FINANCIAL SERVICES: Harness your supply base to power your business

Driving more value from the supply market is a board level agenda item for Financial Services organizations around the world.

Discover how to effectively manage your supply base to deliver value to your business - above just cutting costs.

Click here to access our new Financial Services resource portal

Subscribe to our monthly e-newsletter

Connect with us

Subscribe to our RSS Feed

Your email:

Proxima Blog

Current Articles | RSS Feed RSS Feed

How the 'Shareholder Spring' should evolve

  
  
  
  
Vinny Patel - Proxima

Following on from a previous post on this topic, the Shareholder Spring should turn its attention away from executive pay, and towards an area that has a far greater opportunity to improve profitability and shareholder returns – third party costs.

Senior executives are again facing a tough time with regards to pay in front of shareholders and investment institutions. It’s perhaps not surprising as it’s an easy target thanks to pay levels being freely available, and significantly above the national average. 

But shareholders and institutional investors don’t seem to realize the limited positive impact on business performance that reducing executive pay will produce. And that’s because across the FTSE 350, on average, only 12% of revenue is spent on labor. So reducing the senior executives pay is not going to materially improve profitability through a reduced wage bill. Yet better talent will improve overall business performance. 

Surely investors would rather pay market or even above market levels to attract top talent to safeguard their investment, than pay lower levels for inexperienced management, and risk worsening the business performance. 

But there’s a much bigger point in this debate which is being over looked – an opportunity for the pressure the Shareholder Spring is able to apply to materially affect profitability.

Shareholder Spring 2.0

In contrast to the 12% of revenue being spent on labor, a massive 68% is spent on non-labor and supplier related costs (this by the way, is also freely available information). 

So if you reduce your labor costs by 1%, you increase profitability by 0.8%. Yet if you reduce your non-labor costs by the same 1%, you increase profitability by 3.6% - five times greater. 

It won’t be long before the Shareholder Spring starts to focus on other areas. And it is important that senior executives understand where the next round of scrutiny could focus.

As the Shareholder Spring inevitably evolves, we should expect to see an increased level of scrutiny from investors on the 68% of revenue that is spent on external suppliers.

Before investors begin their interrogation, senior executives need to absolutely understand these costs, be confident that about the quality of commercial thinking that goes into how they are invested, demonstrate excellent control over them, and ultimately ensure that value for money is achieved.

How confident do you think business leaders are that 68% of their revenues are being excellently managed?

 

Click here to access our research into non-labor spend behaviours

 

10 billion video capture

Our latest research reveals that businesses spend, on average, two-thirds of their revenue on non-labor costs – 68.3% in 2011. This far outstrips their collective labor costs, which averaged just 12.9% of their revenue. Yet headcount reduction is traditionally seen as the best way to tackle cost. This raises a number of questions:

  • Are businesses ensuring that their non-labor cost base is being effectively managed?
  • If not, why not?
  • And what are the potential benefits of making that investment?

Access the research now

 

 

 

Comments

Vinny, I do not believe that only 12% of FTSE 350 revenue is spent on labour. Even co's with the lowest value-added, e.g. distributers, labour is usually their largest cost. 
 
In any event, unwarrented ( undeserved ) increases in executive cash remuneration, is corrosive for business morale, and unfair to shareholders, however it is packaged, and cannot be sustained.
Posted @ Tuesday, January 15, 2013 3:05 AM by John Stewart
Logic v emotion - the perennial conflict with human beings. Logic would drive investors to look at the ratios & other maths involved, which is what happens most often with big investors. However, emotion has been raised by things like perceived unfairness of the widening gap between the highly paid and the rest, plus perceived over-reward for relative failure, not just success. We can marry logic with emotion of course, eg by using the logic that unhappy (by perceived unfairness) customers needs to be dealt with effectively by increasing perceived fairness - hence the spring. In the end customers should prevail, even though it may take some time to get to that destination.
Posted @ Monday, January 21, 2013 5:49 AM by Roy Ayliffe
Over past times, I could see that shareholders / investors decisions regarding reducing executives pay, were mainly to show corrective actions for the demanding media rather than a way to reduce the cost or apply more (fair) pay scheme for the staff in general. 
How much executives get or should get is affected by many factors; competition who hunt for those executives offering them higher pay, the achievements of those executives compared to previous period of same organization or compared to other organizations within same period. I do believe that the more companies pay attention to its "Human Capital" the more revenues those companies will get, shortly and on the long run, but shareholders and investors who select the executives, should be capable to select those who have the technical / leadership mix of competencies, to ensure the human domain and organizational behavior are well taken care of.  
Posted @ Monday, January 21, 2013 5:53 AM by Hisham Hittini
I'm afraid that ignorance amongst investors has a part to play in all of this. Senior executives will have to demonstrate and justfy their commercialty and value together with the level of infulence they have in providing the desired return in their investment. Time to blow your trumpets as the Nation can ill afford any further skills drainage.
Posted @ Monday, January 21, 2013 5:54 AM by Darren Babb
By understanding the reality of uncertainty and reviewing the proposition that senior executives can set an organisations "direction".  
 
Recent economic events must surely be making it very difficult for all but the most deluded to avoid questioning whether senior executives in all organisations (public as well as private) really can do what they are paid to do and what the dominant management prescriptions call for.  
 
Executives are supposed to know whats going on - because they are supposed to be avoiding emotion and the personal politics of business - so that they can make fact based decisions. If they aren't doing this then they are plainly pursuing their own interests and gambling with shareholders and/or taxpayers resources.  
 
And yet many people 'pretend' that they are still making fact based decisions unhindered by complexity and the uncertainty it brings... reflecting on this would be a starting point for the development of a new management thinking after the collapse in 2008 and a move to providing a more realistic vision for investors to speculate on.  
Posted @ Monday, January 21, 2013 5:55 AM by Gerard Chick FCIPS
Post Comment
Name
 *
Email
 *
Website (optional)
Comment
 *

Allowed tags: <a> link, <b> bold, <i> italics