by Adam Hartung | Oct 28, 2008 | Defend & Extend, General, In the Rapids, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lifecycle, Lock-in
Wal-Mart (see chart here) has not been doing badly the last couple of quarters. Of course, it hasn't done great either. And if we look back the last 8 years – well there's not been much to get excited about. Wal-Mart Locked-in on its low price Success Formula 40 years ago and hasn't swayed since. Today as incomes go down and fear is huge about jobs and investments people are looking for low prices so they are returning to Wal-Mart. But those sales aren't coming easily, because Target, Kohls and other retailers are battling to get recognized for value while simultaneously offering benefits consumers demonstrated they enjoyed before economy went kaput. It's not at all clear that the small uptick in sales at Wal-Mart is anything more than a short-term blip in a very flat environment for Wal-Mart.
It's unclear that there's much growth. This week Wal-Mart admitted it was finding fewer opportunities to open new stores as saturation of its low-price approach appears imminent in the USA (read article here). Instead of opening new stores capital expenditures are going to decline by 1/3, and dollars are being shifted to store remodeling rather than new store opening. This implies a far more defensive tactic set, reacting to inroads made by competitors, rather than an understanding of how to regain the growth Wal-Mart had in the previous decades.
So now Wal-Mart is saying it will turn investments toward emerging markets (read article here). Sure. Wal-Mart wrote off huge investments and exited failed efforts in Germany and France, It's efforts to expand in Canada and the U.K. have been marginal. In Japan it only avoided a huge write-off and failure by making an acquisition. And its China project has gone nowhere, despite much opening hoopla 5 years ago. So why should we expect them to do better with a second attack into China, possibly going into India and Mexico?
The Wal-Mart Success Formula worked in the USA and drove incredible growth, but it is unclear that shoppers in developing countries get much benefit from a strategy largely based on buying goods from low-cost underdeveloped countries and importing them to the USA for mass-market buyers in low-cost penny-pinching store environments. What's the benefit to Wal-Mart's approach in Mexico or India? In India and China customers must pay high duties on imported goods, and low-cost retail exchanges already exist across the country for domestic products. Additionally, lacking a robust infrastructure (meaning a big car and good roadway to carry home mass quantities of stuff bought in large containers) it's unclear that Wal-Mart's approach is even viable. If you have to carry goods home on a bicycle, why would you want to go to a big central store? Isn't buying regularly what you need better? Wal-Mart has made no case that it's Success Formula is at all viable outside the USA, and especially in emerging countries.
Compare the Wal-Mart approach to Google (see chart here). In the last year Google has moved beyond mere search into other high-growth businesses such as mobile telephones. And today Google announced it is going to legally offer books and other copyrighted material to customers in some ways unique – but competing with Amazon's e-book (Kindle) business (read article here). Google keeps entering new high-growth markets with new demands from new customers. And in each market Google enters with new products intended to be better than what's out there today.
Wal-Mart keeps trying to find a way to Defend & Extend its old, tired Success Formula. Wal-Mart is huge, but its growth has slowed. Competitors have entered all around it, and every year they are chipping away at Wal-Mart by offering different solutions to customers. The competitors are getting better and better at matching the old Wal-Mart advantages, while offering their own new advantages. And we can see Wal-Mart is now being defensive in its histiorical markets while naive in trying to export its old Success Formula to markets that don't show any need for it. Wal-Mart is mired in the Swamp, struggling to fight off competitors while its growth is disappearing and its returns are under attack. On the other hand, Google keeps throwing itself back into the Rapids of growth in new businesses that offer new revenues and increased profits. And it enters those markets with new solutions that have the opportunity of changing competition. Google doesn't have to have everything work right for it to find growth through its White Space projects and continue expanding its value for customers, suppliers, employees and investors.
by Adam Hartung | Oct 27, 2008 | Disruptions, General, Quotes
You never know when interviewed exactly what the writer is looking for, what the article is, or how your comments will be used. But I was delighted to be interviewed by the acclaimed weekly newspaper Investor's Business Daily a couple of weeks ago. (The article can be found on Yahoo! business here.)
"Get Through It With Grit – by Sonja Carberry
Pust the envelope. Adam Hartung, author of "Create Marketplace Disruption," points out that winning companies aren't afraid to shake things up, especially during a downcycle. He said Cisco — instead of aiming to sell more products — has the "Disruptive" goal of making its offerings obsolete by creating new solutions. "This kind of approach keeps you from riding the tail (of a trend) too long."
