KKR at LBS - Socially Responsible Private Equity

Just now, we had the inaugural talk for the Socially Responsible Private Equity talk given by Ken Mehlman, KKR's Global Head of Public Affairs. He was the Chairman of the United States Republican Party, campaign manager for President George W. Bush's re-election campaign, and White House Political Director. He was also a classmate of Barack Obama at Harvard Law.

He gave a great talk on how social responsibility is integral to sustainability of a business, especially one with patient capital in PE. One point he made which I thought was particularly poignant seemed to echo the ideas of Integrative Thinking. He said that there are generally two common models with regards to social responsibility:

1. Corporate CSR – Where a company makes contributions to organizations outside of its operations that show it cares.
2. It focuses solely on strong operations and generating business returns to the bottom line without much consideration for social responsibility.

He mentioned that KKR takes a third approach, and that it integrates social responsibility not just at some abstract corporate or portfolio level, but right down to the alignment of its operations to produce. Examples of this would include involving a broader definition of stakeholders versus shareholders such as environmental agencies and unions in determining the best course of action for a company’s future operations and how it should be run.

Besides some of the insightful deal war stories, future PE trends and industry knowledge he shared, he also gave great advice on what he thought it took to be successful which was well received by the crowd.

There were a host of excellent questions asked by the crowd in the Q&A session as well as the cocktail reception following. I’m looking forward to the next event hosted by the PEVC club.

Bridge to Value

One graph I've seen which I thought was clever was a breakdown of change in EV. This brings together many other details I've learned about M&A, LBO's and transactions in general.

Previously, I mentioned a framework for PE deal success, but it is easy to cut into more detail if necessary and really define and put a mathematical value to "synergies".

For example: After a transaction, we've increased sales by 21%. How does that affect EV? Well on one hand, you've immediately realized a 21% increase in revenue. After you account for associated costs with that increase in revenue (ie. You've sold more widgets, but it still costs you money to make those widgets), what do your future growth prospects look like as a result of this new growth (ie. Should you trade at a higher multiple? Have you gone from "boring" to "exciting"? Or is it just general market conditions?)

Previously, you had:

Market Cap = $100
Shares outstanding = 100
Price per share = $1

Debt = $100 (@ 5%)
Excess Cash = 0

EV = $200

Revenue - $100
COGS - $40
GPM = $60

Op Ex - $20
EBITDA = $40

DA - $10
EBIT = $30

Interest = $5

Tax = 40%

NOPAT = $18
NI = $15

Therefore:

EPS = 15 cents

P/E = ($1/$0.15) = 6.67x

EV/EBITDA = ($200/$40) = 5.00x

Let's tell a story: The 21% increase comes from opening a new line of products. You are selling 10% more products by introducing a new product line and this new product line actually increases your revenue per unit (across the board) by 10% (110% x 110% = 121%). All margins are the same.

What should we do? Bring everything down to the EBITDA level:

Now:
Revenue - $121
COGS - $44 (10% more products at same costs)

GPM = $77

Op Ex - $22

EBITDA = $55

DA - $10
EBIT = $47

Interest = $5

Tax = 40%

NOPAT = $28.20
NI = $25.20

EPS = 25.20c

(Magic happens - Which we will explain shortly)

New Price per share = $1.80

Market Cap = $1.80 x 100 shares = $180
Debt = $100
EV = $280

P/E = ($1.80) / ($0.2520) = 7.14x
EV/EBITDA = ($280 / $55) = 5.09x

Analysis:
So a lot is going on. The price of the equity and the enterprise has changed, but how can we do a cross section such that we know exactly where all the value is being driven from?

How much of this value is because of leverage (hint, we didn't change amount of leverage)?
How much of this value is simply because we are operationally better?
How much of this value is because we have a "brighter future" (better growth prospects)?

