasting their competitors and adapting to changing market conditions.

Jim Collins, born on January 25, 1958, is a prominent business consultant and lecturer who has dedicated much of his career to studying what makes companies successful. He is also the author of several bestsellers, including “Good to Great,” which further explores the principles of effective leadership and organizational success. Collins’s research emphasizes the importance of disciplined thought and action, as well as the need for a strong organizational culture.

Jerry Porras, born on September 20, 1938, is an esteemed academic and professor emeritus at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Business. His expertise lies in organizational behavior and change, and he has contributed significantly to the understanding of how companies can develop and maintain a visionary approach. Porras’s work often focuses on the dynamics of leadership and the role of core values in guiding organizational success.

In “Built to Last,” Collins and Porras introduce the concept that while having a clear vision is essential for a company’s direction, the real challenge lies in achieving alignment across the organization. The quote, “Building a visionary company requires one percent vision and 99 percent alignment,” encapsulates this idea, highlighting that the execution of a vision is heavily dependent on the collective efforts and commitment of all members within the organization. This alignment ensures that everyone is working towards the same goals, fostering a cohesive culture that supports long-term success.

The book has been widely referenced and praised by business leaders and strategists for its practical insights and frameworks. It identifies key habits and practices that distinguish visionary companies, such as maintaining a core ideology, embracing change, and setting ambitious goals. The principles outlined in “Built to Last” continue to resonate with organizations seeking to cultivate enduring success and navigate the complexities of the business landscape. Collins and Porras’s work has left a lasting impact on the field of management, inspiring countless leaders to prioritize alignment and shared purpose in their strategic endeavors.

read more
Quote: A.G. Lafley & Roger L. Martin in their book Playing to Win

Quote: A.G. Lafley & Roger L. Martin in their book Playing to Win

Winning should be at the heart of every strategy.” – A.G. Lafley & Roger L. Martin in their book Playing to Win

A.G. Lafley and Roger L. Martin are prominent figures in the field of strategic management, particularly known for their collaborative work on the book “Playing to Win: How Strategy Really Works,” published in 2013. This book has become a cornerstone in understanding how organizations can effectively develop and implement winning strategies.

A.G. Lafley, born on June 13, 1947, is best known for his tenure as the CEO of Procter & Gamble (P&G), where he led the company through significant transformations. Under his leadership, P&G doubled its sales and expanded its portfolio of billion-dollar brands. Lafley emphasized a consumer-centric approach, advocating that understanding consumer needs is essential for driving innovation and growth. His mantra, “Consumer is Boss,” reflects his belief in prioritizing customer insights in strategic decision-making.

Roger L. Martin, born on August 4, 1956, is a respected academic and former Dean of the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto. He is recognized for his contributions to strategic thinking and management theory, particularly through his development of integrative thinking and design thinking concepts. Martin’s work emphasizes the importance of making strategic choices that align with an organization’s goals and capabilities.

In “Playing to Win,” Lafley and Martin present a framework for strategy that revolves around five key choices: defining a winning aspiration, determining where to play, deciding how to win, identifying core capabilities, and establishing management systems. The quote, “Winning should be at the heart of every strategy,” encapsulates the essence of their approach, which asserts that a clear focus on winning is crucial for effective strategy formulation. This perspective encourages organizations to be deliberate in their choices and to align their resources and efforts toward achieving competitive advantage.

The book has been widely referenced by business leaders and strategists who appreciate its practical insights and actionable frameworks. Lafley and Martin’s emphasis on the importance of winning as a strategic objective resonates with many organizations striving to navigate complex market dynamics and achieve sustainable growth. Their collaborative work continues to influence strategic management practices across various industries, reinforcing the idea that a winning mindset is essential for success.

read more
Quote: Henry Mintzberg Management thinker and strategic planning theorist

Quote: Henry Mintzberg Management thinker and strategic planning theorist

“Strategy is not the consequence of planning, but the opposite: its starting point.” – Henry Mintzberg, Management thinker and strategic planning theorist

Henry Mintzberg, born on September 2, 1939, in Montreal, Canada, is a renowned academic and author known for his extensive work in management and organizational theory. He is currently the Cleghorn Professor of Management Studies at McGill University, where he has been teaching since 1968. Mintzberg’s contributions to the field of strategic management have significantly shaped how organizations approach strategy formulation and implementation.

