The UBS trading scandal last September was a stark reminder that some of the basic tenets of running a large global business are timeless. In this case risk management and appropriate incentives probably deserved a rethink.
More broadly, what is becoming increasingly apparent for investors that have seen a few economic cycles come and go is that global corporations have become very complicated. Perhaps more alarming is they are continuing to increase in complexity.
Corporate complexity arises from multiple sources. For example, integrating many acquisitions can easily lead to organisational complexity, while the push to outsource has left many large businesses with extensive process complexity.
Much like debt, increasing the complexity within a business is easier than reducing it. For investors, added complexity reduces transparency and predictability, which means added risk.
The reality for investors is that successful global companies cannot avoid complexity. Equally, the speed of innovation and the intensity of global competition increasingly requires better harnessing of business intelligence than was required in the past. We joke about Generation Y being a ‘me’ generation (my mantra is Y should I employ you?).
Yet the reality is we all now expect businesses to understand what we want and expect they can provide it where and when it suits us. Even the Chinese rioted when Apple had to delay distributing its iPhone 4S earlier this year.
In an increasingly complex landscape there will be winners and losers. The challenge as investors is to identify the winners and avoid the losers as far as possible.
The most obvious and efficient solution to an environment demanding the management of increased complexity is to narrow the range of activities within the business, or alternatively simplify the business structure.
For investors this can result in lower risk as well as more efficient use of capital on the highest value add activities. Get it wrong though and you are in a world of hurt.
How do you differentiate? The no-brainer is the ‘enablers’, those companies such as IBM which provide enterprise software that facilitates client companies to keep their businesses running smoothly.
Clearly in an environment where complexity and demand for better business intelligence is increasingly taxing management teams, one solution is to bring in better systems and technology – an attractive environment for companies such as IBM to increase their earnings.
An alternate and perhaps harder-to-implement approach is to identify companies that are complex, yet have proven they can manage their complexity well.
Johnson and Johnson is a global company with a multitude of very successful products in intensely competitive categories, yet the company continues to deliver for investors.
The ability to navigate through a global environment that demands increasing levels of complexity is an issue investors can expect to face in the near and medium term. Separating corporate responses to this complexity into the avoiders and the embracers is a good first step.
In essence, it’s just a different filter to segregate companies into winners and losers – no different to the distinction between expensive and undervalued stocks.
Matthew Drennan is executive general manager at Zurich Investments.
