business & management

Why companies in Asia are finally going to need real strategy (even if they don’t know it yet)

/ παρακοιμώμενος / Leave a comment

Most think they have been strategic, when in reality they have just been gambling

My LinkedIn has been showing the first signs of waking up, in recent months, to roles centred around ‘strategy’. This broad term takes into account a range of positions, all of which are yet nebulous, but which nonetheless are being formulated by leadership. This reflects the changing nature of corporate life in the Asia region, where companies are struggling to grow the way they want – but most have not yet worked out why.

To quote one friend of mine, with a background in family offices, “a lot of Asian fortunes are going to be lost in the next decade or two” – principally (though not solely) due to declining asset prices in real estate. Urgency and heroism at these family groups are what is needed, but either these characteristics are not present in the generation governing them, or that energy does not have a constructive home.

The true scale of slowdown in the region has not yet been recognised. Corporate owners generally are too illiterate to distinguish between real and nominal GDP growth (an issue I have written plenty about before); comfortable board rooms in Hong Kong, Singapore or London survey Asia as a market which has slowed – but just a little. After all, real GDP in China dropped from some 10% on average in the first decade of the millennium, to some 7% in the second until 2019 (it has since spooked markets by generating only 5% over the Covid years). SE Asia was never quite that high, with GDP averaging around 5% in both decades. All pretty healthy.

But corporate top lines and bottom-lines are not real, they are nominal. And importantly, nominal GDP fell precipitously over the same period, almost halving in local currency terms from over 18% to 10% over the two decades (in USD term, growth rates have been even lower).

Source: World Bank (full notes at end)

In other words, the age of Asian growth is over. We are well past the phase of the rising tide – not just in China, but more or less across the region. This impacts both corporate performance, as well as property prices. Asian groups have, on the whole, seen their returns stagnate over the last decade compared to the decade before; and importantly they have fallen in line with nominal GDP growth – in other words they are ‘maxing out’ their ability to squeeze more. They have been able to outstrip GDP here and there, but it started running out of wiggle room well before the change in interest rates which seems likely to be with us for some time. Now, the future of growth looks even bleaker.

Source: CapIQ (full notes at end)

So where does this leave us? The reality is that most corporates in Asia have not really had a ‘strategy’ per se, even if they claimed to have. Instead, they made bets in a benign environment, where they really did not have to be very clever to make money. Most sectors across the board grew decently in a +18% CAGR world. Furthermore, a majority of these family groups already owned assets – principally prime real estate – which rewarded rent-seeking and minimised the need for innovation. Where such groups did venture into the unknown (Adrian Cheng in Hong Kong being perhaps the most prominent), things did not go so well. These businesses do not just need a new strategy, they need a strategy in the first place.

So what is ‘strategy’? Well first, it is easier to understand what strategy for such groups is not, particularly some frequent misperceptions and conflations.

  1. Strategy is not tactics (destination is needed before details)
  2. Strategy is not budgets (even though finance is how control is maintained)
  3. Strategy is not transactions (deals come only after we know direction)

Strategy is about what you want to be as an entity, and the broad direction of how to get there. In Asia, the biggest omission from corporate owners (who tend to be family) is not focusing enough on coherence and identity. Conglomerates are perfectly acceptable in their way; we have, since the rise of the tech giants on either side of the Pacific, witnessed a renewed era of conglomeration in the form of Google, Amazon, Tencent and Alibaba. Single sector focus is not important or the only key to generating shareholder value. Rather, bringing together wildly different businesses can be successful where the overall narrative of who you are still holds. You do not need to have operational synergies in order to have an ownership cohesion of even a sprawling empire.

‘Strategy’ is also about power. The preeminent objective for family groups in Asia, with minorities playing a lesser role, is preservation and the ability to keep your destiny in your own hands. Near-term returns are important; dividends are crucial; but above all else, is it control which is paramount. Life is a constant battle for control – against the government, against competitors, against suppliers, against customers. Strategic thinking is designed to look beyond the financials to the power dynamics in the market – for instance owning the loss-making delivery business which allows control of consumption for your upstream FMCG, or owning the low margin bank that finances speculative capital in new industries.

The purpose of ‘strategy’ is therefore to solve the triangle of dynamic forces which determine how a group can move forward. Capabilities either exist or need to be cultivated or acquired; opportunities need to be identified, sourced and validated; and the ability to invest, either through equity or debt or partnerships, has to be planned.

The tricky part is that moving each of these impacts the other two, and ‘strategy’ is therefore about determining how best to balance them to reach the overall aim and keep your identity. Buying new capability through M&A, say, might expand your opportunity set, but weigh on your balance sheet. Restricting your gearing risks not just limiting your opportunities to invest, but also stretch your existing resources in management.

But central to all of this – and where Asian family businesses are particularly lacking – is the need to build or maintain a true identity about who you are and where you are doing. In this region in particular, business owners undervalue how much identity is needed as a pay-off for lack of financial incentivisation and a demand for loyalty (same in politics). Hence identity sits and the very heart of how to think about ‘strategy’, a sine qua non from which all other plans flow. You need a cadre of people who remain loyal to the cause and hence work to protect a family’s interests across generations. They need, more or less, to feel like they are part of a partnership in the traditional sense; mercenary superstar management is the death-knell of the family conglomerate.

