Growth, Revenue & Profit Sources

Value to business is its ability to provide a utility of offering(s) to its targeted customer base with expansion through an increasing number of consumers. Accomplishing this requires ongoing improvement in knowledge of product utility, consumer usage, and the economic and social engagement of the employed human capital. Effective implementations will ultimately result in a growing enterprise with consumer recognition of proactive attention to market(s) served. Growth is an important focus of investment managers and market strategists in the determination of business (corporate) valuation and investment decision metrics. Most growth expectations are revenue (sales) based which flow to net earnings in a consistent, efficient operation [margin improvement]. However, growth in earnings (bottom-line) with flat periodic sales (top-line) is a reflection of operational or capital structure improvements. In an effort to review some common finance evaluative metrics used in business decisions, I have added them to the categories on the Basic Summary of the Business Process graphic. A few important observations to note: 

1) Cash Flow and Return are specific to evaluations of Income (earnings) which include tax implications relative to ownership distributions;
2) Turnover metrics evaluate sales volume relative to distribution and operational efficiencies.
3) Equity Valuations specific to publicly traded stocks depend heavily on growth compared to expected returns compared to industry peers.
4) Return on tax liabilities rendered is not a metric!


Prior to making project investment decisions, each corporation has an analysis benchmark to satisfy expectation of return on invested capital. Growth is part of the evaluation and as evident in the listed metrics, the analysis is firm specific. So, what is the source of growth? New products or services? Competitive product defeat? Vertical or horizontal business combinations? Increased consumer consumption? New markets (domestic or international)? Is the industry growing or shrinking?

Each answer has an implication on the economy, policy, and overall employment levels. They also reflect the differing objectives and directives between Corporations and Governments. Business finance decisions tend to be very firm specific while governments must maintain the rules of fairness and policies to support balanced, sustainable economic growth of opportunities for all citizens to prevent social disruptions due to biased misallocations. While corporations look for revenue and earnings growth via new customers/consumers and operational efficiencies to improve the retention of each sales dollar received, governments are looking to invest in projects that improve the lives of citizens through educational access and services to maintain certain standards of humanity. Additionally, governments ensure equal and fair citizen access to the necessary resources for improvement to livelihoods through market creating rules & conditions and the collection of taxes from beneficial commerce of infrastructure investment. When domestic sales growth slows, companies generally look in other geographic locations for opportunities. Investment in local under-served communities is also an opportunity for additional consumer development; however, many companies do not consider the investment due to the longer duration in payback (return on investment) of population educational improvements and wage increases. Two things governments can accomplish from collected taxes are the re-allocation of investments into education & skill development as well as targeted technology research to match and create marketplace opportunities. Just as business looks to maximize return on investment, governments should invest in the societal groups that stand to gain, or improve, the most (those below normal standards). Diversity in investment will yield diversity in ideas, developments, thoughts, innovation, and achievement.


Basic Summary of Business Process

Corporations and Social Value

 

Social Value - Larger concept which includes social capital as well as the subjective aspects of the citizens' well-being, such as their ability to participate in making decisions that affect them.

 

Governments around the globe have multiple performance measures employed to monitor and manage society for peaceful, stable and progressive improvement. Corporations are entities used for the efficient employment of resources in addition to government efforts. At one time, natural resources were thought to be public property of the “state” and access sold to individuals or groups of individuals who would best utilize the resources for the benefit of the society by providing adequate return of investments. Risk of loss has always been part of the assessment and contributed to the creation and development of the insurance industry. Assessments include but are not limited to the best utilization of human capital (education & employment); purpose and uses of the identified natural resources; economic development of the society in which the enterprise would operate to convert the natural resource. Other areas for consideration include government regulatory and safety concerns. However, I will not focus on these in lieu of a larger point to be made.