Step 1: Value from leverage arbitrage:
No change = 0

Step 2: Value from "synergies":
Total EBITDA level changes: $40 to $55 or $15
At a multiple of 5.00x (previous multiple), value increased is $75

Step 3: Value from "Brighter future"
Brighter future (higher multiple) due to either market conditions or expected future growth:
$55 at 5.00x versus at 5.09x = $55 x (5.09 - 5.00x) = $5

Total value created: $75 + $5 = $80 (note total increase in value of EV / Market Cap)

Next step, look closer at Step 2:
Change of $40 to $55 is created by:
$21 in Revenue (Price +10%, Volume +10%)
$4 in COGS (Volume + 10%)
$2 in Opex (Volume +10%)

For a $21 increase in revenue, keeping margins constant we would have expected an increase of:
$8.4 in COGS (40% of revenue) and $4.2 in Opex (20% of revenue). COGS is lower by $4.4 and Opex is lower by $2.2 versus what is expected.

Note we mentioned we can sell products for 10% more across the board.
This created value for existing product base (at EBITDA level) of
$110 - $40 - $20 or $50 versus $40 creating $10 of additional EBITDA level value (makes sense, increase topline growth by 10% without changing expenses / sales volumes results in increase of EBITDA by 10% of revenue)

Also, selling an additional 10% at old price we would expect:
$10 (additional sales) - COGS ($4) - Opex ($2) or $4

But selling new products at new price: Gain $1 (similar to math shown above)

Total change in EBITDA: $10 + $4 + $1 = $15
At 5.00x
$55 or ($10 + $1) x 5.00x of EV is generated from selling at a higher price
$20 ($4 x 5.00x) of EV is generated from selling new products (higher volume)

Above is what the bridge would look like if a PE firm had 60% ownership and management had 40%.

Note, this framework is iterative and can be applied across multiple product lines to help do a break out and sum of the parts analysis for companies to see where value is hidden in undervalued divisions.

Also note that as an interesting aside, if you were actually to build out a proper DCF model of this (using some basic business assumptions holding margins constant etc.), your short term growth rate would have to be adjusted upwards in order to come to the same intrinsic valuation that would justify the higher multiple.

Financial Executives International – 5th Best in Class Competition

On Saturday, a Rotman team composed of myself, Shree, Fei and Matt Literovich competed in the Financial Executives International 5th annual Best in Class Competition. The case company was HudBay Minerals. Unfortunately, we placed second, behind Alberta School of Business.

The competition was intense, as many of the teams worked late into the night on Friday to put together our decks and get a few rehearsals in before scrambling to get a few hours of shut eye. The next morning, our names were drawn for presentation order and we found ourselves in the seventh spot.

Matt Literovich was phenomenal understanding potential legal issues related to mining and commanded the attention of the room when he spoke of precedent case law.

Fei gave a detailed account of all the organizational issues we could expect as HudBay Minerals grew and followed our acquisition strategy.

And Shree’s knowledge of mining and dissection of potential target companies gave us an exceptionally high level of credibility.

All three were exceptionally strong in both the presentation and the question and answer period and this short description does not do justice to the quality of our presentation.

While we were very disappointed that we didn’t take the top spot, the event itself was challenging and very entertaining. Judges from the competition included top executives from HudBay Minerals, USGold, OTPP, Mercator, a justice and many other top professionals. Definitely a great experience, I would recommend any MBA student to attend this competition.

Ethanol Fuel – Is Sustainable Fuel Socially Responsible?

In our Business Ethics class, I had done a presentation on the Ethics of Ethanol Fuel and now that I am in Brazil, the topic of ethanol fuel and its relationship to sugar cane and other staple food commodities has been emphasized. And even if global trade increases and creates wealth it does not make any guarantees with regards to how that wealth is distributed as explained by our GMP Prof. Blum.

I proposed this question: “Is it ethical for rich countries to drive cars if it causes poor countries to starve?”

This problem was exacerbated in the World Food crisis in 2007 and 2008, when oil prices hit all time highs and the arbitrage relationship between oil and food was exploited.

Here is the relationship:

1. The US and Brazil are the largest producers (89%) of ethanol fuel using corn and sugar cane (respectively).
2. When oil prices increase, people have a tendency to switch to ethanol based fuels.
3. When the demand for ethanol increases (as a substitute) the demand on the inputs for ethanol (corn, sugar cane, potatoes) also increases.
4. There are real arbitrage opportunities by hedgers, speculators and even farmers as they shift the use of arable land to produce more valuable crops. However, even with arbitrage there are limits as arable land is limited (to create more arable land, there is often deforestation which creates its own sustainability issues).
5. Also poor countries have a much higher sensitivity to fluctuations in the price of raw commodities whereas rich countries are insulated from food costs because they only represent a small percentage of the final costs (including value added costs such as manufacturing, distribution and retail costs). It’s the difference between eating a bowl of rice versus a bowl of Rice Krispies.