The quote, “Strategy is not the consequence of planning, but the opposite: its starting point,” reflects Mintzberg’s critical perspective on traditional strategic planning processes. He argues that many organizations mistakenly view strategy as a linear outcome of formal planning, which often leads to rigidity and a disconnect from the realities of the business environment. Instead, Mintzberg posits that strategy should emerge from the ongoing interactions and experiences within the organization, emphasizing the importance of adaptability and responsiveness.

Mintzberg’s work challenges the conventional wisdom that prioritizes analytical and prescriptive approaches to strategy. He advocates for a more nuanced understanding of strategy as a dynamic process that involves both deliberate planning and emergent practices. This perspective is encapsulated in his concept of the “5 Ps of Strategy,” which includes strategy as Plan, Ploy, Pattern, Position, and Perspective. Each of these dimensions highlights different aspects of how organizations can navigate their strategic landscapes.

His ideas have resonated with many business leaders and scholars who recognize the limitations of rigid planning frameworks. Mintzberg’s emphasis on the importance of real-world experiences and the need for flexibility in strategy formulation has influenced various sectors, encouraging organizations to embrace a more holistic and adaptive approach to strategic management.

In summary, Henry Mintzberg’s insights into strategy underscore the significance of viewing strategy as a foundational element that informs planning rather than a mere outcome of it. His work continues to inspire discussions on how organizations can effectively navigate the complexities of their environments while remaining true to their strategic objectives.

read more
Quote: Michael E. Porter, American economist and founder of strategic management

Quote: Michael E. Porter, American economist and founder of strategic management

The essence of strategy is choosing what not to do.” – Michael E. Porter, American economist and founder of strategic management

Michael E. Porter, born on May 23, 1947, is a prominent American academic and a leading authority in the field of competitive strategy. He is best known for his groundbreaking work at Harvard Business School, where he has shaped the understanding of how businesses can achieve competitive advantage. His influential theories, particularly the Five Forces framework and the Value Chain model, have become foundational in strategic management.

Porter’s quote, “The essence of strategy is choosing what not to do,” encapsulates a core principle of his approach to strategic management. This perspective emphasizes that effective strategy is not merely about making choices on what to pursue but also about recognizing and intentionally avoiding certain paths. By doing so, organizations can focus their resources and efforts on areas where they can create the most value and differentiate themselves from competitors.

Throughout his career, Porter has highlighted the importance of understanding industry structure and competitive forces. His work suggests that companies must analyze their competitive environment to make informed strategic decisions. This analysis involves assessing factors such as the intensity of rivalry among existing competitors, the bargaining power of suppliers and buyers, the threat of new entrants, and the threat of substitute products or services.

Porter’s insights have been referenced by numerous business leaders and strategists who recognize the value of his frameworks in navigating complex market dynamics. His emphasis on strategic choice has influenced various sectors, from healthcare to technology, encouraging organizations to adopt a disciplined approach to decision-making.

In summary, Michael Porter’s contributions to strategic management have provided a robust framework for understanding competition and guiding organizations in their strategic choices. His quote serves as a reminder that clarity in what to exclude from a strategy is just as crucial as the decisions made about what to include.

read more
PODCAST: Effective Transfer Pricing

PODCAST: Effective Transfer Pricing

Our Spotify podcast discusses how to get transfer pricing right.

We discuss effective transfer pricing within organizations, highlighting the prevalent challenges and proposing solutions. The core issue is that poorly implemented internal pricing leads to suboptimal economic decisions, resource allocation problems, and interdepartmental conflict. The hosts advocate for market-based pricing over cost recovery, emphasizing the importance of clear price signals for efficient resource allocation and accurate decision-making. They stress the need for service level agreements, fair cost allocation, and a comprehensive process to manage the political and emotional aspects of internal pricing, ultimately aiming for improved organizational performance and profitability. The podcast includes case studies illustrating successful implementations and the authors’ expertise in this field.

Read more from the original article.

read more
PODCAST: A strategic take on cost-volume-profit analysis

PODCAST: A strategic take on cost-volume-profit analysis

Our Spotify podcast highlights that despite familiarity, most managers do not apply CVP analysis and get it wrong in its most basic form.