Expanding economic activity can lead social development around bonded communities requiring greater inclusion for successful, diversified, and balanced growth. Much effort was provided by government actions through laws and customs (old and new) to counter corporate self-interested, monopolistic control. The mechanism used to counter these actions was the creation of increased competition. Early U.S. economic competition was more direct by definition after Theodore Roosevelt’s anti-trust legislative initiatives. Increased competition introduced more product differentiation, greater technical product utility, and created new services which extended industries.Wikipedia definition:

Competition in economics is a term that encompasses the notion of individuals and firms striving for a greater share of a market to sell or buy goods and services. Merriam-Webster defines competition in business as "the effort of two or more parties acting independently to secure the business of a third party by offering the most favorable terms."^[1] Competition, according to the theory, causes commercial firms to develop new products, services and technologies, which would give consumers greater selection and better products. The greater selection typically causes lower prices for the products, compared to what the price would be if there was no competition (monopoly) or little competition (oligopoly).

The increased competitive environment required more corporate efficiency due to the limitations on pricing power with lower market share and greater product alternatives. The efficiency focus can also be extended to human capital and requires corporate leadership to emphasize the resource values of the corporation. Natural resource material requirements are easily identified and pricing controlled within a specified range of competitive demand. However, the extension and growth of the corporation and industry is the result of investment in human capital and social collaboration (skills, education, leadership training, knowledge sharing, & shared responsibility) to create new ideas, products, uses, and other related opportunities. Such requirements make valuation of the (human capital) resource more difficult because usually it is the created environment that produces and develops the creativity. Your employees are the consumer market of other industries, if not your own. Cost cutting efforts among the human capital to achieve increasing profitability disrupt the environment by reducing longer-term future value in exchange for increased administrative productivity gains and short-term profitability. However, from a social perspective the lower profitability is acceptable compared to higher unemployment and lower levels of skill development. Capitalistic principles of obsolescence work when there is continuing investment and development of technologies creating new opportunities. So, what is expected from a “public” company? How does society balance between the emphasis of the two interests (public investment and private returns)?

The American system was designed to allow entrepreneurial access to capital that would expand an opportunity to effectively employ capital for increased productivity and profitability by matching private interest with public resources. Under these terms, are the investors in mutual funds and savings instruments receiving enough compensation for the successful business endeavors and economic expansion relative to money managers (salary and bonus) and entrepreneurs / primary shareholders (business controlling interest)? Granted the business owner created the business and also received in many cases 500 to 1,000 times the initial investment leveraging the use of public money. The original savers through pensions, mutual funds, and other bank deposit instruments receive returns anywhere from 5% to 500% (.05 to 5 times investment) which effectively transfers public money into private profits and bonuses. This scenario is even more pronounced within hedge fund activity where the greater returns are accumulated by the financial institutions over business owners and stakeholders. I do not disparage the capitalist system; let’s just accurately identify what is taking place. Where exactly is the risk of economic loss in the system relative to the individual returns? Should economic risk and computerized financial system risk be compensated similarly? Is the risk in the stock market pricing and valuation techniques or with the actual longer term company performance?

The American government has always taken a varied clandestine and active participant role in businesses and industries deemed vital to the nation’s security interest (i.e. petroleum and computing technologies/internet). The largest financial market in the world is not and should not be an exception. The refocus on investment, productive uses of funds, and proper identification of risk and related return is a good thing for the American society and the global leadership influence.

Assets and Values

Governments and Corporations have as an objective to increase asset value to benefit stakeholders working to nurture and create future value and performance. The U.S. Constitution with Amendments set forth that the value to the country is its free citizens. The document identifies managing principles of citizens’ freedoms, rights, and protections. This recognition created the foundational understanding for the Separation of Church and State, Civil Rights, public education, Medicare/Medicaid, and now Healthcare. It also provided the way for infrastructure investment beneficial to all without regard to means. The importance of Separation of Church and State is evident in the current financial crisis as explained by the founders: Religious freedom to practice and prevention of corruption of the Church; and protection against discriminatory influences on the State. Current public furor would be directed at the Church if it was responsible for financial legislation and deregulation of controls that protect savings and retirement funds at the expense of executive bonuses.