The consultants at Deloitte confirmed this relationship in very concrete terms using the Brazilian gas pumps as an example (where prices for ethanol based fuel versus gasoline are explicitly posted in the same way gas prices are at the pump). Currently, the cost of Ethanol fuel is 50% the price of gasoline (although it only provides 70% of the performance). However, in the “off season” when sugar cane is more expensive, it can even reach a price of 80% of gasoline (which is clearly not as cost effective). There is a direct relationship between the price of sugar cane and the price of ethanol fuel.

Urban Planning and the Irony of Mass Transit

With the focus on how Obama's administration wants to stimulate the economy by starting shovel ready government projects with an emphasis on sustainability (combined with my experiences commuting by public transit) I thought it might be timely to look at urban planning, specifically as it relates to mass transit.

Particularly, with a mildly satirical tone, I wanted to look into the phenomenon of clustering. In other words, I wanted to answer two questions:

1. "Why do I always seem to miss buses in pairs?", and
2. "Every time I try to ride the bus, why do I always get the full one?"

It turns out that there are many circumstances in life for which starting earlier (Or being closer to the finish) doesn't necessarily meaning finishing earlier. Let's build a simple model to help us understand how fundamental mass transit capacity planning works:
To understand what I mean, let's assume:

• A bus route to a main station has five equally distanced stops A, B, C, D and E.
  
• The distance between stops (described as time to traverse from one stop to another) is 2 minutes regardless of traffic and other factors.
  
• It takes 2 minutes to load a bus at each stop regardless of number of passengers, unless there are no passengers (or the bus is full) in which case the bus travels "express mode" and doesn't stop at all.
  
• A bus can hold 50 people maximum.
  
• That each stop has 15 people (total 75). It will take 2 buses to pick up all the passengers.

Scenario i The first bus will pick up 15 from A, 15 from B, 15 from C and 5 from D (50 total). The second bus will pick up 10 from D and the remaining 15 from E.

Notice that whatever the interval between buses (say 15 minutes) is the minimum wait time that the passengers at D and E have to wait for the second bus (on top of normal travel time if they could get one bus 1).

The travel time for each group is as follows:
Bus 1 (containing Passengers from A, B, C and 5 from D) arrives at the terminal after 18 minutes
Time = 2 min per stop x 4 stops
+ 2 min drive time between 5 stops

Bus 2 (containing the remaining passengers from from D and E) arrives at the terminal after 29 minutes
Time = 2 min per stop x 2 stops
+ 2 min drive time between 5 stops
+ 15 minute delay between Bus 1 and 2

Generally,

Travel time for any given bus = time spent picking up passengers (delay per stop x number of stops)
+ time spent driving between stops (travel time per stop x number of stops)
+ time delay between buses (anticipated wait time for a passenger who 'just missed the bus')

Notice that in this model, a bus that follows another will have a more "efficient route" excluding the delay time between the buses (currently set at 15 minutes) if the delay is less than 11 min, Bus 2 arrives before Bus 1! This is because Bus 1 (assumed to have "first dibs" on the passengers) will be held up in "transactions" picking up passengers.

Scenario ii What would happen in an incremented step by step analysis (if the two buses left at the same time) is as follows:

1. Bus 1 picks up all passengers at A (2 min) while at the same time
   Bus 2 travels to stop B (4 min).
2. Bus 2 picks up all passengers at B (2 min) while at the same time
   Bus 1 travels to stop C from A (4 min).
3. Bus 1 picks up all passengers at C (2 min) while at the same time
   Bus 2 travels to stop D from B (4 min).
4. Bus 2 picks up all passengers at D (2 min) while at the same time
   Bus 1 travels to stop E (4 min).
5. Both buses run "express" to the terminal

Both Buses 1 and 2 arrive after 12 min (they share the load equally). This is what happens during non-rush hours and I would describe as "clustering", the phenomenon where buses (even when they start at different times) start to travel together.