The hosts explain cost-volume-profit (CVP) analysis, a crucial business tool often misapplied. It details the theoretical underpinnings of CVP, using graphs to illustrate relationships between price, volume, and profit. The hosts highlight common errors in CVP application, such as neglecting volume changes after price increases, leading to the “margin-price-volume death spiral.” The hosts offer practical advice and strategic questions to improve CVP analysis and decision-making, emphasizing the need for accurate costing and a nuanced understanding of market dynamics. Finally, the podcast provides case studies illustrating both successful and unsuccessful CVP implementations.

Read more from the original article.

read more
PODCAST: Your Due Diligence is Most Likely Wrong

PODCAST: Your Due Diligence is Most Likely Wrong

Our Spotify podcast explores why most mergers and acquisitions fail to create value and provides a practical guide to performing a strategic due diligence process.

The hosts The hosts highlight common pitfalls like overpaying for acquisitions, failing to understand the true value of a deal, and neglecting to account for future uncertainties. They emphasize that a successful deal depends on a clear strategic rationale, a thorough understanding of the target’s competitive position, and a comprehensive assessment of potential risks. They then present a four-stage approach to strategic due diligence that incorporates scenario planning and probabilistic simulations to quantify uncertainty and guide decision-making. Finally, they discuss how to navigate deal-making during economic downturns and stress the importance of securing existing businesses, revisiting return measures, prioritizing potential targets, and factoring in potential delays.

Read more from the original article.

read more
PODCAST: Strategy Tools: Growth, Profit or Returns?

PODCAST: Strategy Tools: Growth, Profit or Returns?

Our Spotify podcast explores the relationship between Return on Net Assets (RONA) and growth, arguing that both are essential for shareholder value creation. The hosts contend that focusing solely on one metric can be detrimental, and propose a framework for evaluating business portfolios based on their RONA and growth profiles. This approach involves plotting business units on a “market-cap curve” to identify value-accretive and value-destructive segments.

The podcast also addresses the impact of economic downturns on portfolio management, suggesting strategies for both offensive and defensive approaches. The core argument is that companies should aim to achieve a balance between RONA and growth, acknowledging that both are essential for long-term shareholder value creation.

Read more from the original article – https://globaladvisors.biz/2020/08/04/strategy-tools-growth-profit-or-returns/

read more
Strategy tools: Effective transfer pricing

Strategy tools: Effective transfer pricing

So much has been written about transfer pricing. Yet it remains a bone of contention in almost every organisation. Transfer pricing is not merely a rational challenge – it often raises the emotions of internal service users and providers who argue regarding scope, quality, price and value.

We have found that effective transfer pricing relies on some fairly simple best practices and critical success factors.

Many organisations recover costs as a regular ‘below-the-line’ deduction from operating division income statements. In our experience, charge out is almost always preferable. This results in internal value judgements and negotiation regarding delivery happening closer to time of use.

Internal prices / cost recovery plays a crucial role within an organisation: it ‘price signals’ to the buyer and the supplier of the service. Buyers make economic use decisions and suppliers make resource and capacity decisions. This fundamental function and consequence governs the optimal implementation of internal pricing / cost recovery.

We have typically seen that the realisation that internal pricing plays this role and the consequences of poor implementation are not well understood.

Results of poor transfer pricing implementation

Sub-optimal economic use decisions

Where costs / prices are higher than they should be, buyers pass this on as an inflated cost to their customers, experience margin squeeze, or utilise less of the service than they might have.
Strategically this can lead to incorrect decisions regarding the provision of services to the market and loss of market share.
Where costs / prices are lower than they should be, this can lead to overuse of a product or service and poor cost recovery from external customers.
Strategically this can result in the over promotion and sales of products and services that are achieving lower margins than thought, or that might even be making losses.

Sub-optimal investment and resourcing decisions

Incorrect pricing can lead to over- or under-investment in capacity and product or service quality. Further, the resourcing decisions will be incorrect should the price signal to the supplier be incorrect.

Political and emotional argument

Where buyers are unable to obtain assurance that an internal price is correct, there is typically resentment regarding the cost of the internal product and service and the sheltered position employees of the internal service provider occupy – in the buyer’s eyes free from commercial pressures.
Buyers and suppliers typically also argue regarding the quality of the service or product relative to the price paid.
Suppliers may react to criticism claiming their product or service is strategic in nature and refute its availability in the external markets.

Poor product / service quality

Poor price signals will result in lack of comparable product and service quality benchmarks. This can result in ‘gold-plating’ or poor-quality product and service provision.

