Sep 9, 2024 | Governance, Leadership, Strategy
Amongst the tsunami of gratuitous advice on the web about how to manage remotely, whether you be the team leader, or a team member, there is a critical piece missing.
Depth of strategic thinking.
Regular and managed team video gatherings, as well as a range of individual catch ups for assistance, follow up, mentoring, and all the other things that go on, are tactical.
Particularly in times of crisis and high stress, it is sensible and natural to focus on tactical execution. However, tactical can only take you so far, and in the absence of a strategic framework, can lead you astray quickly.
Consider breaking out specific sessions for the discussion of the strategic issues and questions that emerge. They remain in place irrespective of the current crisis, whatever that may be.
Strategic depth is not something generated in a series of quick meetings. It requires data, forecasts, scenarios and deep discussion and contemplation by people who know the box from the outside, as well as from the inside.
These deeper questions of strategy usually reside in the ‘very important but not urgent‘ basket. In the absence of being addressed, they will be forgotten. Worse still, they will be over-ridden by short term tactical outcomes that would not have been allowed to evolve with sensible strategic oversight in place.
We are social animals, our best work is done when people get together, and together look to solve problems and pressure test assumptions. This takes time and human engagement. Verbalisation of ideas, questions, and explanations is only a small part of ‘Communication’. Face to face, there are a myriad of non-verbal nuances and contextual contributors to ‘communication’ that are lost over Zoom or Teams.
Failing to accommodate these human interactions will destroy your capacity to generate the insight necessary for deep and productive strategic thinking.
Header credit: Tom Fishburne at Marketoonist. Thanks again for encapsulating a difficult idea in a cartoon.
Sep 6, 2024 | Governance, Leadership, Strategy
Opportunity cost.
The mistakes you make of Commission are the ones by which performance is judged. They show up in a profit and loss and balance sheets of businesses. However, when you pass up a golden opportunity that turns out to be a winner, that ‘cost of potential profit’ does not show up anywhere.
It is a mistake of omission, not commission.
Those of us who failed to buy Apple shares when they were less than a dollar in 2003, and similarly, NVIDIA shares when they were $1.30, might see a missed opportunity. Both now trade at well over 100 times those prices.
However, such mistakes are acceptable when the opportunity is outside what Warren Buffett calls a ‘Circle of competence’. This is the area where you have the expertise to understand the opportunity being offered, but fail to accept it.
In the case of Apple and Nvidia, they are both outside my circle of competence. Therefore, I did not know enough to recognise the opportunity. Had I been immersed in the IT industry it might have been clearer.
Buffett’s seven rules for successful investing, summarised, are:
- Hire only intelligent people with integrity.
- Pay attention to facts, not emotions.
- Buy wonderful businesses, but not ‘cigar butts’
- Buy only stocks you understand.
- Seize the opportunity.
- Don’t sell because of price fluctuations.
- Buy stocks below what they are worth.
Passing up an opportunity that turns out to be something you should have grabbed, with the benefit of hindsight, means you have failed to give yourself an adequate answer to one, or more, of three simple questions.
- How much cash would the opportunity deliver to you?
- When are you going to get it?
- How sure are you?
Buffett and his late side-kick Charlie Munger are widely seen as geniuses. I suspect Mr Buffett would be embarrassed by that label. He might respond that all he did was follow the simple 7 rules, something most cannot do.
Aug 22, 2024 | Collaboration, Communication, Governance
Throughout history, humans have existed in small groups, tribes, and clans. We have worked together for the common good of the small tribe, and often, perhaps most often, been at odds with the tribe across the river.
British anthropologist Robin Dunbar introduced his theory that humans can maintain stable social relationships with no more than 150 people. This is a theory now so well accepted that ‘Dunbar’s number‘ has almost become a cliché.
The phrase ‘Stable Social Relationships’ has particular relevance in the age of social media platforms. How many friends do you have on Facebook, connections on LinkedIn, followers on Instagram?? For many, it is way beyond 150, often into the many hundreds, and often thousands.
How do you maintain Stable Social Relationships’ with that number of people?
Answer: you cannot.
Social media gets the blame for all sorts of things, rightly so, but it is not the fault of the platforms, it is the fault of evolution.
Our application of technology has run way ahead of our evolutionary capacity to manage it and retain the relationships that made us the most successful species ever.
It seems to me that the growth of private messaging, reversion to personalised even hand written notes, and emotional engagement of ‘Local’ things is a response to the ‘platformisation’ of our social relationships.
I think it is a trend that will continue and grow.
The power of social media platforms will slowly erode as more one to one enablers incrementally retake the ground lost. In the process, we humans will build up ‘evolutionary resistance’ to their power.