Which brings us to organisation. Lots of people think that they “do” strategy; yet more others have such a title; a third group really need to be strategic. The problem is, the three rarely converge. People confuse strategy with tactics, ‘strategy’ titles often mean doing M&A, and leadership is often bogged down trying to manage stakeholders and incremental decisions to really think strategically. Divisions and subsidiaries cannot be left alone to decide their own fates; their management is rightly limited to seeing things through the prism of their own industry. They cannot offer holistic views about the portfolio and they are not positioned to leverage the strengths of a group overall.

Yet ‘strategy’ is too much for just the Chairman or CEO to undertake, and still less the CFO – although financial control remains key. Getting ownership to think about identity and vision is a skill, and it needs focus. It needs one or more thoroughly invested people at or near the top to shape it and keep the flame alive. As discussed above, there are a range of titles or roles that reach across the spectrum of what I call “strategic finance” – both vision and execution.

And ‘strategy’ will only get more important. Some family groups still live under the auspices of an all-dominant chairman; others want to believe that they should interfere less in their businesses. But one thing binds them both: they underestimate the necessity of a wider, more bought-in middle who understand both the family and the firm, and who are invested in the strategic long-term wellbeing of both. Doing better is not about doing less or doing more, it is about understanding what is strategic and what is not – whether in capital allocation, M&A, organisational structure, portfolio evolution, employment programmes, partnerships or even investor relations.

The urgency and heroism mentioned at the beginning is what Asian family groups will need to survive. They may get lucky with the scion which comes to power, but with or without that, they will need to embrace all those things they found too intellectual, too esoteric, too academic; they will have to start doing ‘strategy’.

Notes:

  1. For GDP growth, data set is in GDP current LCU
  2. “Emerging Asia” comprises China, Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, Philippines and Indonesia
  3. “Total Asia” comprises above plus Japan and Korea
  4. “Asian conglomerates” comprises Jardine Matheson, Astra International, CP ALL, Keppel, YTL, First Pacific, Uni-President, Sime Darby, Swire Pacific, ThaiBev, SM, CITIC, Ayala and JG Summit
  5. “Asian property groups” comprises Hongkong Land, Sun Hung Kai, Swire Properties, Henderson, New World, CK ASSET and Wharf REIC
  6. “Japanese trading houses” comprises Marubeni, Itochu, Mitsui, Mitsubishi and Toyota Tsusho

25 years on, who really won the battle over Rolls Royce and Bentley?

/ παρακοιμώμενος / 1 Comment
Best of German carmaking

Just over 25 years ago, an intricate set of corporate activities led to the former Rolls Royce car business, which included Bentley, to be owned by German acquirers. When all shook out, Volkswagen acquired the operations at Crewe and the Bentley brand, while BMW got the rights to create a new concept using the name “Rolls Royce”.

First, we should be clear that Rolls Royce since 2003, successful though it has been, is a ‘phantom’ [sic] marque. Rather like Mercedes’ attempt with Maybach, it has nothing to do with the Rolls Royce of old but rather is the upscale concept that BMW wanted to create to fill a hole in its offering.

Secondly, it is worth noting that in the real economy, rather differently to much of the digital economy of today, real assets and people are worth money. What VW acquired – and wanted – was the factory, the engineers and designers, the back catalogue and experience – of the Rolls Royce entity. That was, rightly, considered to be worth more than just the brand around the Rolls Royce. In dilettante reporting of the time, it appeared to be some major sleight of hand that BMW emerged with the brand name after VW had handed over £430m for the business. But for observers beyond the bankers and bloggers, VW were perceived to have gotten their money’s worth – and more.

So who has done better since? Well arguably this was a win-win where both carmakers did well with what they took on. While in absolute terms, Bentley has gone on to sell three times the number of vehicles Rolls Royce has (some 200,000 since acquisition, compared to about 65,000 RRs), BMW sell their cars at more than the price of a Bentley.

Total numbers of vehicles sold per year

Source: company accounts

The boring petrol-head bit

The two brands have pursued rather different strategies given who their owners were. VW, while it already had Audi in the stable (but well before it owned Porsche) wanted Bentley to provide a sporting edge which could be scaled up, rather than owning a ‘limousine’ marque. It therefore pushed the new Continental GT, a model which overnight became a success for London bankers and LA rappers alike. For BMW though, the RR brand was very much about creating a classic luxury saloon (if that can really be used for RR) sitting above their already-premium 7-series.

As mentioned elsewhere, VW went about their strategy by providing the patented W12 engine, a personal project of chairman Ferdinand Piëch, used in their unsuccessful Phaeton luxury saloon adventure, to the team at Crewe. Other than this, and giving the Bentley management a general steer on wanting to see a GT, they left the British business to get on with it – with excellent results. With the arrival of Porsche into the mix a decade later in 2012 though, VW finally started getting serious about the saloon segment, with the launch of the Flying Spur and the Mulsanne. Later again it was coming of the Bentayga, the implausible and slightly absurd Bentley SUV, which has sustained sales in recent years.