As you can tell, this is a horrible situation when it comes to urban planning. For most lines, this means that even if you deliberately stagger buses so that they are 15 minutes apart (assuming that this is also the minimum amount of time someone would have to wait between buses), the truth is that with clustering on non-rush hours it is more likely the wait will be double that (because one bus will naturally catch up with the other if there isn't enough traffic). Hence the answer to: "Why do I always seem to miss buses in pairs?" is because they have a natural tendency to cluster.

Also, implementing queuing and network traffic theory, you can use the analogy that each bus stop is a server node and each bus is a service arrival.

This shows, as in the first scenario (Scenario i), that buses that lead are full. Assuming that occasionally when a few people get off at later stops (rather than waiting for the terminal) this is the only circumstance when a bus frees up more capacity to take on more passengers (also why they ask people to leave from the rear and board from the front). Hence the answer to: "Every time I try to ride the bus, why do I always get the full one?" is because during rush hour, most buses are full to capacity and only buses with marginal capacity available (almost full) stop to pick up more passengers.

Now the system described here only describes an oversimplified one line system. Imagine multiple inter-related lines, time sensitive with daily cyclical traveler arrival patterns, complicated with traffic congestion, traffic lights, construction and other "features" interacting on the road. You certainly can't just throw more buses into the system if you want to improve performance. And we can certainly sympathize with both the Traffic Engineer as well as the person in the car in this xkcd comic:

Story of Stuff - Sustainability and Statistics

I was recently introduced to this interesting video on the history of stuff (~21 min) and thought it might be helpful to do a quick review. I think there are some brilliant messages here, but at the same time, I think this is a prime example of having to look more closely at statistics and question what's presented. First let's look at some of the key points:

• Linear systems are not sustainable (and certainly cannot support exponential growth). You need a cyclic system in order even have a chance.
  
• Externalizing costs is a model which offsets the factors of production to keep costs low (and like over utilizing any resource is itself unsustainable).
• The three R's are Reduce, Reuse, Recycle (in that order). Recycling should actually be a last resort from a sustainable consumption perspective.

While I like the overall message, I find some of the points and use of statistics questionable. Or as xkcd puts it:


For instance, Anne Leonard states that 99% of everything we consume is disposed of in 6 months. That's a lot. I have a general heuristic for these types of scenarios. If your statistic produces a result of more than 90%, that generally means there is some selective data mining going on. To reach a number like 99%, it suddenly becomes more interesting as to define what is the 1% that we keep beyond 6 months. It seems pretty astronomical, yet something about this doesn't seem right. What could possibly justify this number?

• Why six months? Why not look at a quarter? A year?
  
• Is it measured by income dollars spent? Mass of goods? Volume occupied in a landfill versus in storage?
  
• What's included? Housing, food, gasoline, seasonal clothes, books, text books per semester, garbage?
• What would be a more appropriate number given the same metrics? What should we aim for?
  

Next, Anne mentions that the US has 5% of the worlds population but they are consuming 30% of the resources (implying a footprint of 6x of what is should be). She also mentions that we are consuming 2x as much as 50 years ago which I feel is like comparing our peek consumption with our valley (which upon further analysis is almost meaningless). 50 years ago is very close to the depression and WWII which are the lowest consumption rates in recent history.

I am very opposed to peak to trough comparisons in behavioural studies because they represent extremes. I'd be more impressed with a normalized study over time with standard deviations rather than an opportunistic snapshot of a scenario 50 years earlier. This is because I'd expect that despite the growth of consumption, there is a corresponding diminishing utility that Anne hints at as a cause of decreased happiness since the 50s.

Her point on computers and planned obsolescence is both correct in many respects yet highly oversimplified and as a result (I would suggest) misleading. She implies that a computer upgrade is simply a CPU replacement and that companies intentionally design chips so that they cannot be easily substituted.

Upgrading a computer can *sometimes* be as simple as replacing a chip, but often with increases processing power come increases in bus speed and memory. A computer system is a much more complicated than simply replacing an old chip with a newer, better one. It's not just a matter of "shape" as suggested. Actually, the change in shape is deliberate to prevent people who don't understand how computers work from blindly substituting in parts (and destroying both).