Tap rabble-rousers. Hartung cited Apple's CEO as a prime example. "Steve Jobs is a very dsruptive kind of guy," Hartung said. So much so, Apple and Jobs parted ways in 1985. When Jobs was coaxed back to Apple 15 years later, he championed such out-there ideas as the now-mainstream iPod."
What's great in this article is some information from the Managing Director of one of the world's top management consulting companies, Bain & Company. Steve Ellis divulged from a recent Bain study that 24% more firms rose from the bottom to the top of their industries during the 2001 receission than the following sunnier economic period.
What great support for the fact that when markets shift the opportunity is created for changing competitive position. Those companies that build detailed future scenarios, obsess about competitors, Disrupt their internal Lock-ins and implement White Space can come out big winners during market shifts. So if you're a leader, now's a good time to be more Steve Jobs like and not fear Disruption. It's time to push your company to the top by taking advantage of competitor Lock-ins!!
by Adam Hartung | Oct 26, 2008 | Defend & Extend, General, Quotes
(Read the following quote in Forbes, October 5, 1998, written by Peter Drucker) “As we advance deeper into the knowledge economy, the basic assumptions underlying much of what is taught and practiced in the name of management are hopelessly out of date… most of our assumptions about business, technology and organization are at least 50 years old. They have outlived their time… Get the assumptions wrong and everything that follows from them is wrong.”
Last week, former Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan admitted to Congress that his assumptions about financial services and the products being offered, including credit default swaps (CDS), were wrong (read article here). As a result, what he thought would happen in the financial markets – from interest rates to equity prices to currency values – turned out to be wrong. Unfortunately, this helped create the opportunity for runaway leverage and the banking meltdown which has affected world trade since early September. When leaders operate with wrong assumptions, the price paid by everyone can be pretty hefty.
The reality is that pretty much all leaders work with assumptions about business that are very country specific. The impact of global knowledge transfer – of worldwide information at a moment’s notice – of labor arbitrate happening in hours – and the immediacy of financing and financial reactions – is still not well understood by leaders trained in an earlier era. Thus leaders under-recognized the speed with which manufacturing jobs could move around the world – as well as the speed with which IT services could move to lower cost markets. Even though the current Federal Reserve Chairman (Dr. Bernanke) is a student of America’s Great Depression, what he doesn’t understand is that Depression happened in an isolated way to the USA. Today, globalization means that problems with U.S. banks becomes a problem globally. For all his studies of history – things in financial services have fundamentally shifted. His assumptions are, well, often wrong.
In November there will be an economic summit. Some are referring to it as the next “Bretton Woods” – a reference to the meeting in upstate New York which determined how foreign currency exchange rates would be set and how banks would interact between countries (read about the summit here). Yet, there are others who say no changes are needed. But let’s get real. Of course we need to rethink how our country-based banking system works in a world where insurance companies and hedge funds often move faster and have more ability to affect markets than traditional banks. In the 1800s banks in the USA issued their own currency – and then states issued their own currency. Eventually this disappeared to federal currency. So, do we now need a global currency? With the change to the Euro in Eurpope the need for individual country currencies took a step toward unnecessary. Should that trend continue? You see, it’s easy to think about the world using old assumptions – like a U.S. dollar as independent of other countries – but does it make sense in a world where products and services are supplied globally and governments (such as India and China notably) now manipulate their currencies to maintain price advantages?
On Friday evening a “guru” on ABC’s Nightline was talking about the wild swings on the New York Stock Exchange and the NASDAQ. He commented “the only way to get hurt on a roller coaster is to get off. So hold onto your equities and keep buying.” Give me a break. A roller coaster is a closed system. Even though it goes up and down, you know where it will end and the result. WE DON’T KNOW THAT ABOUT EQUITIES TODAY. Many, many companies we’ve known for decades could disappear (GM, Ford, Chrysler are prime examples). Just like Lehman Brothers disappeared, and AIG practically so. If you were an investor in common or preferred equities of Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae, your “roller coaster ride” did not have a happy ending – and you would obviously have been a whole lot smarter to have jumped off. You may get bruised, but that would have been better than the disaster that loomed.