BMW went a different direction since they were starting with a clean slate. Working outside of the business over the first five years until 2003, designer and Munich-lifer Marek Djordjevic came up with the Phantom model that would kick-start German ownership of the brand. Sales were boosted again with the launch of the Ghost in 2010, the more affordable line of saloons, but in recent years it is the even more implausible and even more absurd Rolls Royce SUV, the Cullinan, which has been the catalyst – comprising more than 50% of sales since its launch and reaching almost 60% in some years. While Bentley has also had success with the SUV, it has never formed as large a part of its portfolio.

In other words, since 2003 Bentley has really lived off the Continental GT offering, reflecting its racing heritage, while Rolls Royce remained a limousine maker who have evolved into SUVs.

The important bit

Rolls Royce, anecdotally, has always been able to price a like-for-like car at a 30%-50% premium to Bentley since they were each taken over. A Wraith costs more than a Continental GT for instance, and the Ghost costs more than a Flying Spur. However taken as a whole, since introducing the Ghost in 2010 BMW has ended up with a portfolio of cheaper price points on average than VW, as total revenue per vehicle shows:

How this has translated into hard profits for their owners is more complicated. The fact is that neither of these businesses have delivered huge amounts of outright profit. Bentley managed to record a bottom line of £684m in 2022, a record, but since 2003 has dipped in and out of profitability overall. RR has managed to record a small and consistent profit over the same period, culminating in a £97m bottom line in 2022. On an adjusted, pre-R&D basis, Bentley has recorded a 21% profit margin over the last decade, compared with 8% for Rolls Royce. In the context of VW’s and BMW’s overall earnings of €15.8bn and €18.6bn respectively, these are drops in the ocean. Bentley accounts for 4.4% of VW’s earnings; RR just 0.5% of BMW’s.

Moreover, the Rolls Royce profit is overstated since BMW does not push R&D costs into the Goodwood accounts. In fact, it is likely still not profitable after two decades of operation. Bentley, due to its Crewe location being self-sufficient, has spent on average £322m on R&D per year over the last decade, leading to several years in the red. One can assume either that Rolls Royce really is just using BMW 7-series intellectual property, or it is spending similar amounts which would imply substantial ongoing losses, of at least -£100m per year as an educated guess. For what it’s worth, Bentley probably wins the financial battle comfortably.

Of course, both are growing, and as noted previously have been growing faster than their owners as a whole, at high single digit CAGR for revenues and even higher profit growth. However both are yet to fully face the challenges of electrification, though BMW are arguably ahead of VW in technology for that (Volvo / Geely, via its Polestar brand, as a full high end EV performance car which serves as a template for what these two venerable names might look to).

Conclusion

Ultimately, the consensus seems to be that both sides got what they wanted out of these brands when they battled to acquire it in 1998. VW got a sporty brand that could scale, which it has done; BMW got a limousine brand which was not designed to be scalable but to really create a layer above its premium positioning. VW wanted the hard assets of the former business including the factory and staff, given the failure of Phaeton; BMW had most of its platform already available for use and could staff up its new Goodwood facility internally. That explained the difference in pricing – BMW spent £50m on the brand and then some £100m on building the new factory, compared with the £430m VW spent buying a going concern. Bentley is meaningfully profitable though, whereas Rolls Royce has yet to contribute financially.

What neither side anticipated then, but both reacted to, was the rise of the SUV, which perhaps suited the saloon platform better than a sport GT one. Each side has done well but RR has really taken off on its SUV offering; the EV challenge will be next. At the end of the day though, the real benefits will have to be chalked up to ‘intangibles’ including prestige for the owner and, one assumes, spillover benefits from any R&D linked to these luxury marques. It is probably really us, the consumer, who has benefited from these two auto giants deciding to maintain what are basically hobby horses; if the Germans were not so vain, we probably would not have the cars we enjoy today ….

Appendix

How acquirers of car brands – even Chinese ones – can succeed

/ παρακοιμώμενος / Leave a comment

Cars have had a long innings as possibly the most globalised consumer product around is. By which I mean, they have broadly been the product category about which consumers see supply as a single world-wide market: whether you live in Belgium, Brazil or Brunei, you would still be mostly buying cars from the same top ten or so global producers for the last decades. If you are rich, you would probably be looking at the German makers, and latterly Lexus. If you are middle class you might be settling for other Japanese or European brands. If you were stupid you might buy American – but then, not even Americans do much of that.

Another way of looking at it is that cars have had the longest ‘globalisation window’ of almost any product category. As a country develops, it initially prefers foreign brands and the qualities they bring. But when a country really develops, consumption starts to re-indigenise. For instance, while cars and, say, food products both tend to globalise early, people return to their own taste in food quite soon after they become middle class (partly reflecting the lower barriers to (re-)entry). The speed with which McDonald’s or Yum localise compared to Volkswagen is telling.

In part this is because a carmaking industry is actually difficult to establish: Taiwan, for instance, despite having a steel sector, has never managed to create cars; Korea did manage to, but only after throwing the entire weight of its economic development behind that push; Malaysia threw its weight behind the effort, too, but with mixed results. People often refer to the building of aircraft carriers, or a space programme, as the symbol of a country’s total integrated industrial capability, but on a much more mundane level, so are cars.