Despite my negative tone regarding her use of statistics, I really think Anne has done something phenomenal. Her attempts to reach a broad audience are successful, but she does sacrifice a bit of credibility for accessibility. Some of her broad and extreme claims leave her work more vulnerable to criticism than it should be. I do like her proposed solutions, but I think the corresponding required change in consumer behaviour will be quite a challenge. I think that everyone should spend the just 21 minutes and watch this video.

Selfish Sustainability - Save or Starve pt 3

Selfish Sustainability - Save or Starve Series [ 1 - 2 - 3 ]

While our hotel was able to improve the situation for the local populace, as I mentioned towards the end of part 2, this acts only as a starting point for those who are concerned about the broadest picture:

Migration Patterns and Shared Responsibility
One of the challenges we face is that although individual countries try to protect what's in their waters, the migration and mating patterns of aquatic life are such that they often move from place to place. While 80% of every aquatic species in the world can be found in the "golden triangle" between Malaysia, the Philippines and Indonesia, each location has different laws and different populaces. While you can protect species in one area, it does you no good if they are being over fished or otherwise destroyed in another. Therefore there is still some unmitigated risk exposure and protection must become a shared responsibility.

This is analogous to many other environmental cases (such as CO2 emissions) as these issues can propagate across geographies and therefore become shared responsibilities.

Market Failure - Dealing with the Black Market Space
The problem with protecting an endangered species is that because it is so rare, it also becomes valuable (think of an inelastic and weak 'supply' curve otherwise known as the species' population - supply push 'inflation'). As a prized fish suddenly becomes more rare, the market price for capturing and consuming one goes up. The incentive to find and catch one goes up as well. The only 'counter balance' is that they become harder to find, but that is hardly any real reconciliation.

When asked what was your definition of endangered, a colleague of mine remarked: "Anything that humans take out of the sea that they don't put back." This idea of a linear relationship with our natural resources won't hold because our population and consumption is growing exponentially. Linear relationships cannot support exponential ones without some form of crash as the inevitable conclusion.

Destroying - Much easier than creating
Destroying (or depleting) a natural resource is *much* easier than creating or renewing one. And there are *many* more people destroying than creating. It takes only moments of carelessness to destroy a coral bed, but years to have it grow back (even with modern technology).

Accelerating the systematic entropy and decay is a disaster. Externalizing the costs is a neat way to offset your responsibility, but it is an unstable model who's destiny is to collapse (with dire consequences).

Sustainability and competition for resources is one of those types of problems that will inevitably come up on the radar if it hasn't already. Basic science and economics dictate that it is coming and we need to pay attention to these issues.

Selfish Sustainability - Save or Starve Series [ 1 - 2 - 3 ]

Selfish Sustainability - Save or Starve pt 2

Selfish Sustainability - Save or Starve Series [ 1 - 2 - 3 ]

Now that we had a "new" mission, e were forced to help change. Not by governments nor regulations, but our own self interest as a profit loving entity. We had to take a new perspective on our goals and extended the scope. Now we were a force of change.

New Problem: Depletion of natural resources
We can't call ourselves a top luxury hotel with pristine nature if the sea bed has been bombed to smithereens. Our natural resources are being depleted in a decidedly unnatural rate. As mentioned in my previous post, we had to understand why.

Salience:
We need to increase the awareness of the damage that's being done to our natural resources with the public. Issues arise that quickly become apparent. This is an illegal activity. You can't just advertise a class for fish bombers and hope you get good attendance.

We also need to address the poverty and danger associated with this negative short term thinking and the negative economic externalities they impose on the local community.

Causality:
Fish bombing is driven by a combination of poverty which is a result of a lack of opportunity, education and awareness in the general local public. It also thrives because of lack of policing due to difficulty to coordinate naval operations with the community.

Architecture:
How should we model our action plan to solve these challenges?

• There is a need to work closely and communicate with the community to educate them and start a community dialogue. We need to educate our society to understand the value of this natural resource for everyone.
• We need to fight the root causes of this destruction and poverty by creating better, higher paying jobs and opportunities for local members of the community. Suddenly, instead of selling a pile of dead fish for a few RM each, you can have wealthy tourists pay you the same amount just to look at them. One of these you can do forever. The other guarantees your children a worse future than what you have now.
  
