A different view on strategy

For those who know me for a longer time, you know that I have always been interested in business strategy and management, and that I wasn't much of a finance person. In fact I didn't like finance at all. But an interesting turn of events made me pursue a master's in corporate finance and I am surprised to see, that at the end of this year, my perception has changed dramatically. I now realize I had been looking at the wrong kind of finance - or rather looking at it in the wrong way. Now it's become my favorite subject and I understand, after putting myself in investors' shoes for the whole of last year, that any strategy that doesn't take into account finance is shallow and empty like an old coffer: you expect to find treasure but instead there's nothing but dust.

I could start by giving all these arguments related to investor's motives for starting or financing a business, such as gaining a return higher than they would by putting their money into safe instruments like bonds or bank accounts...and how a company's strategy should be steered to achieve this goal and provide to investors (shareholders) the minimum rate of return that they expect. But there's nothing new here - we all understand this more or less intuitively. What I did not understand that well until this year is just how much corporate finance is a decision tool in setting and steering a company's strategy.

Although that might sound weird at first, by thinking that a company's strategy is in fact represented by its collection of investment projects it all starts to make more sense. Indeed, to see what a company's strategy is, look at its budget. Their investment decisions and the projects they pursue uncover the true direction in which they are heading. Of course, I am not trying to wipe out the entire strategic process - there is unquantifiable value added in setting the long term direction of the company, anticipating future trends in the industry and devising tactics for a better competitive positioning. But when it comes down to one step further towards the implementation of this long term vision, financial decision making is key. If strategy is a collection of investment projects, then project portfolio management and investment decisions are strategy's true drivers, so project valuation and considerations about profitability of investments are key tools used to set the strategy. A great vision about the future but with the bad investment decisions will definitely lead to catastrophic results.

In this context, an interesting question is the issue of cross-subsidizing, especially when we think about product portfolio management. Quite often, a company finds itself in the situation of evaluating a project which is of strategic importance but has a negative NPV so it is not profitable on its own (ex. keeping operations running in a certain country to maintain a position and avoid competitors taking over that market segment completely). Should the company pursue this project? If they believe that the loss they would make by not keeping these operations open is higher than what they lose by committing themselves to this project, then they probably should - based on the fact that the loss of this project will be subsidized by the earnings of another project. But what happens when there are more projects like this to consider? How many and up to what amounts should the company subsidize, to avoid eating down the profits from the other higher value added projects? This is an interesting question to look at in the context of strategy setting. (the Real Options method helps ease the decision making in this context but I will probably talk about that in more detail in a following post). So are mergers and acquisitions - essential growth possibilities for some companies, but which can lead to failure of the entire group if not performed correctly. And here the financial considerations are again extremely important, as there is a tendency to overpay the target thus eating out most or all possible synergies.

These are just a few examples and a few ideas that came to my mind now, but this master's degree has been full of such examples that drew my attention. It truly opened my eyes and gave me a new perspective. I think Porter is good. Porter is great! But if Porter is not backed by numbers, it is worthless, it cannot add value. And unfortunately as I look at the strategy consulting industry I see a lot of times (maybe more so in boutique companies?) that the recommendations are based on pure qualitative analysis, experience of the industry and market studies, but not enough on finance. What will the future look like? I'm curious to find out!