It is critically important to check assumptions. This is not easy. We don’t think about assumptions, they just are part of how we operate. That’s why now, more than ever, it is incredibly important to do scenario planning which will challenge assumptions by opening our eyes to what really might happen. Because you can never assume tomorrow will be like yesterday – not in business. To survive you have to constantly be planning for a future that can be very, very different. Doing more of what you always did will not produce the same results in a shifting world. Planning for future shifts is one of the most important things managers can do.
by Adam Hartung | Oct 17, 2008 | General, Innovation, Leadership, Openness
Ever heard of "confirmation bias"? It’s a term that refers to how our behavior changes due to Lock-in. As we develop Lock-in we don’t see all the information around us. Instead, we start filtering information according to our Lock-ins – focusing on the things related to what we know and mostly ignoring things not related. As a result we often start missing things that could be really important. Consider someone who makes hammers (or pheumatic hammers) and nails. They can easily ignore glues, or super-powerful adhesive tape, when those solutoins might well be a greater long-term profit threat than offshore hammer and nail manufacturers!
Another example. A recent headline in The Chicago Tribune read "Abbott Absorbed with new Stent Therapy" (read article here). (See Abbott chart here) The article talks about how newly engineered dissolvable stents have been working extremely well in trials. If you aren’t in the health care industry, or being treated for a possible heart attack, or an investor in Abbott, you might well completely ignore the article. But, that would be a mistake.
Bio-engineering is going to be as important to our future as air travel and computers became. It was easy for people in 1928 riding horses, or driving a Model A, to think air travel was something exotic and only interesting for people obsessed with flight. But, we all know that by the end of WWII airplanes had changed the world, and the way we travel. Likewise, it would have been easy for people with slide rules and adding machines in 1968 to ignore computer discussions when they were mostly about mainframes in air conditioned basements. Yet, by the 1980s computers were everywhere and businesses that were early adopters figured out how to gain significant advantages. And that’s the truth about bio-engineering today. It will make a huge difference in all aspects of our lives.
Fistly, simple things. Like we’re more likely to live longer. But beyond that, injuries will be less onerous. As we learn how to engineer products that are somewhere between inanimate and living, we are able to come closer to the bionic man/woman. We’ll be able to repair major injuries in a fraction of the time. We’ll be able to regrow damaged organs – from skin to livers. We’ll regrow nerves – making paralyzation a temporary phenomenon and dramatically lowering the impact of strokes. Injured soldiers will return to the battlefield within days – instead of going home badly hurt. Senior citizens will regrow damaged or arthritic joints, instead of replacing them with major surgery making it possible for them to work much longer. Athletes will be able to increase performance in ways we’ve never before imagined – and the line between "natural" and "performance enhanced" will become impossible to define.
But think bigger. There is no computer in our bodies, yet we do amazingly complex analytics in record speed. Even a 2 year old can recognize the difference between a bird and a plane in a fraction of a second. Ask a computer to do that simple task! So we can expect a wave of bio-computers to be developed. Devices that use chemical reactions to process information rather than electrons acting in logic gates. How will we apply this technology to our lives and work? Cars that drive themselves? Super-secure baby walkers? Pens that never misspell words? Foods that never overcook? Foods that never spoil? Clothes that change to dissipate or hold-in heat depending on ambient temperature? Floors that purge themselves of dirt – pushing it to the surface for automatic removal?
When we are able to make chemicals – even cells – smart, what happens to the world around us? Do we ever need to go to a dentist if we can have smart toothpaste that eats away tarter and placque, applying flouride, without going into the enamel? Can we eat anything we want if we take products that absorb poison – or possibly fats – and discharge it through the system? Do cosmetics become obsolete if we all have skin creams that repair damage and keep skin forever young? What happens at companies like Procter & Gamble?
As you go to work and do your job, it’s easy to get focused on the industry in which you compete – and the traditional way that industry worked. You stop looking sideways at technologies in other fields not related to what you do today. And that can be a huge mistake. Because it’s often someone that takes a technology you ignored and apply it to your customers’ needs who makes you less valuable. Microsoft singlehandedly, and without much thought, destroyed the encyclopedia business by giving away what was considered a third-rate product (Encarta – for more on this story read Blown to Bits by Evans & Wurster). Encyclopedia Britannica never saw it coming as they kept trying to print a better product.