• The community needs to be connected to the relevant policing agencies to actively protect our natural resources.

Resolution:
A higher quality resort demanded higher quality service. We had to introduce language classes, service training to give our staff an opportunity to develop into new more fulfilling roles. It was nice to see local hires who saw the resort as a family. No longer simply "changing sheets", they became part of the hotel experience and fellow nature lovers.

Our staff numbers more than doubled from the previous management (which excludes the second island resort), wages and benefits also increased (caused by the increased demand for labour). In one of the arguably best applications of supply side economic theory working in the real world, we demanded more from our team, compensated them better to keep them and they stepped up to the task.


Also, we developed incredible programs such as the Marine Ecology Research Center (MERC) based on leading edge research to restore marine life in the water. We increased the number of PADI certified divers in our resort, making diving equipment and training accessible to our locally based general employees so that they could experience and understand what they were protecting.

We started our own sustainable fish farms and water treatment and recycling systems. As an island resort, we couldn't just hook up to the city mains. Plus our treatment systems were more advanced that those provided by the city. We made an effort to have our values and behaviours reflect our over arching philosophy. We are profiting from nature, so we have to protect our interests.

Long Term Outlook and Lessons Learned:
If you want to use capitalism as a force for good, how can you redirect 'greed and the drive for profits' into a solution for sustainability? Align the corporation with the values of society. Our situation was unique. There was a direct correlation between the health of our environment and our profits. Our environment: Save or starve.

Anyone who is a cynic of corporations will immediately raise their hand and ask "Uh... Shouldn't governments be looking after the natural resources and interests?" Absolutely. But some governments are not as wealthy as others. The unfortunate truth is that many wealthy countries have exploited their natural resources. The remaining ones that are naturally beautiful usually remain that way because they haven't been industrialized (and tend to be poorer). While this isn't strictly always the case, often governments often can't afford to police and protect their resources. Malaysia is hardly unique in this area. They know they have a valuable resource and are working hard to try to find more effective ways of protecting it.


This was a topic of the Asia Pacific Ecotourism Conference (APECO). While corporations may not be the best solution in all cases, it certainly beats the solution of no awareness and no responsibility. There were countless examples of beautiful areas that were ruined because they were neglected. These areas were notorious for exploitation by seemingly less scrupulous individuals who (it turns out) were just looking to feed their families.

There are certainly a lot more issues and complexity that arise from the discussions and further study regarding ecotourism policies, corporate social responsibility and sustainability. This series of posts is intended only as a starting point to illuminate another path for more enlightened discussion:

1. Corporations, if used appropriately, can actually be a force for good rather than stereotypical greed,
   
2. Corporations can contribute funds to develop positive programs, real opportunities and supply good jobs, rather than simply act as a source of tax shelter based charitable donations, and that
   
3. Integrative thinking can help you find the surprising nugget of gold in a case where there is a lot of chaotic data and relationships

Selfish Sustainability - Save or Starve Series [ 1 - 2 - 3 ]

Selfish Sustainability - Save or Starve pt 1

Selfish Sustainability - Save or Starve Series [ 1 - 2 - 3 ]

Corporations are based on greed right? Is there any way to use the drive for profits to enforce ecological sustainability? Turns out there is. One of the reasons I love this case (derived from my experience in Malaysia) was that it started out as a standard vanilla business problem and evolved into something wonderful. Suddenly, evil corporations could be on the side of angels.

If there was ever a case where integrative thinking would lead a corporation to pursue success while preserving the environment, my work with hotel developers in Malaysia would certainly fit the bill. It's a great case study for looking at a problem through the framework, coming up with more interesting questions and reaching a surprising conclusion. Another reason why I like this case is that when you use integrative thinking to look at the broad perspective of what's going on, you can often find surprising answers to your original questions.

Let's look at what happened:

*Initial* Problem Definition: Let's Make Money
Our holding company held several properties. Two key properties were beautiful island resort properties which had unfortunately been left in disrepair. Our Managing Director had seen some great potential for these new island properties to be acquired and developed into boutique luxury hotels to service the affluent Asian and Australian market.

