Monday, January 31, 2005

Currently on the night stand

I'm currently reading The Metaphysical Club by Louis Menard. It's an exploration of the major American intellectual themes from the second half of the 19th Century. The main characters are Oliver Wendell Holmes, William James, Charles Pierce and John Dewey. So far it's been a very interesting look at the philosophical leanings of America and especially Boston after the Civil War. James, et al, are generally known for espousing the doctrine of pragmatism, but the book also touches on natural selection, legal theory, and the ascension of statistics and the law of errors into popular use. I'd recommend it to any student of intellectual history. Oh, and the Pulitzer people liked it too.

Wednesday, January 19, 2005

Boringly solid is a bad thing?!?

IBM announced its 4Q 2004 earnings yesterday afternoon. The earnings were $1.80 per share, solidly beating the Street's projection of $1.76. Yet the stock dropped close to 2 points in the day since the results were reported. The reason? Apparently IBM wasn't exciting enough. Analyst Laura Conigiliaro from Goldman Sachs characterized the outcome as "another boringly solid quarter." Since when was solidity a bad thing in the business world? Generally beating both your revenue (by $.27 billion) and profit expectations is a good thing. But for some reason IBM investors (of which I am one) and executives are being punished by the market because the results weren't flashy enough? And people wonder why executives have incentives to take dangerous risks or act illegally.

Tuesday, January 18, 2005

For want of profitability

Pick out the major stories in the business world since the dot-com bubble burst: scandals, layoffs, offshoring, more scandals. All of these are predictable outcomes of a flawed mentality of business. The focus on short-term shareholder value creates incentives for companies and executives to do whatever is necessary to maintain the profit line for this quarter, or fiscal year, and to mortgage the future to keep the stock price up.

Let's consider the short-sighted activities that companies engage in to meet quarterly goals. Profit appears to be the primary metric used to judge the company's achievement, which creates two possible paths to success -- increase revenue or decrease expenses. Creating additional revenue is a less than certain endeavor, because it's based on a lot of outside sources. If you're having a tough quarter, there's a fairly good chance your customers are too (otherwise they'd be buying more of your product). Not only that, but you will likely face increased competition as everyone in the industry scrambles for any dollars left on the table. The obvious answer is to look to cut expenses.

In my limited experience, the first things to go are employee development programs: education, tuition reimbursement, etc. There are two deleterious effects from cutting development. First, you are reducing the skill growth of your employees, which may hurt you in future years, as the industry changes and new skills are needed to compete. Second, and perhaps more damaging, you are creating negative feelings in your best employees. These employees are likely the ones who desire to enrich themselves through education. They are also the employees you least want to lose. Driving away your best employees obviously is going to have a negative impact on performance at some point. If you're lucky, it may just be having to pay more to keep these employees from jumping to another company. If you're not so lucky, you're going to be stuck with a bunch of low performing employees.

I've also heard of examples where companies have cut travel that wasn't projected to lead to immediate revenue. That means that any sales calls or marketing efforts requiring travel were stopped unless the results were going to be realized within 90 days or less. While this is a much more extreme measure, and consequently much less frequently used, its downside is much more obvious and much larger. Is the effect on future revenue really worth the savings that cutting travel costs will bring?

Now let's turn our attention to the executives and the conflict of interest many are faced with. As anyone the least bit familiar with the tech industry in the late 90s knows, stock options are a very common component of compensation for executives. The rationale behind stock options is mostly solid -- it ties compensation to results -- requiring the executive to be more concerned about his or her decisions. This can go too far, however. Options reward stock price growth rather than company growth. And stock prices all too often don't accurately measure a company's long term value. The day-to-day, or month-to-month fluctuations in stock price are driven more by the latest earnings results (or even the projected results) than a full understanding of a company's future possibilities. The fact that earnings results are so influential creates a great deal of pressure for executives to guarantee those earnings are as high as possible, which in turn encourages behavior ranging from short-sighted (see above) to illegal (see Enron, MCI, etc).

So what can be done to rectify the situation? Recent legislation, including the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, takes some steps -- increasing independent oversight from the Board of Directors among them. However, the root of the problem is outlook, not enforcement. Creating an environment where profits are valued above all else and shareholders are more important than any other stakeholders leads to the decisions described above. The focus for a company should be on long-term revenue growth and should take the views of all stakeholders into account -- employees are too often neglected. The balance of power from the employee to the employer shifted from one extreme to the other as the bubble burst, and it needs to return to an equilibrium. An environment where employees feel appreciated and aren't always looking over their shoulder is an environment more conducive to productivity and profit. That day will not come until companies and executives are rewarded for real growth rather than imagined profitability.

Friday, January 14, 2005

And I'm apparently a dirty stinking liar

So scratch the whole long post tonight thing. I'm too tired and too worn out from the weak. Just a tease with the full thing to follow Monday afternoon (I promise this time). You can wait with baited breath for my astoundingly insightful treatise on the scintillating topic of the misplaced focus of public companies.

