Category Archives: Market Intelligence

To What Extent Can True Supply Chain Value be Created under Private Equity?

the doctor recently encountered a headline that implied that there could be supply chain value creation under private equity ownership, which, even before he made it to the tenth word, caused him to stop and ask just how much supply chain value could be created under private equity as the entire point of private equity is NOT to create supply chain value but to increase investment value in the short term for the fund contributors who are essentially the shareholders of the private equity firm.

And when we are talking short-term investment value creation, usually the biggest value creation levers are:

  • revenue / customer base increase
    (Wall Street Values this the most, so most investors value this the most as it gives them a better exit opportunity)
  • operational cost reduction
    (layoffs of the perceived dead-weight or high-earners, job consolidation, etc.; office space downsizing; cloud/SaaS infrastructure reduction/optimization; etc; as it’s an immediate reduction on the balance sheet which results in an immediate profit increase)

Supply chain is not the top two, and in many cases it’s not even in the top twenty, when you’re talking short-term. Mid-term (5 years), it gets up there (but not high enough for anything significant to be done), and long-term, it’s likely the second top value driver there is (as we must always remember that financiers will always put revenue first) as it can lead to cost reductions and value generation that can exceed any short-term operational cost reduction as the benefits from a supply chain improvement will be realized every year (and not just one time).

When the doctor got past these thoughts and returned to the article, the first thing the article noted is that private equity (PE) and the supply chain have been somewhat at odds with each other … due to what we could call a timeframe imbalance since PE typically aims to secure an exit within 3-5 years while supply chains … tended to operate on longer timespans. (Often much longer timespans.)

Now we must admit that, thanks to the pandemic, PE firms now realize more than ever that, without a functioning supply chain, any traditional business that needs to buy and sell physical goods to function is up Schitt’s Creek without a paddle. As a result, the smarter PE firms have started to give the supply chain some attention, but for the most part their focus and investments are usually limited to qualifying suppliers and carriers, not transforming global supply chains.

Moreover, the execution of this focus on qualifying suppliers and carriers is usually part of a broader strategy to make better decisions, which needs better data, so the focus ends up being a data, analytics, and BI (which is supposed to stand for Business Intelligence, but in some companies just ends up being BullSh!t Interpretation when they buy the wrong tool) strategy and an investment in the right SaaS tools to do that, and not on actual supply chain modelling, (re)design, or transformation. The best companies will procure modern S2P and ERP platforms which support real-time visibility into the location of all product — be they inventory, in transport, and ordered — by way of message and e-Document (EDI, XML, etc.) exchange with supplier platforms, but that’s as far as they’ll go on the “supply chain“.

And when the doctor finally brought himself to finish the article, it mostly admitted all of this, but finished by saying that there has been a surge in PE investment into supply chain technology, which he knows to be true.

In other words, PE firms do invest in supply chain technology and do utilize such to maximize the value in the supply chains of the companies they invest in, but they don’t actually invest in the actual supply chain, which is a much greater source of value (and carbon reduction, FYI) in the long term. And, as the doctor thought, the title was quite misleading. PE firms, if they took a longer term view (even 8 to 10 years would be enough), could totally transform supply chains, but, at least for now, all they do is tighten up what’s there in the hopes of making the company profitable enough to flip it to a bigger PE firm or take it public. So, to be brutally honest, there is no true supply chain value created under Private Equity today. (Hopefully tomorrow is a different story, but we’re not holding our breath.)

Disagree … contribute to the conversation on LinkedIn.

Can the UK Help American Manufacturers Shift Their Sourcing of Critical Materials?

Maybe, but not in the way this recent article in SupplyChainBrain suggests. The article, which really had the doctor scratching his head, referenced the Atlantic Declaration and how the United States and United Kingdom are resolving to build resilient, diversified, and secure supply chains and, more specifically, bolster the U.K. as a source of five critical minerals: cobalt, graphite, lithium, manganese, and nickel.