I do however see some hurdles in the way, the dark side of social media is as powerful as ever, and Dr Dunbar has little advice on that score.
Header cartoon credit. Lynch. (I have no idea where I found it)
Aug 16, 2024 | AI, Governance, Strategy
AI is the newest, shiniest thing we have seen since, well, perhaps ever, at least in the speed with which it has overtaken consciousness.
ChatGPT was released to the ‘wild’ in November 2022. In commercial terms, yesterday.
In that time, it has overtaken discussion, business planning, capability questions, and profoundly changed the face of stock markets.
An amazing outcome for a technology without a business model.
The committed AI infrastructure spending over the next year by the big 5 LLM builders, OpenAI, Amazon, Microsoft, Amazon and Google is over $200 billion. Depending on your sources, this might vary a bit, but may even be on the low side. It does not count the billions being spent by everybody else, largely on setting about leveraging the ‘infrastructure’ delivered by the LLM’s.
Again, depending on your sources, the revenues being generated over the next year by AI suppliers, both of the infrastructure and tools rapidly becoming available is probably $20 billion.
Nowhere in history has there been a tsunami of investment of this size and speed in the absence of a solid business model. There is no clear way forward to generating a return on that investment.
This is the equivalent to a goldrush, except, in a gold rush if you were the lucky one to find those elusive nuggets, you had some idea what they were worth, and an established way of monetising the metal.
Nothing of the sort exists with AI.
I have done plenty of capital proposals in my time, some with forecasts that bordered on the wildly optimistic because I believed a change of some sport would be generated by the object of that Capex. In my wildest dreams, I have never proposed anything like the ratio of capex to current revenue exhibited by this investment.
There is confusion around the term ‘Trillion’. Historically, the US and UK definitions differed, the UK version being 10^18, 1,000 times larger than the US trillion which is to the power of 12, or one million million. I explain this for clarity and comparative purposes.
On current stock market valuations (August 2024) Nvidia, a business few had heard of a year ago, is the most valuable company on earth with a valuation of US3.2Trillion. They trade places regularly with Apple for the No. 1 spot. Currently Apple is number 2, also at a rounded 3.2 trillion, but a few tens of millions behind Nvidia. Microsoft is third with 3.1 trillion, followed by Amazon at 1.9, and Meta at 1.3. The comparison I wanted to highlight is with the GDP of Australia, of US1.7 trillion. Australian GDP is just over half the market valuation of Nvidia and Apple, a sobering thought.
An investment of 200 billion against current revenues of 20 billion is simply the biggest financial gamble in the history, by a logarithmic amount.
The people running these massive businesses are not stupid. They see and are betting their companies (and they are ‘their’ companies, as control is in a very few hands) on massive returns, which means in turn that the fabric of everything we see and do must change, very quickly. The business models will change, and they will not be just everybody subscribing for modest monthly amounts to the latest LLM model. There will have to be whole new industries being ‘invented’ with successful business models in place for there to be a return on the capex being deployed.
The windows of opportunity that will open, and close just as quickly, over the next decade are immense.
No wonder there is a gold rush, it is just the location of the gold still in question.
Jul 15, 2024 | AI, Governance, Leadership
In a world dominated by discussions around AI, electrification to ‘save the planet’ and its impact on white collar and service jobs, the public seems to miss something fundamental.
All this scaling of electrification to replace fossil fuel, power the new world of AI, and maintain our standard of living, requires massive infrastructure renewal.
Construction of that essential electricity infrastructure requires many skilled people in many functions. From design through fabrication to installation, to operational management and maintenance, people are required. It also requires ‘satellite infrastructure’, the roads, bridges, drivers, trucks, and so on.
None of the benefits of economy wide electrification and AI can be delivered in the absence of investment in the hard assets.
Luckily, investment in infrastructure, hard as it may be to fund in the face of competing and increasing demands on public funds, is a gift we give to our descendants.
I have been highly critical of choices made over the last 35 years which have gutted our investment in infrastructure, science, education, and practical training. Much of what is left has been outsourced to profit making enterprises which ultimately charge more for less.
That is the way monopoly pricing works.
When governments outsource natural monopolies, fat profits to a few emerge very quickly at the long-term expense of the community.
Our investment in the technology to mitigate the impact of climate change is inherently in the interests of our descendants. Not just because we leave them a planet in better shape than it is heading currently, but because we leave them with the infrastructure that has enabled that climate technology to be deployed.
Why are we dancing around short-term partisan fairy tales, procrastinating, and ultimately, delivering sub-standard outcomes to our grandchildren?