Read more at https://globaladvisors.biz/2021/01/06/strategy-tools-effective-transfer-pricing/

read more
Your due diligence is most likely wrong

Your due diligence is most likely wrong

As many as 70 – 90% of deals fail to create value for acquirers. The majority of these deals were the subject of commercial or strategic due diligences (DDs). Many DDs are rubber stamps – designed to motivate an investment to shareholders. Yet the requirements for a value-adding DD go beyond this.

Strategic due diligence must test investees against uncertainty via a variety of methods that include scenarios, probabilised forecasts and stress tests to ensure that investees are value accretive.

Firms that invest during downturns outperform those who don’t. DDs undertaken during downturns have a particularly difficult task – how to assess the future prospects of an investee when the future is so uncertain.

There is clearly an integrated approach to successful due diligence – despite the challenges posed by uncertainty.

Read more…

read more
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
Strategy Tools: Repeatable Business Models in Times of Uncertainty

Strategy Tools: Repeatable Business Models in Times of Uncertainty

By Innocent Dutiro

Innocent is an associate partner at Global Advisors and based in Johannesburg, South Africa

Research (Allen and Zook) tells us that sustained profitable growth and the methods for capturing it are much less about the choice of hot market than about the how and why of strategy and the business model translating it into action. The ongoing Coronavirus crisis is likely to put these beliefs to severe test. It is likely that the survivors and winners that emerge on the other side of the crisis will be businesses that have pursued repeatable business models.

These businesses’ approach to strategy focus less on a rigid plan to pursue growth markets and more on developing a general direction built around deep and uniquely strong capabilities that constantly learn, continuously improve, test, and adjust in manageable increments to the changing market. Repeatable business models enable organizations to distinguish between transient crises and game-changing developments while enabling them to take action that ensures their sustained prosperity. All without compromising on the beliefs that underpin the culture of the organization.

This might sound counterintuitive; how does a repeatable business model help you deal with a “black swan” event such as the COVID-19 pandemic? To answer this question, it is important to understand the three principles that underpin repeatability.

Principle 1: A strong, well-differentiated core

Differentiation drives competitive advantage and relative profitability among businesses. The basis for differentiation must deliver enhanced profitability by either delivering superior service to your core customers or offering cost economics that help you to out-invest your competitors. The unique assets, deep competencies and capabilities that make this differentiation possible and that are translated into behaviours and product features, define the “core of the core” of the business.

Principle 2: Clear non-negotiables

Non-negotiables are the company’s core values and key criteria used to make trade-offs in decision making. These improve the focus and simplicity of strategy by translating it into practical behavioural rules and prohibitions. This reduces the distance from management to the frontline (and back). Employee loyalty and commitment is driven primarily by a strong belief in the values of the management team and the organisation’s strategy. A clearly understood strategy is evidenced through:

  • Widespread understanding of the strategy at all levels within the organization.
  • Seeing the world the same way throughout the organization.
  • A shared vocabulary and priorities.

Principle 3: Systems for closed-loop learning

Self-conscious methods to perceive and adapt to change alongside well-developed systems to learn and drive continuous improvement are hallmarks of successful repeatable business models.

A second form of closed-loop learning is more relevant to a crisis such as the coronavirus as it relates to those less frequent situations when fundamental change in the marketplace (like technology, competition, customer need and behaviour) threatens a key element of the repeatable business model itself. A company’s ability to adapt or have a sufficient sense of urgency in response to a potentially mortal threat is key to survival and continued prosperity.

The various steps that governments are taking to contain and eradicate the virus have the potential of building habits that consumers might choose to adopt on a more permanent basis even after the pandemic. These include working from home, remote meetings, reduced commuting, greater use of online services and more cashless transactions. Businesses thus need to be prepared to adjust and adapt their strategies and business models to meet the demand created by the new behaviours. Firms with a clearly defined set of non-negotiables will find it easier to mobilize their employees towards the necessary change.

While business is currently focused on taking measures to safeguard their staff, serve their customers and preserve cash to ensure liquidity during the period of low demand and/or production, attention should also be turning to steps necessary to adapt strategies to enable competitiveness in the new normal after the pandemic.

read more
Strategy Tools: ‘Price-Volume-Profit’ Part 1 – A strategic take on cost-volume-profit analysis

Strategy Tools: ‘Price-Volume-Profit’ Part 1 – A strategic take on cost-volume-profit analysis

By Eric van Heeswijk and Marc Wilson
Eric is an analyst and Marc is a partner at Global Advisors. Both are based in Johannesburg, South Africa.