Spend some time reading ALL the headlines – and keep your eyes open for opportunities that you previously never considered.
by Adam Hartung | Oct 16, 2008 | General, In the Rapids, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lock-in, Openness
Traders help markets function. Because they take short-term positions, sometimes hours, a day or a few days, they are constantly buying and selling. This means that for the rest of us, investors who want to have returns over months and years, there is always a ready market of buyers and sellers out there allowing us to open, increase, decrease or close a position. Traders are important to having a constantly available market for most equity stocks. But, what we know most about traders is that over the long term more than 95% don’t make money. Despite all the transaction volume, their rates of return don’t come close to the Dow Jones Industrial Average – in fact most of them have negative rates of return. Only a few make money.
For investors it’s not important what the daily prices are of a stock, but rather what markets the company is in, and whether the markets and the company are profitably growing. On days like today, which saw the DJIA down triple digits and up triple digits in the same day (read article here), it’s really important we keep in mind that the value of any company in the short term, on any given day, can fluctuate wildly. But honestly, that’s not important. What’s important is whether the company can exp[ect to grow over months and years. Because if it can, it’s value will go up.
Let’s take a look at a couple of companies in the news today. First there’s Google (see chart here). Despite the recession, despite the financial sector meltdown and despite the wild volatility of the financial markets, the number of internet ads continued to go up. Paid clicks actually went up 18% versus a year ago. (read article about Google results here). Gee, imagine that. Do you suppose that given the election interest, the market interest during this financial crisis and the desire to learn at low cost more people than ever might be turning to the internet? Does anyone really think internet use is going to decline – even in this global recession? Google is positioned with a near-monopoly in internet ad placement (Yahoo! is fast becoming obsolete – and is trying to arrange to use Google technology to save itself see Yahoo! chart here]). By competing in a high growth market – and constantly keeping White Space alive developing new products in this and other high-growth markets – Google can look out 3, 5, 10 years and be reasonably assured of growing revenues and profits. And that’s irrespective of the Dow Jones Industrial Average (where Google might well replace GM someday) or whether Microsoft buys the bumbling Yahoo! brand (read about possible acquisition here).
On the other hand, there’s Harley Davidson (see chart here). Motorcycles use considerably less gasoline than autos, so you would think that people would be buying them this past summer as gasoline hit record high $4.00/gallon plus prices. Yet, Harley saw it’s sales tumble 15.5% (much worse than the heavyweight cycle overall market drop of 3%) (read article about Harley Davidson’s results here.) The problem is that Harley is an icon – for folks over 50! The whole "Rebel Without a Cause" and "Easy Rider" image was part of the 1940s post war rebellion, and then the 1960s anti-war rebellion. Both not relevant for the vast majority of motorcycle buyers who are under 35 years old! Additionally, long a company to Defend & Extend its brand, Harley Davidson has raised the average price of its motorcycles to well over $25,000 – a sum greater than most small cars! Comparably sized, and technologicially superior, motorcycles made by Japanese manufacturers sell for $10,000 and less! Worse, the really fast growing part of the market is small motorcycles and scooters that can achieve 45 to 90 miles per gallon – compared to the 30 mile per gallon Harley Davidsons – and Harley has no product at all in that high growth segment! Harley Davidson is a dying technology and a dying brand in an overall growing market. No wonder the company is selling at multi-year lows (down 50% this year and 67% over 2 years) . Even though the stock market may be down, Harley Davidson is unlikely to be a good investment even when the market eventually goes back up (if Harley survives that long without bankruptcy!)
Watching the Dow Jones Industrial Average, or the daily stock price of any company, isn’t very helpful. Daily, prices are controlled by the activity of traders – who come and go incredibly fast and mostly lose money. What’s important is whether the company is keeping itself in the Rapids of Growth. Google is doing a great job at this. Harley Davidson is Locked-in to its old image and thoroughly entrenched in trying to Defend & Extend its Lock-in – completely ignoring for the past decade the more rapid growth in sport bikes, smaller bikes and scooters. As investors, customers, employees and suppliers what we care about is the ability of management to Disrupt their Lockins and use White Space to stay in the Rapids of growth.
by Adam Hartung | Oct 10, 2008 | Defend & Extend, General, Leadership, Lifecycle, Openness
We talk a lot about evolving markets. When we use that phrase, evolving, we think of gradual change. In reality, evolutionary change is anything but gradual.