Salience:
Metrics of a hotel are pretty standard. You want to charge good rates and have lots of people come. As I mentioned in my previous post about hotel capacity management, the raw math for making money in a hotel is pretty straight forward.

Causality:
As I also alluded in my previous post, average room rate (ARR) is dramatically effected by quality (real and perceived). Also occupancy (OCC) was greatly affected by market presence. Both of these qualities are strongly correlated to brand equity. Certainly no surprises here.

Architecture:
(Where new problems and interesting challenges start to surface)
One of the reasons I was brought on the team was to bring in an international perspective. Most of the senior staff was composed of local managers who (although talented) had trouble perceiving (and therefore developing and selling) the differences in the international market. Many of our sales agents had a legacy two-star rating of our old services and facilities. So we set up a framework for dealing with those issues:

• Upgrade facilities to match a 5+ star boutique quality with a luxury brand network (such as Small Luxury Hotels or Prestige)
• Leverage network to attract high quality clientele (from outside of local markets - average spend of a visitor to our part of the world was RM2000 (Ringgit Malaysia) or ~$700USD for an entire week long vacation. We were charging $300 USD per night). Relying on the average and status quo wasn't going to work.
  
• Renew brand equity and highlight natural beauty and proximity to nature as inimitable point of differentiation against other leading international hotels in the luxury space (in the luxury space you have to be exceptionally unique to attract guests)
• Have world class operations to support your brand equity promise of a peaceful, serene resort experience

While all of this may seem rather obvious (even those of us who haven't yet finished our fancy MBA school degrees), I deliberately emphasize the importance of natural beauty *and* proximity to nature because without it, we were a resort like any other.


While services like jungle trekking and scuba diving were available in beautiful places like Sipadan (World class diving site) or jungle trekking in the depths of the Sabah's jungles, we were the only location that was located only a 15 minute boat ride from main ferry terminal in the heart of the capital city and offered both.

Every other hot destination required a minimum 3 hour bus ride. Sipadan also required a flight to Tawau on the other side of Sabah followed by a lengthy boat ride. While they are worth it for those who are "hardcore" (I myself have done these trips) they are hardly easily accessible and require additional days travel. We were isolated, pristine and accessible.

Resolution:
Exploit natural resources, build hotel, make money. Right? Well that would seem to be the natural answer. But if you're livelihood depends on the pristine condition of your surroundings you have to make sure that you look after your natural resources.

There was a problem in Sabah. While rich in natural beauty, like many developing nations, the majority of the population was poor. By Malaysian standards. This resulted in some extremely negative short term behaviour.

New problem: Destructive Fishing
One such example is fish bombing. As an outsider, I thought it was an over exaggerated myth until I experienced it on a trip during a day off.

I was taking some time off with the diving staff so we decided to scuba dive in a reclusive area of the island. With our proximity to the city, we often see fishing vessels of locals. Pump boats, notorious for being illegal vessels (because they can outrun police boats in shallow shoals), are still incredibly common. On our search for a dive site, we passed by one and in my good natured naivety, I waved as we passed by. Unamused, the two fishermen, sharing what is essentially a canoe with a lawnmower engine, eyed me suspiciously before returning to their work. I though nothing of it at the time (whereas my two diving companions apparently knew better).


Our dive was nice, but fairly uneventful, until towards the end, just before we decided to surface, I heard a rather forceful explosion and felt as if someone has punched me in the chest. It was incredibly unsettling. At first I thought someone's tank exploded, looking at my two companions they were fine. I checked my equipment and everything seemed to be in order. When we returned to the surface I was shaken: "Did you hear that? What was that?"

"Fish bombing" came the reply, "probably from those guys we passed earlier." Although the explosion was a good distance away (judging by the position we last left the two fishermen in the pump boat) I had temporarily forgotten the physics of propagating waves in water (water is an exceptionally good transmitter of waves and pressure). The force felt so close, I thought it had to be nearby.