So I'm much more of a weekend blogger

Sorry for the lack of updates everyone. It's hard for me to find the time to write on weekdays because of work. I've got a post I'm thinking about that I'll try to write tonight and then it's off to Boston for the weekend.

Sunday, January 09, 2005

And there goes the future

I, along with a lot of Yankees fans, have not been that impressed with the offseason wheelings and dealings. I'll leave the majority of the analysis to those better suited, but I'd like to consider another potential long-term problem besides throwing tons of money at overpaid, declining players.

Every offseason in the past 8 years or so, whether they win the World Series or lose it, the Yankees have reloaded through free agency or trades where they take on contracts other teams either couldn't afford or decided weren't worth the risk. In doing so, they've traded away just about every prospect in their frighteningly thin system. Almost none of those prospects (save Mike Lowell and hopefully Nick Johnson) have done that much, so the loss may not be that great. However, the core of the team, home-grown stars like Derek Jeter, Mariano Rivera, Jorge Posada and especially Bernie Williams, are getting older and starting to decline. The players they've brought in, like A-Rod, Matsui and Sheffield, have kept the team competitive. Even if they manage to keep finding the players necessary to win 90+ games a year, I wonder if there will be any effect on attendance when the core of the team is no longer primarily home-grown.

I have a theory, although I haven't figured out how to test it, that fans are more likely to root for a home-grown team, all other things being equal. I think tracking players throughout the minor and watching them break in creates more of an interest. Of course, you can't often break in a bunch of young players at once and expect to maintain a chance at a championship. A safer course of action would be to rotate in one or two younger players a season, to revitalize the team (and to strengthen a connection to the fans for another 6 seasons) without risking a pennant run. It makes even more sense if the younger player can be almost as effective as the veteran he'd replace. To apply this rationale to this season's team, this would suggest giving the 2b job to Robinson Cano rather than Tony Womack.

And there goes the season

I don't even want to talk about it. You'd think Sherman would realize that the defense and the tackling has been the biggest problem for the Packers the last two seasons. This was just a poorly played game by the Pack overall.

Now to turn my attention to the Yankees, who haven't had that impressive an offseason to my mind. More on that later.

Let's Go Packers!

I'm looking forward to today's Vikings at Packers matchup. Hopefully it'll be the first step in recovering from last year's 4th and 26 debacle. I'm a little worried about the defense this season, but I think the playoffs line up pretty nicely for the Pack. Normally I'd be concerned about a first round matchup with Moss and Culpepper, but it's at Lambeau in 20 degree weather - a situation dome teams don't generally handle very well (ignore the white-washing at the hands of the Falcons a few years ago). Next week, Green Bay will head to Atlanta to face the aforementioned Falcons. Vick scares me, just because he can take over the entire game, but I'm not convinced about the rest of the team. So hopefully that leads us nicely into a rematch with the Eagles in the NFC Championship game. But I'll leave that game until it happens - don't want to get too far ahead of ourselves.

Saturday, January 08, 2005

Strategery

I had an interesting conversation with my brother over Christmas about the record industry. He's a junior in Drexel's Music Industry program and is working for a small label in Philly so this stuff is his bread and butter. Anyway, we started talking the stranglehold the RIAA labels have on the whole music industry and how it's bad for the entirety of the value chain (except the labels of course). On the one hand, you have artists willing to sign away their rights for a chance to make it big; on the other, you have consumers who purchase arguably overpriced music and aren't even supposed to make copies of it to store on their computer or their mp3 player (at least according to my admittedly rudimentary understanding of the DMCA).

The interesting part of the discussion came when we were talking about ways to break the power of the major labels. The big labels have three main advantages as far as I can see:

1. Marketing budget and breadth: The major labels can afford to launch a nationwide (or worldwide) advertising blitz to get the word out on a new artist. Plus they have the connections to land artists promotional appearances.

2. Pooling of risk: Major labels will see much larger returns from a smash hit than will a smaller label. This allows the major labels to take chances on more acts, in the hopes they find one that is commercially viable.

3. Distribution channels: The major companies have relationships with national distributors and retail stores that enable them to get priority placement in stores.

I'm sure there are other advantages, but focusing on these three, I came up with a proposal. Small, regional labels should enter into a loose cooperative to promote and distribute each others acts. Obviously there's a lot more thought needed with this, and I'd be shocked if it wasn't being done somewhere, but it appears to be a way to challenge the status quo,

The main reason the conversation sticks in my head is not the idea itself, but more the nature of the discussion. My interest lies in strategy, and it's nothing something I get to think about on a daily basis in my job as a programmer. It's one of the reasons I started this blog - to have some place to share these ideas.

Saturday, January 01, 2005

Welcome to the Tabularium

I've been meaning to create a blog for a while as a way of showcasing some writing (or convincing myself to actually get off the couch and do some writing). I plan to post my thoughts on whatever catches my attention, which if history holds will be some business, some baseball and an amalgam of other things.