While we need a secure supply of these minerals in the Americas to ramp up and sustain EV (Electrical Vehicle) production, as the article also notes, the UK is the world’s 12th largest exporter of cobalt, 16th largest of graphite, 12th largest of manganese, 11th largest of raw nickel, and doesn’t even make the charts on Lithium. It can ramp up all it wants, these numbers aren’t going to change (because every other country is ramping up too), and the bigger countries (likely) have deeper reserves.

Plus, the UK, with very dense cities like London and limited land mass, is in desperate need of EVs itself to keep its smog levels down, so how much can it really afford to export?

The reality is that the UK can help by working with the US to identify non-China sources of these materials, use their collective bargaining might to secure supply at a sustainable cost, and help manage suppliers who are closer to / more used to working with the UK than the US. Similarly, since the UK is a small island and will likely need to import these vehicles (since the local market size doesn’t make an automotive production plant an economical investment for most automotive brands UNLESS a significant part of the UK market would switch to that vehicle), it can also guarantee a market for any suppliers that it secures those materials on behalf of.

Plus, if UK and US companies team up, they can split the effort and share their knowledge and best practices, and the more creativity you have to solve the upcoming challenges, the better — and chances are that the UK, who no longer have the weight and support of the EU backing them up, needs to be very creative these days.

Anyway, while we applaud the joint effort, it’s doubtful that the UK is going to solve even a fraction of the US need raw material wise. But human capital wise, they are even more incentivized than the US to solve these challenges.

Procurement Needs to Change for the Better … But it is Currently Stalled!

A recent article over on Supply & Demand Chain Executive noted that Procurement is Changing for the Better, but if you look at the 5 most strategic objectives from the recent APQC survey they referenced, two of the five focus on costs — specifically, #2 on reducing procurement costs and #5 on maintaining of improving margin. Just like the recent Ivalua/Procurement Leaders survey, cost is the focus, and all the real value they could be delivering is being ignored — and the doctor would argue that while Procurement may have been changing for the better before the pandemic, the supply disruptions and successive inflation that resulted since has not only stalled that progress but reverted Procurement back to its early days.

The reason, as indicated in an article over on CIPS, which also references the Ivalua/Procurement Leaders survey, is inflation. Rapid inflation, which has not only wiped out prior savings for many organizations but resulted in the Procurement department blowning past budgets, has resulted in the C-Suite ordering Procurement to contain costs through any means necessary, and, as the CIPS article has noted, this has resulted in the ESG agenda, along with other agendas, being pushed to the sidelines, if not thrown out entirely.

This is very sad. Not only because ESG initiatives are critical, but because the other three priorities from the AQPC survey are also more critical:

  • avoiding supply disruption
  • improving social responsibility in supply chain
  • improving supplier relationships

First of all, the number one focus of procurement should always be supply, not spend. Doesn’t matter how great the negotiated savings are, if you don’t get the goods, you don’t get the savings and, more importantly, if that was product to sell, you don’t get the revenue. No cash-inflow, no business. (Or, as we say up North, No Sale, No Store.)

Secondly, with carbon emission limits and carbon taxes coming in globally, ESG needs to be a top priority, especially in jurisdictions where you are responsible for all of the carbon in your supply chain.

Thirdly, your quality and capability is limited to that of your suppliers, so you want to improve your suppliers, and that requires good relationships. Furthermore, suppliers can be a source of innovation and creativity, but you won’t get access to any of it without good relationships.

So how do we get Procurement over the hump and back to strategy and not cost reduction regardless of the true price that is paid? It’s a good question, especially when the focus is always short term and not long term. Long term, innovation, responsibility, quality, and sustainability will result in the best value for money, but this never happens in the short term. So, focus on long term sustainability, get back to value, and show the organization what Procurement can really do.

A Slow Cautious Approach to Pulling Out of China May Be Justified …

… but the justification has NOTHING to do with geopolitical events or economic factors, as suggested by this recent SCMR article. First of all, those are always in flux. Secondly, neither of these factors are the ones that could be limiting your ability to peel out.