It turns out this "urban myth" is all too real. What happens is that poor fish farmers will create homemade grenades, toss them in the water and cause large vibrations which immediately kill the fish in a large area by rupturing their organs and they immediately float up to the top for a catch which will supply the fisher man with as much as a reported RM4000 for a days work (average salary for Malaysian workers ranges from RM300 to RM1000 per month for skilled or semi-skilled labourers) so that translates into a great deal of money.


The obvious problem is that this indiscriminate form of destruction also destroys corals that took years to grow. Besides being beautiful in it's own right, coral also acts as a home and food supply for many forms of aquatic life and is therefore a critical part of the ecosystem in the water. In recursively applying the integrative thinking framework (Salience, Causality, Architecture and Resolution) the less obvious "secondary" problem that surfaces becomes the primary one. Fishermen are poor and have an good financial incentive to take more aggressive measures to ensure their livelihood (exploiting their future for the present).

Suddenly, not only is a matter of developing the resort facilities, but also the society that the resort exists in. Our problem definition has suddenly become more complicated (and enriching) than "build hotel, make money".

[cont'd on pt 2]

Selfish Sustainability - Save or Starve Series [ 1 - 2 - 3 ]

Earth Hour Post - TCO Models for Sustainability

One of the controversial environmental topics I like to bring up is solar power. While naive (but well meaning) environmentalists support solar technology (for mass consumption in it's current state), they don't realize that more energy (in the form of oil) is consumed to create a solar panel than will ever be extracted from it.

Also, many "environmentally" friendly models are simply offsets of other more polluting or less sustainable practices.

As a corollary of my previous post on this topic, as with any strategic endeavour that wishes to succeed (not just on moral grounds but also on more pragmatic and physical terms), I believe it is necessary to take a more all encompassing total cost of ownership (TCO) approach. That is to say that non-sustainable processes cannot be "green washed" by offsetting the true environmental costs (with striking similarly to NIMBY).

Case in point, solar panels may be "green" with no emissions where they are installed, but they are tremendously inefficient for their purpose. NASA puts solar panels on it's space craft because it can provide a light weight, steady stream of power with the majority of its complexity and drawbacks offset off the actual device and doesn't need a complicated external fueling source (such as gasoline with atmosphere or batteries).

In deciding if something is environmentally friendly (through and through), a more cradle to grave to cradle approach is needed which encompasses the many definitions of sustainability. There are even some European counties leading in policy innovation in these areas (yes, this article was written in 2001, and we wouldn't *DREAM* of implementing something so bold here in North America).

Also, in awareness for Earth hour, I'm putting this post up as my last activity before I shut down all electronic devices I have for an hour between 8:30 PM and 9:30 PM.

Aside: Note, that "Earth Hour" is actually in Ontario's off peak hour (and by extension, most people's similar behaviour pattern) for energy consumption so we are actually saving the least amount of power possible in an hour. For Earth Hour to have maximum potential (and exposure), it probably would have been best to execute this hour during peak hours aka (7 to 11am or 5 to 8pm on a Winter weekday or 11am to 5 pm Summer weekday).

Sustainability and a Green Focus

The top issue with MBAs and other business leaders today is the idea of sustainability (Wikipedia article authored Jan 8, 2009) coupled with corporate responsibility. Although, MBAs are currently highlighting this area as important, it lacks a definition which is meaningful as actionable advice.

I would propose that the most base definition of sustainability should relate directly to energy capture and consumption. However, since products cannot simply be arbitraged nor modeled directly as energy consumption, there are many other aspects which must be considered: carbon emissions, land use, natural resource extraction rates etc.

It is quite obvious that anything which is consumed and not replaced is in an inherently unstable relationship. Currently, companies such as Monsanto are working "diligently" in order to increase the yields of products we consume (in Monsanto's case, GMO food products) as a solution to assuage the strain and diminishing return of our resources. However, even the most cynical and fastidious capitalists must recognize that there exists some natural limit of efficiency (even with technological augmentation).

Biotechnology growth has recently spiked up as a result and its now up to companies to find out what that means for them. How should companies incorporate business practices so that they can benefit from this inevitable trend. While some companies are contributing at the forefront with new innovations in resource management, other companies will have to find which services they can provide or will demand in the future. Whether these companies are innovating to create substitutes or trying to increase the efficiency of how we use our resources, sustainability management will likely become an increasingly popular (and necessary) field.