Tag Archives: business

Small market II

Exploring transitions of market sizes is something I’m keen to examine a bit more. The richness of capitalist market economy comes not so much from the price competition but competition along other dimensions. That actually is not that amenable to economic analysis despite all the support that traditional economic analysis had given weight to the beauty of the market economy and its efficiencies.

The innovations of the market economy actually requires dynamism rather than static equilibrium. And over the course of the so-called dynamic equilibria, there is actually some degree of disequilibria. More of our experiences are with the changing patterns such as prices, proliferation of new products and shifts in market messaging than with having clear repetitive routines.

There is to some extent a predictability around the fact that people will be fed and services will be provided without central coordination but these are just scarffolding of a much richer and vibrant structure.

So small markets becomes larger by growing in the demand base or demand groups, or when they merge into other broader base markets. These shifts reflect that even the basic fundamentals around our traditional analysis of markets should be oriented not necessarily based on demographics, a need or particular behaviours. The boundaries between markets are more fluid than we think. It takes broader thinking to be able to conquer markets from the perspective of business and to analyse them through the changing times.

Transition as an opportunity

I work with businesses daily and when we speak of transiting to the low-carbon economy, moving away from Oil & Gas assets, to new businesses that would accelerate the transition, the conversation could go both ways: (1) Show me the money; (2) There is no other way.

The motivation for green is hard to be sustained by pure profit motive because that tends to be more short term whereas longer term motivation is driven more by fundamentals.

If there isn’t money right now or that money doesn’t come, then those who claim that they are in green for the money won’t be able to stay on. Even if you have conviction that the money would come, it is almost certainly driven by a longer term, fundamental thesis. And this fundamental thesis, tends towards the “there is no other way”.

A balanced, and pragmatic view of this landscape requires us to recognise that the old incentives and structures need to be dismantled to push for the new but at the same time, we need to keep proving that the new works. After all, the oil & gas industry and technology had decades to build up to the scale they have today.

Small market

Singapore is a small market, everyone would say. Yet it imports and exports so much goods and services it would be considered an important market for different businesses. Take bunkering for example; it is the largest single point of sales for the refueling of vessels in the world.

So how do markets grow? What drives them? It depends on who are the customers, and what grows their numbers or their demand in the goods and services of the market. How do supply help to drive demand? Be it through advertising, increasing distribution and availability, etc.

On the other hand, we got to think about how markets shrink as well. How did the market for video or movie rental shrink in face of the growth of streaming? When would an original big market be considered small for the incumbent to start looking elsewhere?

Market for green premium II

Airlines are in the business of transporting people around. Or maybe it’s about curating and creating the best experience in air travel? Or about building a brand? Or is it about bringing people to places and catalysing activities, businesses for locations that would otherwise be overlooked by travellers? Seen that way, the fuel cost of an airline would always be considered a cost. Therefore, to keep cost low, or deliver the greatest profits, the airline will see their fuel as a commodity.

What if the choice of fuel they use starts impacting the customer segments they are targeting or they can serve? What if using sustainable aviation fuel allows them to attract more premium customers? What if they could sell their air tickets at a higher price when they are demonstrably emitting less carbon dioxide? And what if doing so also help them comply with some ICAO requirements?

The market for green premium turns various cost parameters in businesses into a tool for something else. There’s an opportunity to use these new parameters to disrupt the business. Years ago, the low-cost carrier disrupted some of the most traditional airline businesses. Would a low-carbon carrier do the same? What other elements of the whole airline business can be refashioned to fit the whole sustainable, low-carbon identity?

Market for green premium

The energy transition and decentralisation of energy had quietly started shifting the capital markets since close to a decade ago. While the traditional energy players continue to compare the cost of green energy against the cost of their own fossil fuel based energy, they found no reason to diversify their business. Even in face of some subsidy, or some Feed-in-Tariffs, they were reluctant to invest.

There was no scale, and they thought they were going to face more competition and erosion of any green premiums they could secure. But then the capital holders started taking notice. The projects were simple enough to invest into. Solar farms had minimal requirements from an operational perspective, and represented to some degree a pure capital good where almost all the cost are paid upfront for a stream of revenue in long term.

From a risk perspective, it was safe. And so long-term funds which needed safe investments at moderate yields started piling in. The utility scale projects expanded, driving down the cost of equipment, and fostered more innovation there. Here is a case where, the technical simplicity of the operations enabled investors to bypass the typical operating businesses to get into the underlying projects themselves. All of a sudden, it is not about looking for the premium anymore. Because you’re alright with scale.