There are two primary factors that could be limiting your ability to peel out of China:

  1. available production capability
  2. source material availability

And these are the only factors you should be considering when you are considering how [do] you reconfigure the global supply chain. Because, unless you are selling in Asia, you HAVE to get out of China if you want stable supply streams.

Available Production Capability

First of all, are there alternative near-shore plants? If not, you’re stuck until you (co-)invest in one, get it built, get it up and running, and verify the quality is acceptable. If there are, can they produce the products you need in the quantities you need, or at least a reasonable percentage? If so, are the quality and service levels sufficient. If there are three or more near-shore suppliers that can collectively meet your needs, you shift a considerable amount of your award to them immediately (depending on existing contracts, the time-frames for the suppliers to fully ramp up to support your business, and the time-frames your organization needs to get ready to support the shift) and start the process of shifting all of your award to them.

Source Material Capability

You also have to consider where the raw materials are coming from, and how easy it will be for your suppliers to get sufficient stacks of the materials you need in steady supply. For example, if you need lithium-ion batteries produced by current processes, you need cobalt. 73% of today’s cobalt comes from the Democratic Republic of Cobalt (DRC). The DRC has considerable trade agreements with Qatar. So while the country has bilateral trade agreements with over 50 countries, its relationship with Qatar could cause you problems if you want to use a producer in the middle east NOT in Qatar if another diplomatic crisis (like the one in 2017) arises.

Also, China is the largest producer of grains, gold, coal, rare earth minerals, and two hundred (200) plus other materials, components, and products, so if your production depends on any of these materials, components, or products, you need to make sure your suppliers are located in countries who have good relations with China or have already locked up enough secondary sources to guarantee your product production will be uninterrupted.

That’s it. Yes, you have to consider the economics, because you can’t pay 50% more and not seriously upset (and lose) your (current and potential) customers with the price increase that will result, but with proper investments in new processes, equipment, and talent, costs can be reduced anywhere in the world, and all it will take for the potential supplier to make these investments is enough guaranteed business from you. (So make it so!)

Your Biggest Threat of Disruption For the Next Decade is NOT What You Think!

Disruptions are on the rise. It’s a fact, and if you want proof, just visit the World Economic Forum and check out their Global Value Chain Barometer. While some categories of disruptions are holding steady, disruptions are on the rise overall and not a single category is declining.

If asked what the biggest source of disruptions are, depending on where you are located in the world and what industry you are in, you’re likely to say that the biggest sources of disruption are either
a) war and conflict,
b) natural disasters, or
c) cyberattacks.
And while those have traditionally been (among) the highest sources of disruptions, you’d be wrong. The biggest source of disruptions this year have been strikes and walkouts globally. And as the brilliant Robert Reich will tell you, despite the large number of strikes we’ve seen over the last year, workforce revolts are just getting started.

When you consider

  • the rapid rise in inflation globally, especially around necessities (food, housing, healthcare),
  • the fact that, despite the almost two decades of low inflation, intermixed with short periods of stagflation, the majority of the population in many first world countries were financially struggling before inflation came back, especially given that many were out of work for part or all of COVID and didn’t get near enough financial aid to keep their heads above water, and
  • they’re all scared of AI taking their jobs

Many people are near their breaking point. Strikes are going to keep happening, and repeat every 2 to 4 years (depending on the union contract length) until the underlying issue is fixed. But it’s not going to be fixed!

Why? As the brilliant Robert Reich points out, it’s because of the vast inequality between the (super) wealthy and the average person. In the past 45 years, CEO pay has skyrocketed 1,460% while the typical worker saw a pay increase of just 18%. This has led to a vast inequality between a small group of very wealthy people in a mid-size or large company and the average employee. Until this gap is narrowed, the situation is only going to worsen as more and more laborers reach the point where they’re already broke and have nothing to lose by walking off the job, and strikes are going to become much more common than they were in the past 40 years.