People think of change as happening along the blue line to the left. A little change every year. But what really happens is like the red line. Things go along with not much change for a very long time, then there’s a dramatic change, and then an entirely new "normal" takes hold. This big change is what’s called a "punctuated equilibrium."
What we’ve recently seen in the financial services industry is a punctuated equilibrium. For years the banks went along with only minor change. They kept slowly enhancing the products and services, a little bit each year. Regulations changed, but only slightly, year to year. Then suddenly there’s a big change. Something barely understood by the vast majority of people, credit default swaps tied to subprime mortgage backed securities, became the item that sent the industry careening off its old rails. That’s because the underlying competitive factors have been changing for years, but the industry did not react to those underlying factors. Large players continued as if the industry would behave as it had since 1940. Now, suddently, the fact that everything from asset accumulation to liability management and regulation will change – and change rapidly.
When punctuated equilibrium happens, the old rules no longer apply. The assumptions which underpinned the old economics, and norms for competition, become irrelevant. Competition changes how returns will be created and divvied up. Eventually a new normal comes about – and it is always tied to the environment which spawned the big change. The winners are those who compete best in the new environment – irrespective of their competitive position in the old environment. The one thing which is certain is that following the old assumptions is certain to get you into trouble.
I’ve been surprised to listen to "financial experts" on ABC and CNBC advising investors since this financial services punctuated equilibrium hit. Consistently, the advice has been "don’t sell. Wait. Markets always come back. You only have a paper loss now, if you sell it becomes a real loss. Just wait. In fact, keep buying." And I’m struck as to how tied this advice is to the old equilibrium. Since the 1940s, it’s been a good thing to simply ride out a downturn. But folks, we ain’t ever seen anything like this before!! This isn’t even the Great Depression all over again. This is an entirely different set of environmental changes.
In reality, the best thing to have done upon recognizing this change would be to sell your equities. The marketplace is saying that global competition is changing competition. How money will be obtained, and how it will be doled out, is changing. Old winners are very likely to not be new winners. Competitive challenges to countries, as well as industries and companies, means that fortunes are shifting dramatically. No longer can you consider GM a bellweather for auto stocks – you must consider everyone from Toyota to Tata Motors (today the total equity value of Ford plus GM is 1/10th the value of Toyota). No longer can you assume that real estate values in North America will go up. No longer can you assume that China will buy all the U.S. revolving debt. No longer can you assume that America will be the importer of world goods. How this economic change will shake out – who will be the winners – is unclear. And as a result the Dow Jones Industrial Average has dropped 40% in the last year.
To all those television experts, I would say they missed the obvious. How can it be smart to have held onto equities if the value has dropped 40%? Call it a paper loss versus a real loss – but the reality is that the value is down 40%! To get back to the original value – to get your money back with no gain at all – will take a return of 5% per year (higher than you could have received on a guaranteed investment for the last 8 years) for over 10 years! That’s right, at 5% to get your money back will take 10 years!! Obviously, you would have been smarter to SELL. And every night this week, as the market fell further, these gurus kept saying "hold onto your investments. It’s too late to sell. Just wait." Give me a break, if the market is dropping day after day, how is it smart to watch your value just go down day after day! You should quote Will Rogers and say to these investment gurus "it’s not the return on my money I’m worried about, it’s the return of my money"!!
Or read what my favorite economist, Mr. Rosenberg of Merrill Lynch wrote today "There is no indication…that the deterioration in the fundamentals is abating…all the invormation at hand suggests that the risk of being underinvested at the bottom is lower than the risk of being overexposed to equities….in other words, the risk of geing out of the market right now is still substantially less than the risk of continuing to overweight stocks…what matters now is to protect your investments and preserve your capital." (read article here)
The world is full of conventional wisdom. Conventional wisdom is based on the future being like the past. But when punctuated equilibrium happens, the future isn’t like the past. And conventional wisdom is, well, worthless. What is valuable is searching out the new future, and learning how to compete anew. Right now it’s worth taking the time to focus on future competitors and figure out how you can take advantage of serious change to better your position. You can come out on top if you head for the future – but not if you plan for a return to the past.
by Adam Hartung | Oct 9, 2008 | Defend & Extend, General, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lifecycle, Lock-in
The news is really bad in the auto business. For the first time since 1993 the number of cars sold in the USA in a month has declined to below one million. Sales are down over 25% from the previous year. And sales are predicted to decline considerably more in 2009. The value of General Motors (chart here) has declined to what it was in 1950 – when the Dow Jones Industrial Average was about 269 (GM is a component of the DJIA). (Read article here.) In the 1960s, when GM was king of the industrial companies, a popular phrase was "As goes GM, so goes America." This was based on the notion that GM was a microcosm of the American industrial economy. Is this still true – does GM portend the future of America?