All this combines to shape the global landscape in automotive OEMs, which have consequently undertaken enormous amounts of M&A over the years – almost all of which have been unsuccessful. Daimler’s ‘merger of equals’ with Chrysler in 1998 went so poorly that it is subject of business school case studies; while the ‘alliance’ between Renault and Nissan – undertaken a year later and heralded as a counterpoint to that merger – itself became mired in problems. Ford made numerous acquisitions of other brands over the years including Jaguar (1989), Volvo (1999) and Land Rover (2000), before selling all of them at a loss. Aston Martin was an honourable exception which proves the rule. GM did even worse that Ford – both Saab and Daewoo more or less shut down.

So successful automotive acquisitions are worth considering, and when one of those is a rare example of successful Chinese overseas industrial investment, even more so. Below are a few examples of ‘takeovers’ of well-known car brands in recent years, and their performance afterwards.

Vehicle sales CAGR since acquisition

Note: parenthesis indicates year of effective acquisition; Rolls Royce and Aston Martin not strictly ‘acquired’, for different reasons

There are a lot of details which I will not go into here, for instance the story behind Rolls Royce and BMW (the subject of another post), suffice to say that quite a few of these marques have had success over a long period of this century. To put this in context, over the same approximate period as above, the main carmakers have seen growth ranging from +4% (the Germans) to -1% (the Americans). So to understand why these acquisitions have helped practically, I will focus unashamedly on the two cars I personally own: Bentley and Volvo.

The history of Bentley and Rolls Royce is again a post for elsewhere, but Volkswagen essentially bought a faded business selling just 400 cars in 1998. For five years they dwelt on the business and how to get the best from leveraging VW’s broader platform, and in 2003 they completely reinvented the brand. Handing over the patented W12 engine – a slightly eccentric and personal project of chairman Ferdinand Piëch – the new owners steered Bentley back to their sporting roots and create the new Continental GT. The car took off, shooting sales instantly to over the 5,000 unit mark where it has remained and grown. Possibly no car better signifies reinvention than this one and VW undoubtedly gave Bentley a new lease of life.

A few years later in 2010, Chinese carmaker Geely shocked the motor world by buying Volvo, then owned by Ford. Driven by another chairman, Li Shufu, this was a test case for Chinese overseas acquisitions in an age where it was slightly less controversial. Observers expected either a total takeover or completely detachment, but as with VW and Bentley, Geely took a nuanced middle way of gentle guidance and leverage of the broader platform. Again, the new owner mulled for five years or so before pushing the redesign of the XC90 SUV in 2015, which saw Volvo’s sleepy sales take off; in 2018 it trumped this with a new version of the XC60 and Volvo’s position as one of the most popular premium SUV brands was cemented. Volvo grew unit sales by 10% CAGR between 2014-2019 prior to Covid, the vast majority of them these two models.

Both these examples show that automotive M&A can work, when there are clear alignments: first, the buyer needs to have a clear idea of what exactly they are intending to do with the new brand; secondly, they should not rush to impose changes, but take time to understand the asset; and lastly, the buyer needs underlying platform benefits to add. The case of Tata, whose control of JLR has been more mixed, is a case in point: they have not really added much to either Jaguar or Land Rover, and while the latter benefited from the global demand for luxury SUVs, Jaguar has been in stasis. Volvo, on the other hand, will be receiving the full support of Chinese EV technology, future proofing the brand yet further.

My final point reflects an earlier post I made about the quality of FID. For the UK and Sweden, these two acquisitions are exactly as hoped: inbound investment and employment but importantly, technology and IP continuing to grow at home. Bentley and Volvo remain unmistakably British and Swedish endeavours to be proud of, regardless of their owners. The same cannot be said for the low-quality investment that MPs so desperately fuss over, such as Nissan’s ‘flagship’ EV investment into Sunderland. Here, the IP is not British, and neither will the skills be; Britain’s sole role in this is to be cheaper and less regulated than its neighbours – not a desirable or sustainable model. While the volumes coming out of Crewe and Goodwood plants are much fewer, the long-term value-add to the UK is much, much greater.

Mozart and the “Concerto Model” of corporate management

/ παρακοιμώμενος / Leave a comment

There is a lot to learn from musicians – but it may not be the lessons you might think

Score of Mozart’s Piano Concerto No. 20 in D minor, K. 466

Mozart is considered one of the the greatest of composers in part because he managed to convey both his iconic lyricism as well as pathos across so many different forms. His piano and violin sonatas are sublime; quartets and chamber music absorbing; the body of his choral work, including the masses, are transcendent; and his symphonies went on to inform the whole genre for a century or more.

But amongst musicians, it is commonly considered that there were two types of composition in which even Mozart reached unfathomable heights not only of musicianship, but of intellect. They are his concertos and his operas. Because whilst he expressed the solo voice with great eloquence, and whilst he marshalled the collective with great aplomb, it was in these two forms where soloist and ensemble combined into the most sophisticated and final state of music.