This original structure has come to provide a base level of subsistence for American life and a high level of economic productivity, as measured by GDP, with comparatively broader levels of earnings distribution. However, what still exists are the varying levels of importance and priority placed upon input capital and resources (assets) that are deterministic of individual economic outcomes. The emphasis upon “tribes” and fraternal affiliations (social and religious) establishes informal groupthink criterion of morality and loyalty tests in order to access capitalistic factors of enterprise. In reality, native tribes were more integrated than presently credited. These exclusionary practices not only limit economic production for competitive protective purposes, but they are also destructive to social values increasing the burden on the state to provide benefits for the maintenance of a harmonious society (limiting crime, unemployment, and human exploitation). Moreover, the practices directly contradict the individual - conservative “boot-strap” ideology and substitute control through “social” organizations. As a youth in Alabama from Massachusetts, the systematic separation was apparent even after the days of George C. Wallace’s political grandstanding. Violations [interracial or non-traditional relationships] meant limited access with exceptions only to the extent of religious affiliation. The order was maintained by both Black and White racial groups further revealed in conversational dialogue of the Black American community regarding an unofficial “oppression grading” by skin tone to psychologically justify success through “family” (race) commitment [unconstitutional Southern moral code violating civil rights]. Moral liability (real or fabricated) has been historically used for leverage to maintain systemic order and control of capital at a high social cost (inequality) for progressive economic advancement of a UNITED humanity, society, and Country.

The individual – conservative identification is an observational label personally used to create an understanding of the Religion and Preferences for Social Insurance graphic presentation in my Social Spending and GDP blog post. To better understand and interpret the graphic data, I applied quadrants to the Least Squared Sum regression describing the relationship by country between Social Spending in % GDP and the average reported importance of God in a person’s life. The quadrants were identified by a personal definition of two distinguishing factors of varying adaptability: (1) governing philosophy related to rights and benefits of its citizens [Social or Individual]. Social meaning a shared responsibility of community to ensure care for the human condition; and, (2) the religious perspective of the society and its belief of impact on daily life [Conservative or Liberal]. The countries were further listed by quadrant and respective economic performance compared. It is important to note that the countries of comparison are primarily of Europe and European origin (includes U.S., Australia, & Canada) plus Japan.

Comparing the Per Capita GDP of the countries without the benefit of statistical testing to measure and control the factors of country size (geographic and population), natural resources, and location, the United States is a leader in economic production and greatly influences results. Luxembourg and Norway have greater per capita GDPs, but are too small in size and population to have much influence. It is only because of the United States that the Individual-conservative governing ideology leads in productivity. When the U.S. is excluded, not much difference is reflected in the productivity of the personally defined governing ideologies. But, the Social and Liberal economies are slightly better performing. I want to reiterate that this is not a scientific study with rigorous testing. It is based upon observation and personal ordering to provide some understanding of the information and graphic presented in the Religion and Preferences for Social Insurance paper referenced in my Social Spending and GDP blog post.

The performance of the United States is reflective of the corporate focus, size advantage, and effective employment of resources. However, comparing the GDP to Per Capita Earnings reveals another aspect of U.S. capital management. Traditional factors of production include land, labor, and capital goods. Updates have added ecosystems with land, human capital (education & skills), and financial capital (money, equity). The income data reflects the beneficial impact of ownership (equity) in the corporate structure and disguises (at least until the financial crisis and high unemployment rates) the downside of placing a priority on maximizing one or two factors of production (return on capital and return on equity). Corporations have been focused like laser beams to reduce cost, improve profitability, and grow earnings. Social impacts are not included in any of these objectives and become an issue for the state and federal governments. Reducing taxes further increases the problem by limiting the ability of government to assist its citizens. A quick summary of the systemic problem provides the following: Corporations focused performance improvement on stockholders at the expense of all other stakeholders (employees, suppliers, communities, & government). To improve return to stockholders, costs throughout the supply chain have to be reduced. Labor must be more productive or found cheaper in a less restrictive environment which means layoffs and relocation of assembly operations. Suppliers reduce cost at the expense of profitability lessening their ability to invest in innovation which would also benefit the OEM. In addition to these actions, tax policy is attacked to lower rates which have no other purpose than to lower money provided to government entities and retain earnings within the corporate treasury.