The situation could be fixed easily if CEOs and Boards increased worker’s pay each year a few % above the average rate of inflation for the next few years, a move that would cost most companies only a small fraction of their profit (and still keep the differential pay increase between the average worker and the CEO above a 1000% differential using the same baseline), but it’s obvious this is not going to happen (even though that would still be a ridiculous divide). This fact is best illustrated by the current writers’ and actors’ strike that every single person in the world is aware of where the executives have simply decided to do nothing because the unions will come around when the majority of writers and actors (where 99% don’t make enough to pay their rent and eat without side-jobs) get to the point where they are at risk of losing, or have lost, their sh!tty apartments. (And trust me when I say that they are sh!tty apartments! There are two sides to Hollywood, the side you see, and the run down slums you don’t see where the majority of actors and writers live by doing side gigs while waiting for their big break, which won’t come for over 90% of them.)

It’s an utterly ridiculous situation, especially when it would be trivially simple for any government to fix with a one page bill. (For example, it could be solved if all first world governments were to simply pass a law that, in any company with more than ten employees,
1] No single person in the company can earn more than 100 times the lowest paid worker on an hourly basis during a year across all company payouts including, but not limited to, salary, bonuses, stock grants, share grants, and company paid benefits where the definition of worker would include all employees, contractors, and contractor employees doing any work for the company, which would prevent the company from shifting all low paid employees to a subsidiary to try and get around the law;
2] Any individuals found in violation of this rule would get fined $2 for every $1 in excess of their maximum allowed remuneration for the year;
3] Any officers responsible for compensation who knowingly violated this law could be criminally charged and serve jail time; and
4] These Companies would be required to submit a financial statement of compliance listing the full effective compensation of every worker (down to the janitor in the contracted cleaning firm) as part of their tax returns. Just these four simple rules would prevent most CEOs and their overpaid C-Suites from earning more than 1,500 an hour or 3 Million a year as these mega corps have plenty of minimum wage employees under current remuneration models.)

Furthermore, if a reasonable fix was made (in law) that limited executive pay to more than reasonable levels and thus limited the ability of these executives to grow their wealth to ridiculous levels unless they:

  1. paid their workers more,
  2. increased their net company value (to increase the values of the shares and stock options they earned in prior years), or
  3. started or invested in other companies

… the truth is that such a fix would all be fantastic for the economy as it would force a return to classic growth scenarios (and not the current focus of make money today to please Wall Street, even if it bankrupts the company tomorrow), which would create a much more sustainable economy in the long run. (Markets only crash when they are run up to unsustainable levels. This is a result of Wall Street pushing companies beyond sustainable growth levels.)

But it will never happen, because all the Billionaires would simply spend whatever amount of money they needed to buy enough senators and congress representatives to prevent it from happening (or enough judges to find it an unconstitutional law).

Thus, in the interim, across all industries (not just the entertainment industry the news is fixated on) you will have the greedy out-of-touch Billionaires, whose loss of income from a strike event is so negligible they won’t notice it, starving out union workers until they cave to a new union contract below inflation (while giving themselves a big year end bonus for their trouble). This will not only cause you additional disruptions you weren’t planning for (as strikes linger on for weeks and months), but will increase the inequality gap even further (while the workers get even poorer due to pay raises less than inflation), which, in turn, will set the stage for a whole new round of strikes (and disruptions to your supply chain) in two to four years when the contracts end (that the Billionaire executives will deal with in the same way).

Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying Billionaires are bad (because I shouldn’t need to say it), I’m saying that the actions of the ridiculously overpaid super rich and their sole focus on the almighty dollar have set the stage for the first decade in our lifetime where strike-based disruption events will exceed natural disasters, even though natural disasters have almost tripled in the same time frame (and will continue to increase as long as global warming continues to increase).

the doctor would wish you luck, but even that can’t combat greed!