Header illustration via Gemini.ai
Jul 5, 2024 | Change, Governance, retail
The undertaking by Opposition leader Dutton, supported by the Nationals leader Littleproud, to break up the retail gorillas Woolworths and Coles is absurd. It is a gross example of stupid, short term populism and fear mongering that exhibit either utter ignorance of the current and proposed laws, how the supermarket supply chains work, or scary levels of ignorance.
Perhaps it is all of these mixed up in a broth of complete ‘short-termism’.
It seems to me that facts and long-term benefit to the economy and communities play no role in this ill-conceived appeal to populist, thoughtless ‘policy’.
Such a breakup is far more likely to increase retail prices to consumers, it will certainly not result in any reduction.
Let me be clear about the failures of this proposal, at least as I see them.
Supply chain mechanics.
- The current voluntary code of practice, and the proposed mandatory standards relate to the chains and their suppliers. In a minority of cases are these suppliers also the manufacturers of the consumer product, as well as being the farmer, and all the associated and necessary middlemen that provide the supply chain with the ‘Oil’ that makes it work. Therefore, the policy if implemented would do nothing for the small scale ‘farmers’ who are often held up as victims of retailer power.
- Scale breeds scale. Suppliers of fruit and veg have over time, built scale to squeeze out transaction costs from the supply chain. The Australian Fresh Produce Alliance is a small group of very large ‘consolidators’ that between them control roughly half the $9 billion fresh fruit and vegetable market. These businesses are farmers only in the sense that they might own, contract, or represent hundreds of individual farming locations. Several of the major players are owned overseas. A breakup of Coles and Woollies would only encourage them to increase prices, as the suppliers would then have greater scale than the chains, and would use it.
- The small, independent farmers of commodity fruit and veg is a part of the past. Believing otherwise is fantasy. Where those who choose to farm a small holding have opportunities are in specialty produce sold through channels other than chain retailers.
Legal considerations.
- Any breakup would involve legal action, probably to the high court. I doubt the retailers would take a breakup order as anything other than an order to self-destruct. This would be resisted fiercely.
- The mandatory Code recommended by Dr Emerson, and widely accepted is only marginally more useful than the current voluntary code. It still requires that suppliers lodge complaints. Whilst there are now to be penalties applicable by arbitration, the likelihood of complaints remains low, despite the ‘protections’ articulated in recommendations 3, 4 and 5.
- The scale of penalties proposed by Dr Emerson is absurd. If the threat of implementation was real, nobody in their right mind would invest in retail of any scale. Imposition of the maximum penalty would send the retailer concerned broke. Assuming they are just ‘regulatory scarecrows’ with little legally independent investigation and enforcement power, they represent little of any real deterrent value, while adding friction to the supply chain. Friction generates costs, which will be recovered from consumers.
Competition falsehood.
- Coles and Woolworths do currently have somewhere around 65% market share of retail FMCG sales. That percentage is being eroded by Aldi, as it opens more stores and successfully takes market share.
- In regional areas of NSW and Vic particularly, but also SA and WA, there are a number of strong independent retailers. Drakes, Ritchie’s, IGA, and others are all competing successfully against Coles and Woollies. None would be able to buy disassembled bits of the gorillas, and even if they were, what would that do to the objective of decreasing retail prices? It would more likely put upward pressure on prices as the purchaser sought a return on the investment.
- It you were to breakup either of the retail gorillas, who is a likely buyer? I cannot think of any, except perhaps Walmart, who are also smart enough to assess the sovereign risk as being considerable, so they would not put anything like the expected value of the broken up businesses on the table.
- Some time ago, under Graham Samuel, the ACCC forced the removal of contractual exclusivity of Coles and Woollies in shopping centres under Section 47 of the Competition and Consumer act 2010. That move was a very sensible one, and has resulted in Aldi opening a number of stores in shopping centres in opposition to Coles and Woollies. (An extension to cover ‘land-banking’ might be a useful consideration.)
- While Coles and Woolworths are immensely powerful, they are far from the only distribution channel that exists. In a court they would point out the multibillion dollar and still fragmented food service channel, as well as the independent specialist retailers who continue to provide opportunities for small scale farming.
A final thought. Every Australian with a superannuation fund: i.e. most of us, would have Woollies and Coles in their portfolio, knowingly or otherwise. These shares have been good investments in terms of capital gain, and throw decent tax effective dividends. A breakup would threaten those investments.
For the Opposition leader to propose legislation, should they be elected to government, to break up Woolworths and Coles is nothing but an idiotic, populist, ill-considered appeal to voters without the knowledge to dismiss it with the contempt it deserves.
It is also an astonishing dismissal of one of the cores of the conservative parties: to limit the intervention of government in the workings of the economy.
We Australians deserve better from our ‘leaders’ than opportunistic and destructive policy statements.