This blog post may provide an opportunity for critique and claims of anti-business sentiments. However, I am a true capitalist that considers the long-term implications and sustainability of such a narrowly focused economic philosophy in light of the high-technology era of competitiveness we are entering. An example of this evolution is evident in the history of the television. The focus on financial capital (return to stockholders) and technical measures employed indicated that the solid state technology was declining in profitability. After all cost reduction attempts, profitability was difficult to maintain. Present Value analysis increased management pressure by indicating the sale of the business to maximize return of capital. Semiconductors, microchip, and nanotechnologies were not foreseen or were factored as risky incorporations too far in the future. Thus, technology is transferred to Asia; improved with chip technology and product expansion into flat screens, computer monitors, automobile GPS, and etc…. The point is that the social costs of business decisions should be incorporated into strategic, financial decision-making at some level within the organization.

Ultimately, the question will come down to if there is a God advantage to economic performance and social spending? I have a perspective, but will reserve the right to hold my opinion and leave the proposition unanswered for now.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GDP and Social Policy Graphic Analysis

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8-29-2013

Integrative Social and Economic Systems

Societal behavioral norms have been shaped over time through the civilization cycles. Early civilizations were not very sexually inhibitive as evidenced in the ancient artifacts currently displayed in museums around the world. In these early Egyptian, Greek, and Roman cultures women were expected to be dedicated to their husbands. While male sexual promiscuity was acceptable behavior resulting from dominance based upon physical strength and fighting abilities.

The evolution of democratic societies as currently reflected in the U.S. has given women equal rights as men. Advanced technologies and machinery have replaced the required “brute” physical strength to accomplish tasks and placed a premium on mental and intellectual abilities. Equal recognition of ability and responsibility has progressed and eventually equal opportunity and compensation will follow. Marriage is no less important to American values than any other culture. However, the arrangement is becoming as much an economic decision as one of moral expectation. The marriage commitment comes with an expectation consistent with the politically expressed American Dream of a house with backyard and kids. The conservative social structure I briefly identify in blog posts Judgments and Character and Gatekeepers and Modes of Incorporation attempt to maintain historical segments within the society. Just for the sake of declaration, I do not belong nor do I intend to become part of the socially promoted segmented fraternal structure (particularly, any supported by Southern influenced frat collaborations with other “family” values separatists). If the objective is to create and maintain stability in society through committed marital unions, then placing restrictive boundaries and conditional exclusions are not warranted. The segmented social philosophy is a remnant of the early civil rights’ struggles and creates current day relationship obstacles.

Slides:  Married Couples in United States 2006, Updated                          2008 Per Capita Mean Income Analysis (Race and Gender)

Comparatively, the U.S. economic system is a more dynamic, evolved, and inclusive environment with substantial measurements of integrated success. Capitalist markets operate on the assumption of capital allocated to its best and most productive usage with limited restrictions. The system allows capital to flow freely around the world through all cultures and communities to find the best match of opportunities and goals successfully uniting supply with demand. So, in a segmented social group where one gender outnumbers another (more supply over demand), what should happen with the excess “supply”? Could these imposed barriers be the cause of unwanted behaviors? When women outnumber men within a segment more time is spent “rent seeking” a partner and as competition increases within the segment, male promiscuity most likely increases.

The philosophical capitalist (free market) social model allows more freedom to cross boundaries for better balancing of match opportunities for stronger, intimate commitments. Adding to the issue of segmentation are the subjective individual moral behavior judgments affecting opportunities. The impacts are somewhat reflected in national employment rates and other factors further compounding imbalances. Removing social barriers (stigmas) and allowing a free, open market for marriage selection (true natural selection) could increase the desired goal believed to create a more stable society of commitment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[update August 2014]