Almost every person who has studied financial or management accounting at school or university is probably familiar with cost-volume-profit (CVP) analysis. It should be the basis of financial planning in most companies. However, in our experience, most managers do not apply the analysis and get it wrong in its most basic form (e.g. planning for similar / increased volumes together with price increases). The outcome? At best: results that fail to meet budgets. At worst: firms trigger the “margin-price-volume death spiral”. Whether you are a production manager or a CEO, you should understand how CVP analysis applies to your firm. Your business’s survival may be at stake.

Read more at:
https://globaladvisors.biz/blog/2019/11/28/strategy-tools-price-volume-profit-part-1-a-strategic-take-on-cost-volume-profit-analysis/

read more
Strategy Tools: The Growth-Share Matrix

Strategy Tools: The Growth-Share Matrix

The Growth-Share Matrix was introduced almost 50 years ago by Bruce Henderson and the Boston Consulting Group (BCG). It is considered one of the most iconic strategic planning techniques.

The Growth-Share Matrix is a framework first developed in the 1960s to help companies think about the priority (and resources) that they should give to their different businesses. At the height of its success, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the Growth-Share Matrix (or approaches based on it) was used by about half of all Fortune 500 companies, according to estimates.

The Growth-Share Matrix

The need which prompted The Growth-Share idea was, indeed, that of managing cash-flow. It was reasoned that one of the main indicators of cash generation was relative market share, and one which pointed to cash usage was that of market growth rate:

“To be successful, a company should have a portfolio of products with different growth rates and different market shares. The portfolio composition is a function of the balance between cash flows. High growth products require cash inputs to grow. Low growth products should generate excess cash. Both kinds are needed simultaneously.”—Bruce Henderson.

The two axes of the matrix are relative market share (or the ability to generate cash) and growth (or the need for cash).

For each product or service, the “area” of the circle represents the value of its sales. The growth–share matrix thus offers a “map” of the organization’s product (or service) strengths and weaknesses, at least in terms of current profitability, as well as the likely cashflows.

The matrix puts each of a firm’s businesses into one of four categories. The categories were all given memorable names – cash cow, star, dog and question mark – which helped to push them into the collective consciousness of managers all over the world.

read more
Strategy Tools: Profit from the Core

Strategy Tools: Profit from the Core

Extensive research conducted by Chris Zook and James Allen has shown that many companies have failed to deliver on their growth strategies because they have strayed too far from their core business. Successful companies operate in areas where they have established the “right to win”. The core business is that set of products, capabilities, customers, channels and geographies that maximises their ability to build a right to win. The pursuit of growth in new and exciting often leads companies into products, customers, geographies and channels that are distant from the core. Not only do the non-core areas of the business often suffer in their own right, they distract management from the core business.

Profit from the Core is a back-to-basics strategy which says that developing a strong, well-defined core is the foundation of sustainable, profitable growth. Any new growth should leverage and strengthen the core.

Management following the core methodology should evaluate and prioritise growth along three cyclical steps:

Management following the core methodology should evaluate and prioritise growth along three cyclical steps

Focus – reach full potential in the core

  • Define the core boundaries
  • Strengthen core differentiation at the customer
  • Drive for superior cost economics
  • Mine full potential operating profit from the core
  • Discourage competitive investment in the core

For some companies the definition of the core will be obvious, while for others much debate will be required. Executives can ask directive questions to guide the discussion:

  • What are the business’ natural economic boundaries defined by customer needs and basic economics?
  • What products, customers, channels and competitors do these boundaries encompass?
  • What are the core skills and assets needed to compete effectively within that competitive arena?
  • What is the core business as defined by those customers, products, technologies and channels through which the company can earn a return today and compete effectively with current resources?
  • What is the key differentiating factor that makes the company unique to its core customers?
  • What are the adjacent areas around the core?
  • Are the definitions of the business and industry likely to shift resulting in a change of the competitive and customer landscape?