Concertos are a funny thing. The etymology of the term is sometimes misunderstood to be about working together – the Italian term concertare now means literally “to harmonise”. Yet in fact the origins are not from the Italian but rather the Latin, where the same word means “to compete” or “to struggle”. And here is the rub: concertos juxtapose the incision of the solo voice with a background of the group – both indispensable, both mutually dependent. It is an inherently unstable equilibrium pitting two forces against each other, and from its complications comes the greatest beauty.

There are strong parallels to the world of corporate management. A small startup may be considered like a solo performer, a single person’s aura. As a company grows, it might become like string quartet, then a chamber ensemble, then perhaps a fully fledged orchestra with all the bells and whistles including the office boy whose only job is to strike the triangle once in a while (as was, I believe, the role of Sir Simon Rattle as a boy in the Liverpool Youth Orchestra). As it grows, so also arises the need for a conductor, or a CEO, to set the tempo and steer the style without, usually, being too overbearing.

The CEO as he should be

But, in the corporate world, progress through these ranks of scale – even though they allow for the creation of ever greater music – generally loses the voice of the soloist. One might argue that the Principal Violin survives, perhaps equivalent to a COO. But generally the creativity of the individuals is very much subservient to the collective, and just as for much of the orchestral landscape, discipline in the style of a Lully is prized, so also shareholders (the audience) tend to reward monolithicism in the company.

Yet I believe that as with concertos, a greater result can be had by allowing one or more excessively skilled individuals doing their best, expressing themselves, whilst the majority of the employees get on with doing their day jobs. How do modern companies accommodate the soloist? The short answer is that they more or less do not. Corporate culture is the very definition of stifling of the individual.

Which is a shame, since in many cases they would achieve much more by finding a way to bring the best out of their more mercurial stars. Most such talents will recognise the necessity of the orchestra playing with them hand-in-hand; and most of the orchestra will understand the extent to which their overall performance is being elevated by the “stars” – after all, it brings paying customers through the doors.

The “Concerto Model” of management is not easy to achieve. For a start, it requires a conductor or CEO who is assured of where their work ends and the musicians begins. It also benefits from an orchestra containing enough people of merit, self confidence and experience to understand the music and why the stars are necessary. This model is not always necessary of course, for smaller ensembles simply playing Haydn quartets; or for larger orchestras who want nothing more than to be known for their rendition of Dvorak’s Slavonic Dances rather than his Cello Concerto.

But when it works, it surely is more astonishing a musical offering than anything else. To my mind, a well functioning company should sound like the second movement of Tchaikovsky’s Piano Concerto No 2, in itself one of the great piano expositions, but where the orchestra as a whole, and particularly the violin and cello soloist, and then the full fanfare, play their part:

The point is, that with good leadership, nobody needs to be reduced to the ranks and the audience and the musicians themselves can lean into and enjoy internal the striving and competition – all of which is for the greater good. To quote Heraclitus, polemos pater panton. For those that dare, musicians or managers, the world awaits.

Just how rich is Tottenham Hotspur, really? Not very.

/ παρακοιμώμενος / Leave a comment

Daniel Levy

With the virus having suspended football, this seems like a good moment to finally sit down and look at exactly how “rich” Tottenham Hotspur is as a football club, and therefore think about the question of how much we can afford to spend.

The Swiss Ramble recently performed its annual analysis of Spurs’ finances, and it is an exercise I like and admire very much since it attempts to put into perspective the club’s performance and context amongst the elite. Yet it has a major limitation, which is that it focuses almost exclusively on “profitability”, as this excerpt shows:

Swiss Ramble

Source: Swiss Ramble twitter account

The problem, of course, is that profitability tells us very little about cash available, since the items on the P&L (including the profits after taxes) are mostly not real cash items. Instead they are filled with such concepts as depreciation and the gains recognized on the sale of players as assets. Essentially, these are accounting items. And I find it a dangerous way to look at a football club because it raises false expectations about how “rich” we are and therefore how much we should be able to pay for transfers.

I prefer to apply a financial perspective by looking at football clubs as one would any other business, through the company’s balance sheet and cashflow statements. The balance sheet gives us a sense of how indebted the company might be. But more importantly I like to look at the cashflow statement for a few reasons:

  1. Real cash items – the cashflow statement gets rid of non-cash items such as depreciation and replaces it with real cash such as capex
  2. Transfers – it more accurately captures the actual money going in and out on transfers including all hidden costs as well as payments spread over time – a £60m fee paid over three years should be seen as such and not lumped into one number
  3. Stadium investment – it captures all hidden costs but also allows for financing raised against the project, ending the “the stadium pays for itself” speculation.

Helpfully most financial accounts break down transfer spending in quite some detail, which in turn allows for me to get to my core concept: the pre-transfer free cashflow (“PTFCF”). For this I take the net cash inflow / outflow, and add back transfer spending which I assume to be discretionary. This brings us to a calculation which tells us how much “spare” money we would have available to spend in a given year, if we had wanted to.

Taking the June 2019 figures, this metric then allows us to judge – somewhat – our performance in the transfer window.

