Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ContentServer 9 PDF
ContentServer 9 PDF
Journal of
20
32
43
57
63
77
84
What Drives CEOs to Take on More Risk? Some Evidence from the
Laboratory of REITs
Comply or Explain: Investor Protection Through the Italian Corporate
Governance Code
92
107
1. Matthias Krhler and Robert Untiedt were Ph.D. students at Freiberg University
when the research for this paper was conducted.
2. See Bruce Henderson, The Product Portfolio, BCG Perspectives series (The Boston Consulting Group, 1970).
BI
63
he initial sample comprised 1,776 of the largest companies worldwide ranked on the basis of 2008 revenues:
1,513 public companies (source: Bloomberg) and 263 private
companies (sources: Forbes, Financial Times). We identified
contact persons for 1,403 of these companies and sent our
survey exclusively to CEOs, board members, executive
managers of strategic business units, and heads of corporate strategy, corporate development, and corporate finance
departments. The companies themselves were broadly distributed not only geographically but also by industry and
ownership structure (that is, public versus private).
The Web-based online survey was conducted from July
to September 2009 by personal e-mail invitation only. We
received 229 responses from 196 companies representing
20 industries. (Not every respondent answered every question, however.) About 60% of the participating companies
have revenues in excess of $5 billion, and more than 80%
of the companies have a diversified portfolio with no single
business accounting for more than 70% of group revenues.
Geographically, 35% of the respondents are from Europe
(including Russia), 30% are from the Americas, and 25%
are from Asia, with the remaining ten percent from the rest
of the world.
The survey results were complemented by in-person and
telephone interviews with 50 senior executives of global corporations and a systematic review of more than 100 major client
engagements involving portfolio assessments undertaken by
The Boston Consulting Group between 2004 and 2009.
3. See Yoram Wind, Product Portfolio: A New Approach to the Product Mix Decision,
in Ronald C. Curhan, ed., Combined Proceedings (Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1974), pp. 460464.
64
Academic Criticism
4. See R.V. Wright, A System for Managing Diversity, in Steuart Henderson Britt and
Harper Boyd, Jr., eds., Marketing Management and Administrative Action (New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1978), pp. 4660.
5. See Philippe Haspeslagh, Portfolio Planning: Uses and Limits, Harvard Business
Review (JanuaryFebruary 1982), pp. 5873.
6. See, for example, Harry Markowitz, Portfolio Selection: Efficient Diversification of
Investments (New York: Wiley, 1959).
7. See, for example, H. Igor Ansoff, Werner Kirsch, and Peter Roventa, Dispersed
Positioning in Portfolio Analysis, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 11 (1982),
pp. 237252.
8. See H. Kurt Christensen, Arnold Cooper, and Cornelis de Kluyver, The Dog Business: A Re-examination, Business Horizons, Vol. 25, Issue 6 (1982), pp. 1218; and
John A. Seeger, Reversing the Images of BCGs Growth/Share Matrix, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5 (1984), pp. 9397.
9. See Yoram Wind, Vijay Mahajan, and Donald J. Swire, An Empirical Comparison
of Standardized Portfolio Models, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47 (1983), pp. 8999.
10. See, for example, George S. Day, Diagnosing the Product Portfolio, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 41 (1977), pp. 2938; and Alan Morrison and Robin Wensley, Boxing
Up or Boxed In? A Short History of The Boston Consulting Groups Share/Growth Matrix,
Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 7 (1991), pp. 105129.
11. See, for example, Robin Wensley, PIMS and BCG: New Horizons or False
Dawn?, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 3 (1982), pp. 147158; Frans Derkin
deren and Roy Crum, Pitfalls in Using Portfolio TechniquesAssessing Risk and Potential, Long Range Planning, Vol. 17 (1984), pp. 129136; and Timothy Devinney and
David Stewart, Rethinking the Product Portfolio: A Generalized Investment Model,
Management Science, Vol. 34 (1988), pp. 10801095.
12. See Day (1977), cited earlier.
65
37%
30%
28%
5%
66
Market
attractiveness
67%
Competitive
position
56%
Value
creation
58%
Parenting
advantage
Risk
25%
31%
55%
28%
37%
Share of Companies
That Quantify the Criterion
69%
67%
31%
78%
37%
41%
18%
67
46%
Risk vs.
return
41%
Growth vs.
profitability
36%
Short-term vs.
long-term
value creation
Exploiting existing vs.
exploring new
capabilities
33%
28%
10%
40%
31%
Share of Companies
That Quantify the Criterion
68%
30%
42%
42%
67%
36%
7%
23. See a recent article by two of the current authors, Ulrich Pidun and Matthias
Krhler, titled Risk-Return Management of the Corporate Portfolio, in Michael Fabich,
Lutz Firnkorn, Ulrich Hommel and Ervin Schellenberg, eds., The Strategic CFO: Creating
Value in a Dynamic Market Environment (New York: Springer, 2011).
24. For an overview of three decades of research in this field, see Leslie Palich, Laura
Cardinal, and C. Chet Miller, Curvilinearity in the DiversificationPerformance Linkage:
An Examination of over Three Decades of Research, Strategic Management Review,
Vol. 21 (2000), pp. 155174.
68
... is conducted
regularly
32%
<<
... follows a
top-down approach
26%
<<
... follows a
standardized process
24%
<<
... follows a
formal process
26%
<<
29%
14%
17%
<
...