Expand – grow through adjacencies

  • Protect and extend strengths
  • Expand into related adjacencies
  • Push the core boundaries out
  • Pursue a repeatable growth formula

Companies should expand in a measured basis, pursuing growth opportunities in immediate and sensible adjacencies to the core. A useful tool for evaluating opportunities is the adjacency map, which is constructed by identifying the key core descriptors and mapping opportunities based on their proximity to the core along each descriptor. An example adjacency map is presented below:

Adjacency Map

Redefine – evaluate if the core definition should be changed

  • Pursue profit pools of the future
  • Redefine around new and robust differentiation
  • Strengthen the operating platform before redefining strategy
  • Fully value the power of leadership economics
  • Invest heavily in new capabilities

Executives should ask guiding questions to determine whether the core definition is still relevant.

  • Is the core business confronted with a radically improved business model for servicing its customers’ needs?
  • Are the original boundaries and structure of the core business changing in complicated ways?
  • Is there significant turbulence in the industry that may result in the current core definition becoming redundant?

The questions can help identify whether the company should redefine their core and if so, what type of redefinition is required:

Core redefinition

The core methodology should be followed and reviewed on an on-going basis. Management must perform the difficult balancing act of ensuring they are constantly striving to grow and reach full potential within the core, looking for new adjacencies which strengthen and leverage the core and being alert and ready for the possibility of redefining the core.

Source: 1 Zook, C – 2001 – “Profit From The Core” – Cambridge, M.A. – Harvard Business School Press
2 Van den Berg, G; Pietersma, P – 2014 – “25 need-to-know strategy tools” – Harlow – FT Publishing

read more
Strategy Tools: Opportunity/vulnerability matrix – “The Bananagram”

Strategy Tools: Opportunity/vulnerability matrix – “The Bananagram”

Logic suggests that high relative market share (RMS) should translate into higher profitability (unless the firm was not using its potential advantages or pricing to penetrate the market further). This suggests that a “normative curve / band” exists to describe this phenomenon i.e. the expected profitability of the average business segment in a particular industry according to normal expectations conditional on the segment’s relative market share. This normative band is shown in the figure below as the area between the two curves.

The Opportunity / Vulnerability Matrix
The Opportunity / Vulnerability Matrix

The curve is best explained using data / businesses that have been correctly segmented. In practice such data can only be obtained after analysing the organisation and having a good understanding of any relationships. The band used to be shown coloured yellow, hence the chart became known as a “bananagram”.

The implication of the curve is that high relative market share positions, correctly segmented, are valuable segments / businesses. Managers should therefore strive to achieve / participate in these segments / businesses.

Another implication, in some ways obscured focusing primarily on the growth share matrix (especially where “dogs” are concerned), is that it is useful to improve relative market share in a business segment whatever the starting position. The bananagram enables one to calculate a rough estimate of the equilibrium profitability to be expected from any particular position (relative market share). Therefore it is possible to estimate the potential benefit of moving any particular segment position against the cost of doing so – extra marketing spend, product development or lower prices. This allows one to quantitatively assess whether it is worth trying to raise RMS and which segment / business investments give the best return to shareholders.

Empirical evidence suggests that the majority of observations would fall between the two curved lines and it would be unusual for businesses to fall outside this band. There are two possible positions where a business segment can find itself outside of the two curved lines – this is depicted in the figure below.

The Opportunity / Vulnerability Matrix – Example
The Opportunity / Vulnerability Matrix Example

Business A is earning (for example) 45 per cent return on net capital employed, a good return, but is in a weak relative market share position (say 0,5x, or only half the size of the segment leader). The theory and empirical data from the matrix suggests that the combination of these two positions is at best anomalous, and probably unsustainable. Business A is therefore in the “vulnerability” part of the matrix. The expectation must be that in the medium term, either the business must improve its relative market share position to sustain its profitability (the dotted arrow moving left), or that it will decline in profitability (to about break-even). Why should this happen? Well, the banana indicates that the market leader in this business may well be earning 40 percent or even more ROCE in the segment. What may be happening is that the leader is holding a price umbrella over the market, that is, is pricing unsustainably high, so that even the competitors with weak market share are protected from normal competition (especially where pricing is concerned). What happens if the market leader suddenly cuts prices by 20 percent? They will still earn a good return, but the weaker competitors will not. The leader may opt to provide extra product benefits or services, instead of lowering prices, but the effect would still be a margin cut. It is as well to know that business A is vulnerable. If relative market share cannot be improved, it is sensible to sell it before the profitability declines.