Sometimes, growing and developing a market is about finding customers who are willing to pay a higher price; but other times, it is about finding investors who are willing to accept a lower expected return for other attributes.

Healthy competition and values

I was put in a system where we were regularly assessed relative to our cohort, made to feel anxious about our position amongst our peers, and put in an artificial environment where we were taught to improve through ‘healthy competition’.

The society’s definition of healthy competition does get out of hand. Guardian recently ran a piece commenting on the number of ‘Forbes 30 Under 30’ featured people who landed in jail or at least trouble with the law.

It’s not just that competition gets out of hand but a question of what kind of values we are sending young people into the society with. Beyond the glamorization of the ideas around hustling and ‘faking it till you make it‘, there is clearly a lack of clear direction on the moral boundaries that should govern the claims made by companies to get ahead in terms of creating investor interest, or customer demand. Is it not time we draw a line, and re-align definition of success with actual activities that will move society and the world forward?

Going back to objectives II

What happens when people at the ‘grassroots’ level of a system tries to solve a system problem, or deal with the symptoms and consequences of a systemic issue? How often have we asked this question and consider how pervasive such a problem archetype is in our modern society?

Corporate change and transformation department should be framing questions this way to uncover projects they can work on. Far too often, there are departments operating at ‘corporate’ or ‘strategic’ level of the company just trying to find easy-wins lurking around the organisation to create some kind of change project. The small projects that affect one or two stakeholders can be better dealt with by themselves. Collecting problem statements on the ground may not be the best because ‘the ground’ tend to contextualise problems within their own scope of work or scope of influence. When they do point out something that is more systemic, it is overwhelming or that they point to merely a symptom of underlying problems.

The corporate strategy department needs to hunt down problem statements by considering first what is the objectives that the company is trying to achieve overall, and what are some of the internal elements of the company that is hindering it from achieving its objectives. That would be more useful corporate change. Solving problems that prevent what existing department perceives as hindrance from them doing ‘their work’ may not always be optimal because ‘their work’ can be a function of the existing silos of an organisation and not exactly meeting the overall objectives of it.

Institution economics

I spent some time during my masters studying institutions and the economic effects that institutions have. By institutions, I mean established ‘laws and practices’ as much as governing rules, systems in place that organises economic activities. These rules and practices have huge impacts on economic development.

Acemoglu et al (2001) was a famous study on the long-lasting effects of institutions and on the economy. I thought it was interesting to take a bit more of a meta view on these topics and discover the forces that sometimes lurks in the background in ways we don’t realise.

Our state of the markets and the economy needs to be thought through the lenses of the institutions we have evolved, the incentives around them rather than just short-term fire-fighting. The shortest route to the near-term outcomes we want does not ensure the outcomes persist. And because these days we tend to think that we can monitor and dynamically ‘guide’ things to a desired outcome, the more we create unnecessary build-up of tensions as we choose to ignore the impact of current institutional structures we have laid down. These we must not ignore.

Calmness in a storm

So everyone in Singapore were talking about Shou, the CEO of Tiktok who went to face the interrogation by the congress. He is a Singaporean and we were all pretty proud of his performance.

That clearly wasn’t easy; he was being talked over, treated rudely; most of the people interrogating him had speeches of their own where they needed him to fill in the blanks rather than genuinely expecting answers. I thought Adrian Tan’s observation that Shou was often the calmest person in the room of people who were interrogating him was interesting.

While the hearing remains inconclusive, there was little mistake that the US is entering yet another cycle of active state intervention into business. It is strange that issues being put across the table confused data privacy issues, responsibilities of a tech company management, geopolitics and business ownership.

Our institutions today are highly complex and sophisticated. Even the concept of ownership in a business is made so complicated by unbundling of the various rights that are traditionally attributed to owners, then dishing them out to various parties.

Supply side perspectives

There was a time when demand and pricing was what matters because the rise of logistics and transport technologies made it easy to ship things around or even store things for long. So production becomes so isolated from consumption that as long as you can price things right on demand side, you can be producing anything anywhere.

Profit then is just about finding lower cost locations, resources, manpower, materials and so on. Services gradually have those attributes as they are increasingly performed remotely. But when we start considering supply chains of products, issues of resilience as well as carbon emissions, things goes a bit tricky.

The future low carbon world might be one where supply chains are shorter, where consuming local looms large and where decentralisation returns. Powering decentralisation is simply the recognition that there’s both financial economy and carbon economy; that when we need to economise on carbon, we can afford it.