>
>>
33%
27%
9%
5%
>>
<
...
>
20%
22%
23%
<
...
>
22%
21%
21%
<
...
Sample size = 142 participants
>
8%
69
Supervisory
Board
Executive
Board
Corporate
Center Staff
Division/
Segment
Business
Unit
Functional
Experts
30%
79%
71%
28%
21%
14%
Perform portfolio
analyses
4%
31%
87%
47%
40%
30%
Challenge and
interpret results
20%
71%
77%
42%
29%
21%
Initiate decision
process
13%
74%
62%
32%
21%
9%
Make portfolio
decision
48%
94%
20%
20%
8%
4%
61%
Annual strategy
planning
4%
36%
58%
37%
6%
Not integrated
CPM receives input or provides output
Annual short-term
planning
27%
Investment
budgeting
29%
Target setting
for management
29%
43%
30%
57%
Fully integrated
14%
38%
32%
70
Share of Respondents
79%
Creating transparency
78%
77%
75%
74%
70%
68%
59%
46%
10
43%
Applications of CPM
71
Acquisitions
40%
Investments
41%
43%
41%
Considered
Not considered
36%
30%
30%
23%
16%
Trigger
Considered
Not considered
Trigger
Considered
Not considered
Trigger
Synergies
Risk
4.1
3.8
3.0
3.4
4.0
3.0
Consideration
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
3.4
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
2.1
2.0
Quantification
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
3.6
3.0
2.3
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
involved in the CPM process in less than half of the companies, and mainly contribute data or conduct analyses.) On
the other hand, current CPM approaches receive rather high
marks for improving the quality of strategic decisions and for
acceptance and support by the executive board.
What distinguishes companies that are satisfied with
their current approach to CPM from those that are dissatisfied? Both satisfied and dissatisfied companies use largely
the same criteria and metrics for assessing the individual
businesses in their portfolios. However, satisfied companies
have a much more holistic approach to CPM (see Figure 9).
They more strongly considerand even quantifythe risk
profile of their portfolio, the synergies between businesses,
and the overall balance of the portfolio.
Satisfied companies also have a significantly more rigorous
approach to corporate portfolio management. For example,
73% of satisfied companies regularly employ a specific framework for analyzing their portfolio, compared with only 18%
of dissatisfied companies. Satisfied CPM users also have more
standardized, regular, and formalized processes for managing
their portfolio. Moreover, satisfied CPM users more closely
link portfolio management with other corporate processes.
For example, 80% of satisfied companies fully integrate CPM
into their strategy development and planning processes, while
only 25% of their dissatisfied peers do so.
As a consequence of their more holistic and rigorous
approaches to corporate portfolio management, satisfied
companies are also more effective users of CPM. They
rely much more heavily on their portfolio instruments for
significant corporate-level decisions, such as acquisitions,
divestitures, or major investments. An interesting area for
future research is the impact of different CPM approaches on
the capital market performance of multi-business firms.
A Morgan Stanley Publication Winter 2011
73
45%
37%
20%
14%
14%
11%
74
57%
49%
49%
47%
46%
39%
38%
33%
20%
75
Cologne office of The Boston Consulting Group and a BCG Fellow for
corporate portfolio management.
76
This journal is available online at Wiley Online Library. Visit www.wileyonlinelibrary.com to search the articles and register for table of contents e-mail
alerts.
Access to this journal is available free online within institutions in the developing world through the AGORA initiative with the FAO, the HINARI initiative
with the WHO and the OARE initiative with UNEP. For information, visit
www.aginternetwork.org, www.healthinternetwork.org, www.healthinternetwork.org, www.oarescience.org, www.oarescience.org
Wileys Corporate Citizenship initiative seeks to address the environmental,
social, economic, and ethical challenges faced in our business and which are
important to our diverse stakeholder groups. We have made a long-term commitment to standardize and improve our efforts around the world to reduce
our carbon footprint. Follow our progress at www.wiley.com/go/citizenship
Abstracting and Indexing Services
The Journal is indexed by Accounting and Tax Index, Emerald Management
Reviews (Online Edition), Environmental Science and Pollution Management,
Risk Abstracts (Online Edition), and Banking Information Index.
Disclaimer The Publisher, Morgan Stanley, its affiliates, and the Editor
cannot be held responsible for errors or any consequences arising from
the use of information contained in this journal. The views and opinions
expressed in this journal do not necessarily represent those of the
Publisher, Morgan Stanley, its affiliates, and Editor, neither does the publication of advertisements constitute any endorsement by the Publisher,
Morgan Stanley, its affiliates, and Editor of the products advertised. No person
should purchase or sell any security or asset in reliance on any information in
this journal.
Morgan Stanley is a full-service financial services company active in
the securities, investment management, and credit services businesses.
Morgan Stanley may have and may seek to have business relationships with
any person or company named in this journal.
Copyright 2011 Morgan Stanley. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form or by any means
without the prior permission in writing from the copyright holder. Authorization to photocopy items for internal and personal use is granted by the copyright holder for libraries and other users registered with their local Reproduction Rights Organization (RRO), e.g. Copyright Clearance Center (CCC), 222
Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA (www.copyright.com), provided
the appropriate fee is paid directly to the RRO. This consent does not extend
to other kinds of copying such as copying for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for creating new collective works or for resale.
Special requests should be addressed to: [email protected].
This journal is printed on acid-free paper.
Copyright of Journal of Applied Corporate Finance is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.