A lot has changed in the last 40 years. Most importantly, the globe is no longer dominated by an industrial economy. Fewer and fewer people are employed in industrial production. We see it all around us as we realize that there are more people writing computer code than making computers. We’ve shifted to an information economy. Companies that ignored this shift, like GM, without finding opportunities to get into the growth economy are now suffering. GM started down the new road once, in the 1980s, by purchasing EDS and Hughes electronics. But later GM leadership sold those businesses in order to "focus" on the auto business. So now it’s only natural to recognize that the most industrial of the industrial companies are at the greatest risk of failure. No longer is GM a microcosm of any economy – including America. As GM goes so goes GM – but that doesn’t say anything about the future of America.
Some companies have shifted. They find new opportunities for growth. Today, wind energy is getting a big lift due to higher costs for petroleum fuels and increasing restrictions on greenhouse gases from using fossil fuels. Wind farms already exist offshore European countries, producing over 1,100 megawatts of power. Now such farms are being built not only on the great prairies of Texas and the American plains, but off the eastern U.S. coastline (read article here.) While there isn’t much interest for investing in auto manufacturing, there is lots of interest for investing in these wind farms to produce electricity – especially in high-cost electricity locations along the eastern seaboard.
And in the middle of this market we find – General Electric (see chart here). GE is the only U.S. company that makes wind turbines, and is a leader in promoting the new source of power. While many people have fixated on GE Financial and its woes, they have ignored the fact that GE is an American leader in many markets seeing rapid growth globally – such as wind power, water production, health care equipment and municipal infrastructure development. These markets are benefitting from the ecomomic boom in China, India and other developing countries, as well as emerging growth in the USA.
Any country’s economy can continue growing if it develops Phoenix companies that keep their eyes on the future and create White Space projects to keep them moving toward growth. These companies don’t fall into the trap of being "focused" on a single business, and dependent upon growth within that historically defined market. They constantly look for places to grow, regardless of what the company has previously done, and develop opportunities to learn in those new markets so they can create a new Success Formula maintaining growth. As long as America has companies that keep repositioning themselves for growth – such as GE, IBM, Cisco Systems, Apple, Google, Genentech, Johnson & Johnson, Baxter, etc. – America can have a great future.
by Adam Hartung | Oct 9, 2008 | General, Leadership, Quotes
Here’s some quotes issued today (October 9, 2008) by Merrill Lynch’s top economist, David Rosenberg (see full article here) :
"Desperate times require desperate actions and it is possible Ben Bernanke, despite his expertise in how to tap the entire toolbox of the central bank, hasn’t experimented enough… Perhaps the Fed should do something even more dramatic… To be sure, monetary policy isn’t the only answer. A large-scale fiscal stimulus, a giant spending package on infrastructure, for example, would be useful to reverse the downtrend in employment and personal income…Our question is if the UK can manage to embark on this quasi-nationalization quest of its banking system, why can’t we?"
Here’s an economist in the largest U.S. brokerage, a very conservative organization, asking why we can’t nationalize banks, or pass a massive public works program. And he wonders why not?
The USA has been dominated by the conservative economic agenda since the landslide victory of Ronald Reagan. At a time of stagflation (no growth yet high inflation and record high interest rates) President Reagan set forth an agenga which changed the economic direction. Since then, the USA has been moving further and further along that agenda. Spending on defense skyrocketed, entitlement programs were cut, industry regulations laxed (including the movement to self-regulate within industries), and taxes reduced. For many people and politicians the objective became less about the results, and instead doing more. Planks of that agenda have been extended for 25 years as the focus has become not on the results – but rather on operating within the parameters of that agenda. Simply put, people believed if we did more, faster of the same things then the original would return.
