Investing In An Age Of Transient Competitive Advantages

Posted on August 24, 2013

John Mason – Originally Published at Seeking Alpha – Reprinted with Authors Permission

In this article I will review the book “The End of Competitive Advantage,” by Rita Gunther McGrath, published by the Harvard Business Review Press in 2013.

I like to think of myself as a “value investor.” That is, I believe that I invest in quality companies that are underpriced. In terms of the quality of the organizations I like to invest in, I look for firms that have established a competitive advantage in their industries and are earning at least a 15% return on equity, after taxes. To judge the quality of management and its staying power, I look for those organizations that have a sustainable competitive advantage, defined as earning a 15% return on equity, after taxes, for a period of five to eight years. And, to capture the fact that a stock may be underpriced, I look for a low price/earnings ratio.

Other factors that have been important in my analysis are the industry share the company achieves and protects and the stability of this share over time. Of course, these are the quantitative factors and must be supplemented by other factors, such as an examination of management, industry make-up, and governmental factors that might contribute to firm performance.

Well, starting right here, Dr. McGrath starts to eat away at this picture. For one, she argues that industry boundaries are no longer that important. She argues that “arenas” are more crucial in the modern environment. The important thing in today’s world is that there are connections between “the outcomes that particular customers want (the jobs to be done)” and “the alternative ways those outcomes might be met” (page 10). Industry lines are not the determinants of what products one should be producing and what markets they should be sold … read the rest

The JOBS Act and the Future of Commercial Banking

Posted on June 12, 2012

America needs jobs!   That’s a point where there is universal agreement among the political parties.  So much so that Congress overwhelmingly passed the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act; 390 to 23 in the House and 73 to 26 in the Senate.  My suspicion is the most of those voting for the Act had little idea of how far-reaching the effects of the JOBS Act might be.

The JOBS Act may represent the most radical change in how securities can be privately sold and business capital can be raised from private investors since the securities laws were passed in the 1930s.  Under the JOBS Act most of the restrictions with regard to solicitation that have impeded the growth of a vibrant private placement capital market among accredited investors (i.e. those with liquid net worth over $1 million or incomes over $200,000) have now been removed.

The devil is always in the details and SEC regulations promulgated under the Act could potentially curtail some of its impact.  As written, the JOBS Act has the potential to democratize the financing of business growth in a very dramatic and potentially unintended manner.  By removing many, if not most, of the restrictions on accredited investors seeking to invest in small companies, the JOBS Act provides a basis for many innovative new vehicles for small business financing to blossom.

While most of the commentary around the JOBS Act focuses on funding of startups, the real financing need is to support the expansion of the rapidly growing mid-sized companies that, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, provide the engine for new jobs in America.  These companies typically have progressed past the startup stage.  They may have 20-50 employees and several million dollars of revenue, with the potential to grow to hundreds if not thousands of employees as … read the rest