Pre-Transfer Free Cashflow by club for year ended June 2019 (£m)

PTFCF 2019

We can see from this analysis that Tottenham came a fair way off Man Utd, Chelsea and Liverpool (and one assumes Man City, who do not publish a cashflow statement or give any notes to their Intangible Fixed Asset investments). Arsenal were the big losers of last year given their Europa League participation, and Chelsea show themselves as doing well despite not qualifying for the Champions’ League. To be clear, generating a negative cashflow (just like generating a loss) does not mean you have no money to spend; only that you must do so unsustainably out of your “savings”, which will show up on the net debt (which we will get to).

If we look at the year prior, this becomes even more stark, and highlights the fact that Tottenham, contrary to some assertions, was under real financial pressure during the stadium building process starting in 2017.

Pre-Transfer Free Cashflow by club for year ended June 2018 vs net transfer investment for the following year (£m)

PTFCF 2018

Note: Since transfer spending runs July-June and mostly occurs during the summer transfer window, a June 2018 year ending is best contrasted with the June 2019 transfer spending.

At this point, Spurs were actually incurring a substantial negative PTFCF due to stadium costs, not least since much expenditure for large capital projects is paid up-front, for land acquisition and so on. Man Utd and Chelsea spent far more than they were generating – one might say generously, “investing for the future”; Liverpool were spending about as much as they might expect; and only Arsenal were spending significantly below their capacity, buoyed no doubt by the knowledge that they were not in the Champions’ League. Indeed Tottenham’s tiny net expenditure of ~£3m was quite flattering under the circumstances.

In fact, if we look at how Tottenham have performed on average against the rest of the Top Six (excluding Man City), we have had a tenuous few years.

Three-year rolling average Pre-Transfer Free Cashflow (£m)

PTFCF 2015-2019

On a rolling three-year average, the other clubs have managed a PTFCF of around £80m per year over the last five years, whereas Tottenham, having clawed our way into contention by 2016, have actually seen the gap widen again in the subsequent years. In other words, we really are not that well-off, are some way behind the other Big Six teams, and cannot spend the money on transfers that some fans seem to believe we now should. The stadium remains a massive gamble and has to succeed as a standalone business for us to begin making up the difference with the other clubs.

To cap things off, let us just look at the “savings”. A net debt position is typical of most companies and football clubs are no exception. Furthermore, the ratio of that debt to net assets or ‘shareholders’ funds” shows the relative indebtedness of a business.

Top Six clubs net debt (£m) and gearing for year ended June 2019

Gearing and net debt

On both measures, Tottenham are more precarious than our peers. Not only is net debt larger in absolute terms, carrying with it the funding for the stadium; but alone amongst the Big Six, our gearing is at more than 100%. No doubt much of the stadium borrowing is ring-fenced to a degree, and probably operates on a project finance basis; nonetheless the cost of the debt will weigh Spurs down through interest payments for some time – and the analysis gives a sense of how much better off Man Utd really are than us, for instance. Daniel Levy, who is no stranger to this situation, will clearly not be minded to let spending get out of hand.

Some of this will be well-known and obvious to observers. The reason I raise it is the danger of football fans demanding spending beyond what is possible – and Spurs have been particularly under the microscope for this. The Swiss Ramble’s analysis – whilst perfectly legitimate and technically correct – conveys a very misleading impression over our financial clout. Headlines about record revenues and profits on the P&L, lead to questions (from those who should know better) of “where has all that money gone?”. In the end, Spurs just are not yet that big a club, and whilst I am confident that we will reach our goals, it will still take some time before we can splash out.

 

**************************************

Browsing the internet after posting, I came across the University of Liverpool’s football finances website, which has recently just posted about Premier League club values for 2018-2019, which, whilst doing some equally interesting things,  has rather fallen rather into the same trap. Their proprietary “Markham Multivariate Model” is based on net profit adjusted for one-off items, but unadjusted for non-cash items. The formula is quite off-the-wall in other aspects too but I will let that lie for now.

Nonetheless it leads to what I think is just as unhelpful an output (below), saying:

Spurs overtook both Manchester clubs at the top of the table on the back of reaching the Champions League final, a fourth-place finish in the Premier League and a wage bill barely half that of Manchester United.

UoL club valuations

Even from the eyes of a purely financial investor, this cannot be true. Spurs’ true hidden value, if you want to see it this way, is the stadium value and its future earnings but as far as I can see this has not been captured by Markham. If you strip that out, however well managed our wage bill is, a DCF of Tottenham vs the other clubs would not come to this conclusion. My opinion: head in hands.

The Chinese New Economy: Alibaba as Sauron and why the old economy will be the winners

/ παρακοιμώμενος / 1 Comment

Sauron eye

Anyone familiar with the Chinese new economy will be aware of the rise of the internet giants of Alibaba and Tencent, along with their satellite businesses. Most will also be aware of the largely exclusive ecosystems within which Chinese online life is led – platforms that encompass everything from messaging to shopping to transport to payments and beyond.

It seems astonishing to remember that barely five years ago many commentators fretted over whether China could ever achieve real innovation. The Harvard Business Review for instance posed the question “Why Can’t China Innovate?”, baldly stating:

“Can China lead? Will the Chinese state have the wisdom to lighten up and the patience to allow the full emergence of what Schumpeter called the true spirit of entrepreneurship? On this we have our doubts.”