Now let’s look at business B. This is a business in a strong relative market share position – the leader in its segment, five times larger than its nearest rival. It is earning 2 percent ROCE. This is a wonderful business to find. The theory and practical data suggest that such a business should be making 40 percent ROCE, not 2 percent. Nine times out of ten when such businesses are found, it is possible to make them very much more profitable, usually by radical cost reduction (often involving restructure), but sometimes through radical improvement of service and product offering to the customer at a low extra cost to the supplier, but enabling a large price hike to be made. Managements of particular businesses very often become complacent with historical returns and think it is impossible to raise profits in a step function to three, four or five times their current level. The bananagram challenges that thinking for leadership segment positions, and usually the bananagram is proved right. After all, high relative market share implies huge potential advantages; but these must be earned and exploited, as they do not automatically disgorge huge profits.

Source: Koch, R – “Financial Times Guides Strategy” – Fourth edition – Prentice Hall – page 313-316

read more
Strategy Tools: The Ansoff Matrix

Strategy Tools: The Ansoff Matrix

The Ansoff Matrix is a strategic-planning tool that provides a framework to help executives, senior managers, and marketers devise strategies for future growth. It is named after Russian American Igor Ansoff, who came up with the concept. Ansoff suggested that there were effectively only two approaches to developing a growth strategy; through varying what is sold (product growth) and who it is sold to (market growth).

“When we are in peak, we make a ton of money, as soon as we make a ton of money, we are desperately looking for ways to spend it. And we diversify into areas that, frankly, we don’t know how to run very well,” mused Bill Ford, great grandson of Henry. Ford’s story is neither unique nor new and companies often choose sub-optimal growth paths.

Igor Ansoff created the product / market matrix to illustrate the inherent risks in four generic growth strategies:

  1. Market penetration / consumption – the firm seeks to achieve growth with existing products in their current market segments, aiming to increase market share.
  2. Market development – the firm seeks growth by pushing its existing products into new market segments.
  3. Product development – the firm develops new products targeted to its existing market segments.
  4. Diversification – the firm grows by developing new products for new markets.

Ansoff’s Matrix
Ansoff's Matrix

Selecting a Product-Market growth strategy

Market penetration / consumption

Market penetration and consumption covers products that are existent in an existing market. In this strategy, there can be further exploitation of the products without necessarily changing the product or the outlook of the product. This will be possible through the use of promotional methods, putting various pricing policies that may attract more clientele, or one can make the distribution more extensive.

Market penetration or consumption can also be increased is by coming up with various initiatives that will encourage increased usage of the product. A good example is the usage of toothpaste. Research has shown that the toothbrush head influences the amount of toothpaste that one will use. Thus if the head of the toothbrush is bigger it will mean that more toothpaste will be used thus promoting the usage of the toothpaste and eventually leading to more purchase of the toothpaste.

In market penetration / consumption, the risk involved is usually the least since the products are already familiar to the consumers and so is the established market.

Market development

In this strategy, the business sells its existing products to new markets. This can be made possible through further market segmentation to aid in identifying a new clientele base. This strategy assumes that the existing markets have been fully exploited thus the need to venture into new markets. There are various approaches to this strategy, which include: new geographical markets, new distribution channels, new product packaging, and different pricing policies.

Going into new geographies could involve launching the product in a completely different market. A good example is Guinness. This beer had originally been made to be sold in countries that have a colder climate, but now it is also being sold in African countries.

New distribution channels could entail selling the products via e-commerce or mail order. Selling through e-commerce may capture a larger clientele base since we are in a digital era where most people access the internet often. In new product packaging, it means repacking the product in another method or dimension. That way it may attract a different customer base. In different pricing policies, the business could change its prices so as to attract a different customer base or create a new market segment.

Product development

With a product-development growth strategy, a new product is introduced into existing markets. Product development can be from the introduction of a new product in an existing market or it can involve the modification of an existing product. By modifying the product one could change its outlook or presentation, increase the product’s performance or quality. By doing so, it can be more appealing to the existing market. A good example is car manufacturers who offer a range of car parts so as to target the car owners in purchasing additional products.

Diversification

This growth strategy involves an organisation marketing or selling new products to new markets at the same time. It is the most risky strategy as it involves two unknowns:

  • New products are being created and the business does not know the development problems that may occur in the process.
  • There is also the fact that there is a new market being targeted, which will bring the problem of having unknown characteristics.

For a business to take a step into diversification, they need to have their facts right regarding what it expects to gain from the strategy and have a clear assessment of the risks involved. There are two types of diversification – related diversification and unrelated diversification.