But this isn’t 1980. And circumstances are far different. Nothing today looks like it did then. Yet, most people are blinded by Lock-in to doing what previously worked, rather than experimenting and trying new things. As serious as the market shift has been, and as great as the Challenges have become, people still have not Disrupted their awareness of the environmental shift. They are trying to use the tools of the last war to fight this new war. Lock-in is keeping them from considering other options.
It’s easy to be reminded of the economist John Keynes, a great influencer of the The New Deal policies of the 1930s. As he proposed the greatest use of debt ever by a government, he was seriously challenged. Leaders asked of him "won’t this debt inevitably lead, in the long-run, to runaway inflation and higher taxation that will cripple the economy?" As he pondered the 20% national unemployment and accelerating bankruptcies he replied "in the long-run, we’re all dead." What Dr. Keynes summed up was that beliefs, theories and assumptions weren’t terribly important. What mattered were results. The traditional economic approaches had led to the 1920s runaway market and resultant collapse – and what he felt the country needed was to put people back to work immediately. He was ready to create some White Space to try something new in search of better results.
Similarly, in the 1970s Dr. Laffer proposed a different approach to economic thinking. Creating something he called the "Laffer Curve" he said that if you cut taxes enough it would spur new investment and ecomomic recovery. Although this had no experiential basis, he felt it was worth a try. And President Reagan, facing the country’s problems proposed an idea that seemed heresy to most – cutting taxes by 50% or more! He was ready to try White Space in the face of an economic Challenge rather than continue the practices which had not improved the economy during the prior 2 administations (Ford and Carter.)
It is very easy to Lock-in on something that works. Once you see it work, you become confident it will work in the future. You start thinking if you do enough of it, it has to work. But markets shift. The marginal value of doing more simply declines. Like eating pie, the first piece is unbelievably good. The second good, but by the fourth you’re not particularly interested any more. While I can be enticed to do a job I don’t like for a piece of pie, after a few pieces I don’t see the value in more pie so I don’t have the same positive reaction. And that is true of Success Formulas. Competitors see the early results. They mimic the behavior, and they work to surpass it. Pretty soon, they offer not only pie, but cake and cookies and lots of competitive ideas. The pie simply doesn’t produce the benefit it once did. And we have to realize that it’s time to experiment and try something new. To do things that may even seem heretical at the time – but which open the doors to potentially new results that get us back on the competitive track.
by Adam Hartung | Oct 8, 2008 | Defend & Extend, General, Leadership, Lifecycle
Today Walgreen’s (see chart here) announced it was dropping its plan to purchase Long’s Drugs (see chart here). (Read article here.) This means a lower offer to buy Long’s from CVS (see chart here) now comes to the forefront. Yet, some of Long’s big shareholders are balking that the CVS bid is too low. And all this amid the most dynamic set of economic circumstances since the 1930s. So, who’s right?
As you might expect, it all depends on your scenario about the future. Walgreen’s has seen it’s equity value fall 50% in the last 2 years. Pretty amazing given that the "core" business is considered highly resistant sales of necessary drug items – after all regardless the economy people get sick and they need medicine. But the reality is that Walgreen’s built its reputation on its Success Formula the last decade of being able to open a new store every 20 hours or so. That’s an easy to understand Success Formula, but it has the obvious downside of identifying the weakness of saturation. To maintain growth, Walgreen’s requires opening more and more stores. But there are markets (like the hometown Chicago area) where stores are getting almost every block! People started wondering if Walgreen’s could keep growing once it had to drive more revenue out of existing stores – rather than just opening new ones.
But now real estate is falling in value. And we all know debt is getting harder and more expensive to obtain. It’s going to be harder and harder to borrow money to buy land and put up buildings. We’re also hearing that pension payments are going to be cut, due to lower stock valuations, and money for health care could be harder to come by. Looking forward, Walgreen’s decided it was smarter to focus on its existing stores than taking on a slug of new debt and a bunch of new stores. Especially given that many of these new stores (at Long’s) would be redundant to existing Walgreen’s in California — and who’s going to buy the land and buildings or leases for those stores if the economy going forward is as bad as being predicted? Sears (see chart here) buyer Ed Lampert was supposed to make a fortune selling all those Sears buildings – and that hasn’t exactly worked out (to put it mildly).