This of course is all rather a fading memory now. Innovation can broadly be divided into three areas: upstream (essentially, “how it works”), midstream (“how it’s made”) and downstream (“how it’s used”). For years, China as a manufacturing hub had made quite noteworthy progress on midstream innovation but most uneducated observers – including many in government – have an unhealthy obsession with upstream blue-sky invention. Yet as we can see with the likes of Berners-Lee, inventors are rarely rewarded and rightly so, since the real creativity and invention from the likes of Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos is in the downstream. Jobs was an arch innovator in how technology is actually used and therefore spread through an economy, with a vision of how lives are actually impacted and changed. Chinese companies, particularly through the big online giants, are clearly doing the same: modern life in China is now lived in quite an advanced but different manner to modern life in OECD countries. Alibaba and Tencent have contributed towards the creation of a real and organic Chinese modernity and technological innovation within China arguably outpaces even the US even leaving aside issues of theft.

So it is worth spending a moment to look at these two major ecosystems and how they really behave – who they are, as it were. First, there is a question of why ecosystems exist in China in the first place in a way which outside of China they do not. Amazon comes the closest of the American tech players to demand a closed ecosystem but even they seem to find limits. Western shareholders have always rewarded single-capacity specialization, and often find the idea of any conglomerate absurd, let alone a tech company offering bicycles and banking.

In China though, this has been natural, for two reasons. First, there is the historical socio-anthropological tendency within Chinese society to build a “closed loop universe” within one’s own family or clan, which has extended to the national level through the Communist Party and SOEs. My own preference for explaining this remains Karl Wittfogel’s hydraulic empire theory, which tells us that most ancient civilisations relied on centralized power to deliver water to its people, enshrining the principles of autocracy and top-down governance at the government and family level. This in turn typically leads to closed-loop systemic thinking since everything has to work together or else nothing works – diversity of thought is only bad news. Secondly though, and somewhat ironically, these ecosystems have become so broad precisely because they are making up for assurances which the Chinese government cannot offer. When you make a purchase on TMall, you have more faith in the Alibaba-backed guarantee that your products will be delivered and that your payment is safe, than one does with the disparate parts of the national banking, postal or legal system offered by the government. The tech giants had to offer a total universe, or else consumers would have been reluctant to actually engage with the new business model in the first place.

Chinese ecosystems (2)

Source: SCMP

So much for why they exist – the bigger issue is how to understand who they are, what their personalities and identities are and how they should be understood from the outside. One possibly analogy, given their conflict, is that of the Cold War. In this world, Alibaba are the Soviet Union – a sprawling empire with a strong centralized view on how things are supposed to be done. Tencent on the other hand are the United States, a beacon of freedom and inspiration but which has its own agenda focused on generating and owning consumption. JD.com are Britain: commercially-minded, focused on trade and fully acquiescent into the American (Tencent) world. Lastly you have Meituan – which owes its existence to Tencent, but like France to the US is entirely ungrateful and maintains the pretence of wanting an ecosystem of its own.

Upon reflection however, a new analogy came to me which may be a touch more accurate, which is Middle Earth. In this version of events, Alibaba are indisputably Sauron, the lurking, evil presence which looks across the lands of men with an unrelenting will to dominion. They provide you the tools to “help” only so that they can own them and you. They invest in you because they need to control your system from the inside. Resistance is futile; eventual subjugation can be the only outcome. The interesting one is Tencent, who I liken to the High Elves of Rivendell. The things about the Elves is this: they are generally on the side of good, and can facilitate it; but they are not themselves a force for good since they sit far away from the battle, detached from it all. They too provide tools, but they may not tell you how to use them; their attention is ultimately elsewhere. The forces of Men ranged against Sauron – let us assume these are essentially a proxy for traditional retail and consumer business in the region – ultimately have to find the solution for themselves, aided at times by the Elves but not reliant on them. If I were to stretch this analogy ad absurdum, perhaps this makes the Dwarves JD.com with their grubby focus on gold and commerce; whilst Meituan the slightly nobler Rohirrim, since they, er, move around a lot on delivery scooters like the horses of the Riddermark. Which start-up will be the valiant hobbit which destroys Alibaba, God only knows.

The serious point to all this is that for old economy companies, it feels like making a choice is inevitable. But the more one looks at the giants of the new economy, the more apparent it is that in the conflict of “internet+” vs “+internet”, it will likely be the latter – especially established asset owners – that win out. In particular, it is difficult to imagine that in this inflated global asset price environment, that the business which need, as Alibaba and JD.com especially are doing, to build out a network of physical infrastructure can be the eventual winner. Well, maybe one early mover can, but the world is not about to be flooded with online victors – by and large, the winners will be whoever of the old economy players adapts best to the new, rather than a new economy player.

And this then comes down to the vision thing. I have another analogy: I call it the “Physics & Philosphy” dilemma™. P&P is a little known but highly intellectual degree at Oxford (arguably the most esoteric of all) which combines two subjects that are not immediately connected. Yes, it is true that in the first term, courses such as Logic may play a part in both areas but then it would appear the two diverge. Yet we should see this like the rings of Saturn: you start off at one point travelling in two opposite directions on the ring, and whilst they move far apart to begin with in the end they meet again. In P&P, the questions at the other end of the circle see the two disparate subjects poetically rejoin on questions such as: what lies beyond the Universe? What happens if time stops? What if light bends? What is not obvious when you start the degree, become enormously obvious by the time you end it.