In related diversification, the business remains in the same industry in which it is currently operating. For example, a cake manufacturer diversifies into fresh-juice manufacturing. This diversification is within the food industry.

In unrelated diversification, there are usually no previous industry relations or market experiences. One can diversify from a food industry into the personal-care industry. A good example of the unrelated diversification is Richard Branson. He took advantage of the Virgin brand and diversified into various fields such as entertainment, air and rail travel, foods, etc.

Conclusion

The Ansoff matrix gives managers a framework for surveying all the initiatives the business has under way – how many are being pursued in each realm and how much investment is going to each type, and also allows managers to understand the risks and thus probability of success of each initiative.

To use the tool effectively, a company may take its sales initiatives for the next 3-5 years and place them in each of the quadrants in the matrix and analyse which quadrant shows the greatest uplift in sales. If it is in existing products to existing or new markets, or new products to existing products, there should be no cause for alarm. If it is in the new products to new markets quadrant, then this will require a greater effort at greater risk.

Companies that focus on the three quadrants other than diversification find more success as these strategies are built on familiar skills in production, purchasing, sales and marketing. An HBR study found that companies that invested 70% of their resources in core operations i.e. the market penetration quadrant, out-performed those that did not.

A diversification strategy operates in a higher plane of risk than the other three strategies. Superficially attractive and practiced by many companies, it is distracting and absorbs a disproportionately high proportion of managerial and engineering resources due to the lack of familiarity with the new venture.

Sources

  1. Evans, V – “25 need-to-know strategy tools” – FT Publishing – 2014
  2. Anonymous – “Ansoff Matrix” – Strategic Management – Quick MBA – http://www.quickmba.com/strategy/matrix/ansoff/
  3. Anonymous – “What is the Ansoff matrix?” – http://www.ansoffmatrix.com/
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansoff_Matrix
  5. Nagji, B; Tuff, G – “Managing Your Innovation Portfolio” – Harvard Business Review – 2012 – https://hbr.org/2012/05/managing-your-innovation-portfolio
read more
Strategy Tools: Pareto (80/20) analysis

Strategy Tools: Pareto (80/20) analysis

Pareto (80/20) analysis - illustrative example

Pareto Analysis is a statistical technique for decision making that is used for selecting a number of tasks that produce significant overall effect.1 It is based on the Pareto Principle (the 80/20 rule) which states that by doing 20% of the work you can generate 80% of the benefit of doing the whole job. The Pareto Analysis is named after Vilfredo Pareto, an Italian economist who lived in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In 1897, he presented a formula that showed that income was distributed unevenly, with about 80% of the wealth in the hands of about 20% of the people.2

The figures 80 and 20 are illustrative; the Pareto Principle illustrates the lack of symmetry that often appears between work put in and results achieved. For example, 13% of work could generate 87% of returns. Or 70% of problems could be resolved by dealing with 30% of the causes. The sum of the two numbers does not need to add up to 100 all the time.

The following conclusions are illustrative of potential Pareto outcomes2:

  • 80% of customer complaints arise from 20% of your products or services.
  • 80% of delays in schedule arise from 20% of the possible causes of the delays.
  • 20% of your products or services account for 80% of your profit.
  • 20% of your sales-force produces 80% of your company revenues.
  • 20% of a system’s defects cause 80% of its problems.
read more
Strategy Tools: The GE Matrix

Strategy Tools: The GE Matrix

The GE matrix is a nine cell portfolio matrix first developed by General Electric in the 1970s which was used as a tool for screening large portfolios of business units or product lines. It is based on the idea that determining an appropriate level of investment for a business depends on both the attractiveness of the market and the businesses current capability in that market. Industry attractiveness and business unit strength are calculated by identifying a number of criteria and applying a weighting to each to come to a combined figure for its positioning on the graph. It is similar to the growth-share matrix in that it maps the strategic business units relative to their position within the industry. The axes of industry attractiveness and business unit strength are comparable to the market growth and market share axes of the growth-share matrix. The tool could be used to decide what products or business units should be added to or removed from a portfolio or which markets to exit/enter, and as a result how investment should be prioritised across the business.

read more

Download brochure

Introduction brochure

What we do, case studies and profiles of some of our amazing team.

Download

Our latest podcasts on Spotify

Sign up for our newsletters - free

Global Advisors | Quantified Strategy Consulting