The 'Greatness' Conundrum
Only 10% or so of the BSE 500 companies are able to stick to the 'greatness' framework over a 5-6 year period...
By Saurabh Mukherjea | Apr 26, 2013
Indian companies find it very hard to generate shareholder returns – over the
last 20 years, 80 per cent of Indian companies have not been able to deliver
real returns (i.e. returns better than the rate of inflation) to their
shareholders. However, given that the country has grown at around 15 per cent
per annum (in nominal terms) over this period, this means that the remaining 20
per cent of companies have delivered very significant real returns. So, how does
one systematically identify these magical 20 per cent of companies? That was the
homework exercise my colleague Gaurav Mehta and I set ourselves two years
ago.
Our research lead us to the "greatness" framework i.e., a way of identifying
companies which grow their businesses over long periods of time in a consistent
and calibrated manner. What these "great" companies do is very easy to describe
– they invest systematically in their businesses, turn investment into revenues,
revenues into profits, profits into cashflows and cashflows into further
investment. The good news is that because the country is growing at roughly 15
per cent per annum, the "great" companies are able to grow their toplines,
bottomlines and assets at around 25 per cent per annum. High school maths tells
us that if a company grows at 25 per cent per annum, it becomes a 10-bagger in
10 years (even without any P/E re-rating).
The fact that only 10 per cent or so of the BSE 500 companies are able to stick to the "greatness" framework over a 5-6 year period does not surprise us – the negative political, social and economic influences prevalent in the country make consistent and calibrated development difficult for any Indian institution in almost any facet of Indian life.
What does surprise us though is that very few large cap stocks are able to stick to the "greatness" framework – the only Nifty stocks in our 40-stock "greatness" portfolio for CY13 are ITC, Asian Paints and Lupin. So why is this? Why is it that the vast majority of the biggest companies in the country are not able to grow in a consistent and calibrated manner? This is a question which we are currently investigating. Answering this question is important as it could explain one of the other conundrums that had puzzled us – why is it that every 10 years the Nifty "churns" by around 45-50 per cent, a much higher ratio than other major developed and developing markets.
My current thinking is that large and successful Indian companies tend to hit at least one of the following roadblocks which brings them to a juddering halt:
1. Over the last decade India has created a dozen or so autonomous regulators. Whenever a sector becomes very large and very profitable, someone in Delhi decides that it is time to do some rent-seeking by setting up a regulator. Once created, the regulator seeks to lower the profitability of the sector. Classic example, our beleaguered telecom sector.
2. India has become a relatively open and competitive economy. Access to capital for local companies has become more democratic with the creation of a large Private Equity sector and with FDI norms being relentlessly eased, foreign capital is now able to enter relatively easily. So when entrepreneurs, Indian or foreign, see a large and profitable sector with juicy operating margins and RoCEs, they decide to join the party and thus disrupt the profitability of the incumbents. Classic example, our two wheeler sector which is currently being disrupted by Honda.
3. Indian companies, for all their claims to be relying on "professional management", are still overwhelmingly dominated by and run by promoter families. These families are only human and once they decide to grow beyond the core business and the core territory that they know so well, they struggle. Expansion into new countries or new sectors by Indian companies are rarely successful. The finite nature of the promoter's skill set puts a natural cap therefore on how far an Indian company can go. Classic example: plenty – so it would be unfair to single any one company out.
So, how does one beat this trap? Look for Indian companies operating in niches which: (a) are unlikely to invite regulation or foreign competition; (b) have natural barriers to entry based on brand, distribution or technology; and (c) create a natural incentive to invest steadily (the need into expand a new region). Examples: TTK Prestige, Bata, Whirlpool, Jagran Prakashan, Asian Paints, Carborundum, Cummins India and Balkrishna Industries.
|
|
The fact that only 10 per cent or so of the BSE 500 companies are able to stick to the "greatness" framework over a 5-6 year period does not surprise us – the negative political, social and economic influences prevalent in the country make consistent and calibrated development difficult for any Indian institution in almost any facet of Indian life.
What does surprise us though is that very few large cap stocks are able to stick to the "greatness" framework – the only Nifty stocks in our 40-stock "greatness" portfolio for CY13 are ITC, Asian Paints and Lupin. So why is this? Why is it that the vast majority of the biggest companies in the country are not able to grow in a consistent and calibrated manner? This is a question which we are currently investigating. Answering this question is important as it could explain one of the other conundrums that had puzzled us – why is it that every 10 years the Nifty "churns" by around 45-50 per cent, a much higher ratio than other major developed and developing markets.
My current thinking is that large and successful Indian companies tend to hit at least one of the following roadblocks which brings them to a juddering halt:
1. Over the last decade India has created a dozen or so autonomous regulators. Whenever a sector becomes very large and very profitable, someone in Delhi decides that it is time to do some rent-seeking by setting up a regulator. Once created, the regulator seeks to lower the profitability of the sector. Classic example, our beleaguered telecom sector.
2. India has become a relatively open and competitive economy. Access to capital for local companies has become more democratic with the creation of a large Private Equity sector and with FDI norms being relentlessly eased, foreign capital is now able to enter relatively easily. So when entrepreneurs, Indian or foreign, see a large and profitable sector with juicy operating margins and RoCEs, they decide to join the party and thus disrupt the profitability of the incumbents. Classic example, our two wheeler sector which is currently being disrupted by Honda.
3. Indian companies, for all their claims to be relying on "professional management", are still overwhelmingly dominated by and run by promoter families. These families are only human and once they decide to grow beyond the core business and the core territory that they know so well, they struggle. Expansion into new countries or new sectors by Indian companies are rarely successful. The finite nature of the promoter's skill set puts a natural cap therefore on how far an Indian company can go. Classic example: plenty – so it would be unfair to single any one company out.
So, how does one beat this trap? Look for Indian companies operating in niches which: (a) are unlikely to invite regulation or foreign competition; (b) have natural barriers to entry based on brand, distribution or technology; and (c) create a natural incentive to invest steadily (the need into expand a new region). Examples: TTK Prestige, Bata, Whirlpool, Jagran Prakashan, Asian Paints, Carborundum, Cummins India and Balkrishna Industries.