And seeing what is on the other end of this ring – what exists on the “dark side of the planet” as it were – is the very thing that marks out business geniuses from mere mortals. It took Amazon 14 years to become profitable, but there seems little doubt that Bezos had an idea of what lurked out of his sight in the distance. Likewise Jobs as he labored through various versions of Apple. But the point is, old economy companies can equally achieve this. We know the famous examples of IBM and Intel reinventing themselves based on their competencies; Apple itself did so. Further back in history are companies like Berkshire Hathaway and General Electric, and even Nokia who started life in rubber products. Reinvention is hard, but the world has not ended just because a series of new giants seem to own everything in sight. If the old economy is to learn anything, it is that with courage and vision, and a will to innovate internally if imperfectly, the future is still going to be theirs. For every Amazon which succeeds, there will still be a dozen Walmarts and Targets which make it, stronger than before.

The technology giants will go down in history mostly as the midwives of change, delivering the new baby to their old economy counterparts. We are already seeing them do this, below the surface as Alibaba and JD.com start to crystalise value in real businesses where they can (finance, technology etc rather than the core e-commerce platforms which have rarely made money for anyone). In many ways they are merely pioneering the examples of what the future looks like, so that old economy companies can learn from it but probably implement it better – the Chinese O2O supermarket businesses are a case in point. Indeed the cheerleading nature of the new economy player’s roles in businesses like retail, ahead of its time, loss-leading and ultimately doomed as a standalone business, begs another more controversial comparison. The tech giants are St John the Baptist, crying in the wilderness; the old economy players are Jesus.

Why Chinese firms have a succession problem

/ παρακοιμώμενος / Leave a comment

Chinese society has long produced family business empires. A quick glance at any list of Asian tycoon families show them to be omnipresent, whether in Hong Kong and Taiwan or the further flung diaspora in SE Asia – including in Thailand and Indonesia where Chinese surnames have become so mutated as to be almost unrecognizable. It is not just Kwoks, Kweks and Lees, but the Hartonos and the Chearavanonts who are furthering traditional Chinese family values.

Everywhere that is, except China. It is fascinating to consider what is likely to happen on the Mainland over the next two decades, when the first generation of post-Deng businessmen finally start to retire. Many have noted the succession crisis facing these companies for some time; empirically, I have yet to meet a single 富二代 who has any intention at all of managing their parents’ business after their retirement. It is not just personal experience, either: a recent PwC survey showed some startling numbers contrasting modern China with its overseas counterparts.

Picture1

Source: PwC Family Business Survey (2016)

Fewer than one in five Chinese entrepreneurs surveyed indicated that they intended to pass down the business. This compares with somewhat higher numbers in Singapore, higher again in Malaysia and Hong Kong (c. 40%) and far less than in the most directly comparable jurisdiction, Taiwan. Here, almost three fifths of families want their children to take over – and indeed, they have already gone through one or more generational handover.

Why is this? The obvious point to make is that, as with so many other aspects, China will not be following any known development paths. But there are probably a few more specific reasons too.

First, there is the entire structure of the economy and the perceived pathway towards exit. Speaking to SMEs, many will tell you that their end game is to list the company, which is true as far as it goes. But the more important point is that they see the government as the likely ultimate inheritors of any important business, either officially or unofficially. In this sense, the incentive for dynasticism is limited and becomes less relevant the more successful a venture becomes. Instead, monetization remains the key aspiration.

Secondly, there is the creeping issue of inheritance laws. Again, we have yet to see the first real fortunes and large scale asset inheritances being tested in the Chinese legal system and anecdotally, it is notable that increasingly numbers of the Chinese middle classes have ceased to give birth abroad, fearing what the implications might be when largely domestic legacies come to be divided up under Chinese law. For companies which have now been successfully “domesticated” through policies such as a stringent foreign exchange regime, this becomes the same question writ large.

Most intriguingly of all though is the prospect of meaningful cultural change. Overseas Chinese families have an unbending sense of filial piety even today, with many younger generations taking over family businesses despite not wanting to. Modern China, post the Cultural Revolution and factoring in the One Child Policy, much less so. Furthermore, children educated in western business schools clash with their parents over management style. And for many, the rapid change in the Chinese economy means that their parents’ businesses are just too damned unsexy, as one observer notes:

The transition is particularly evident in the manufacturing industry; many children who are educated abroad shun the manufacturing sector and prefer to seek opportunities in finance and other ‘cool’ areas. Fortune Generation estimates more than 65 per cent of children whose parents own manufacturing businesses don’t want to be involved in the industry.

Why put the hours in, when you could use your parents money for funding the latest absurd tech startup?

However whilst this is all bad news for champions of Chinese traditions and parents who want to see more of their children, this does mean an impending surge of opportunities for  investors. It seems those PE funds really ought to be speaking first and foremost to the sprawling private wealth arms of the investment banks, rather than their corporate finance people.