You have to hand it to a leadership team willing to change course. The good news is that for the last several years Walgreen’s hasn’t just opened new stores. The company has experimented with all kinds of new sales initiatives – from printing photos to refilling ink cartridges to selling groceries and even clothing. Unfortunately, many of those efforts took a back seat to new store openings. Walgreen’s didn’t see them as Disruptive growth opportunities, and they weren’t given White Space with permission to do whatever was necessary to succeed, nor the dedicated resources to really develop an alternative Success Formula. So they were just experiments with minimal impact. But now, for Walgreen’s to keep growing, it will have to do some Disrupting and put those projects front and center. The company will have to put some serious energy into learning if it can bring out its own high-end cosmetics line (aborted), or it’s own designer clothing (aborted) or capture decent share in selected office supplies versus Staples (aborted).
It’s hard for a Locked-in organization to change course. The momentum to keep doing what was always done is enormous. For Walgreen’s it must have appeared oh-so-tempting to buy Long’s. "Damn the Torpedos, full speed ahead" is such an easy cry for the company skipper to make. But here it really appears that some good scenario planning has kept the company from running headlong into a deal that could bankrupt the business if things do go southward economically (as it appears).
But to regain its previous success, Walgreen’s now has to change its Success Formula. And that requires more than walking away from a deal. It requires implementing a Disruption and getting serious about White Space to figure out what will make Walgreen’s the super-retailer of 2020. The company made a good move today, and now we’ll have to see if they can follow through.
Meanwhile, if you own Long’s Drug you should sell as fast as possible. The company value has increased 4x in the last 4 years – with a huge pop based on the acquisition discussions. And the company has no plan for how to grow enough to maintain the recent value. If CVS is willing to purchase Long’s, sell to them. What we can be sure of is that the saturation of drug stores has already begun, and any business that has too many assets, and too much debt, is not a good place to be invested. Better to have the cash.
by Adam Hartung | Oct 7, 2008 | General, In the Swamp, Lifecycle, Lock-in
So the stock market is crashing. Is now the time to buy? Many CEOs are asking this question.
The problem is that too often people try to buy a company that’s "cheap", using its past history as the basis. Take Bank of America (see chart here). BofA earlier this year bought the most troubled of all the mortgage companies Countrywide Financial. And then when Lehman Brothers was falling into bankruptcy BofA purchased Merrill Lynch, a retail stock brokerage that has been realing from on-line competition since e*Trade started in the 1990s, has one of the weakest mutual fund departments, one of the weakest research departments and a weak investment bank. BofA’s view was that based upon history, these companies were very cheap. But now, shortly after the acquisitions, BofA is announcing that it must halve its dividend, and raise additional equity through a new stock sale in order to shore up its balance sheet. And on top of this, earnings are down for the quarter and the year as the CEO starts claiming that estimates are pretty meaningless (read article here). Should you buy the new stock offering?
When markets shift, the value of assets tied to old Success Formulas decline. In the new market, the old Success Formula produces weaker returns and thus it is worth less. Too many people see this lower value as being a chance to "buy on the cheap." But far too often value will continue to decline because the old business simply isn’t worth as much. In Bank of America’s case, it bought extremely large players, but those that are inexorably linked to the old markets with old Success Formulas that are fast becoming out of date. While Merrill Lynch may be a great old name, the company itself has never been able to produce its old level of returns since brokerage markets shifted over a decade ago. Increasingly, it looks like BofA simply bought out-of-date competitors that were finding themselves on the rope as this market shift happened. And the BofA leadership is even leaving the old leaders in place after the acquisition.
Just in case you think that all the strategy and finance brains in big corporations means they are better judges of company value than yourself, remember that very rarely does any acquisition become worth what it cost. All finance academicians point out that buyers overvalue acquisitions in the process. In the end, it’s the buyers that see valuations suffer due to lower than anticipated earnings. In this case, BofA has bought large – but weak – competitors in markets reeling from shifts. And BofA has shown no proclivity to take dramatic changes to alter the Success Formulas (which JPMorgan Chase did upon acquiring Bear Sterns for almost nothing). This is a recipe for weak future performance.
Those companies that will benefit from acquisitions in this turmoil will have to purchase companies that better position the acquirers for future growth. Leaders not necessarily in size, but in the ability to produce growing revenues and profits. And acquisitions which can help migrate the acquirer’s Success Formula forward toward better competitiveness and higher returns – not just adding immediate (but declining) revenue. What’s going on at BofA may look like an effort to "buy on the cheap," but it’s more likely to end up "a pig in a poke."
