MISSION INTANGIBLE

M:I Products

MISSION:INTANGIBLE, the blog of the Intangible Asset Finance Society, offers critical comments on intangible asset, corporate reputation, and finance; supplemented by quantitative reputation metrics. Intangible assets include business processes, patents, trademarks; reputations for ethics and integrity; quality, safety, sustainability, security, and resilience; and comprise 70% of the average company's value. MISSION:INTANGIBLE is a registered trademark of the Intangible Asset Finance Society.

Read future M:I posts via RSS RSS

Ethical pharmaceuticals

Nir Kossovsky - Friday, May 01, 2009
Earlier this month, Novartis was named one of the three most ethical pharma and biotech companies in the world by Ethisphere Magazine, following an in-depth analysis over a six-month period by several non-governmental organizations and the publication's editors. Ethisphere claims that firms found to be more ethical outperform their peers. We're inclined to agree in principal, because it is our observation that superior stewards of intangible assets build resilient reputations and outperform their peers, and "ethics" is a major intangible asset. On the other hand, league tables are often disparaged as "rank and spank."

It seemed ironic that we should question an organization with a name such as "Ethisphere." Ok, we trust them. But we are obliged to verify. And what better tool to use than the Steel City Re Intangible Asset Finance (corporate reputation) Index, a quantitative tool that measures the financial impact of stakeholder behaviors that are reasonable indicators of corporate reputation.

As shown in the chart below, Novartis (NYSE:NVS) IA index ranking has fluctuated around 0.93 this past year. The EWMA IA volatility was generally very low with a log magnitude of 2. Overall, good IA index values suggesting a strong reputation and creating expectations for an above average return. And indeed, financially, it is outperforming its 84 peers in the Pharmaceuticals sector with an ROE this past year of 13.14% above the median.



As points of comparison, let's look at Pfizer (NYSE:PFE) and Eli Lilly (NYSE:LLY), two strong US-based pharmaceutical companies. Over this same time period, Pfizer's IA index decreased from 0.79 to .72 which is a worrying sign of reputation loss. On the other hand, IA volatility has been dropping slightly suggesting a tightening of the variance on reputation -- a feature we attribute to management's improving command, control and communications. Financially, it is marginally outperforming its peers with an excess ROE of less than 1%.



Last, take a look at Eli Lilly, a firm that has had ethical issues lately relating to criminal and civil charges, now settled, that it illegally marketed its schizophrenia drug Zyprexa. Over the past year, Eli Lilly's IA index decreased from a lofty 0.94 to .85. IA volatility has been fluctuating at levels much higher than either Novartis or Pfizer. Financially, it is underperforming its peers by 3%.



That Lilly's IA index dropped to below 0.8 and then rebounded is testimony to the firm's reputation resilience and is a feature we tend to see in companies with overall high IA index values. Still, there appears to be a rank order in these quantitative market-driven metrics measuring reputation that appear to substantiate, at least in part, the designation conferred by Ethisphere. And yes, the one other pharmaceutical firm that was recognized for its ethics, and that we cover for corporate reputation metrics with the IA index, also scored well. Astra Zeneca (NYSE:AZN). During this period, Astra Zeneca's IA index increased from 0.77 to .88 while its IA volatility has been dropping. Financially, it is outperforming its peers with an excess return of 23%.

The highly regulated ethical pharmaceutical industry (prescription drugs) emerged from the chaos, misbranding, and adulterated products world of the late 19th century. The public benefits derive from the confidence stakeholders have in the safety and effectiveness of the products when used as directed. Knowing how important the distinction between ethical and other products is to market confidence and price point, it should not be too surprising that both the regulatory hammer and the reputation impact can be significant.

The pirates of reputation

Nir Kossovsky - Tuesday, April 28, 2009
My colleague and former Assistant Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, Robert Liscouski recently posted this comment on the Adfero national security blog site. I reproduce his comments here because they address the intangible asset finance value of security. His observations affirm that when companies abrogate managerial responsibility for risk management, whether it is in the financial sector or the marine sector, corporate reputation is damaged and economic returns suffer. Conversely, companys are rewarded for paying attention to that which is valued by its stakeholders. Bob writes:

Here’s the question – who pays for the protection afforded to private companies engaged in protecting America’s critical assets? The answer is: it depends.

Chemical plants, nuclear power plants, airlines, telecommunications companies, transportation companies, you name it – most of the costs associated with protecting private companies are borne by the companies, their shareholders and when possible, their customers. With a glaring exception – if you are a foreign shipping company and one of your ships transits the Gulf of Aden and is hijacked by four criminals intent on gaining ransom money – the US Navy and insurance companies are happy to pick up the tab for the rescue and protection of the crew, the ship and its cargo. One might think this is a justifiable national security response because the shipping company is threatened from conducting its operations. However, these pirates are common criminals, not terrorists and the shipping companies are choosing to undertake the risk but not take appropriate measures to prevent the hijackings because they can rely on the US and other navies for protection – at the cost of the US taxpayer. So the US taxpayer is not only burdened with failed management of US financial institutions and auto makers, along with irresponsible credit card and mortgage holders, but now we’re subsidizing foreign companies who refuse to implement solutions to minimize or avoid the risk to their ships and their clients’ cargo.

Which brings forth the question, why are shippers deferring to the navies of the world? The easy answer is the US Navy isn’t going to charge the shipping companies. However, there is more - the shippers, as a group, have failed to grasp the reputation benefits associated with improved security, reduced risk and better service. Some companies do understand the value of protecting their reputation – contrast Dry Ships Inc. (NASDAQ:DRYS) vs. Diana Shipping Inc. (NYSE:DSX). Since experiencing a hijacking in February 2009 Dry Ships Inc., the company's reputation as measured by the Steel City Re IA index has tumbled from the 80th percentile to 36th percentile, based on the market’s perception that they are not managing security issues well. Diana by contrast has gained on the Steel City Re reputation index moving from the 30th percentile to the 80th.



Diana has out performed its peers by 24% while Dry Shipping has under performed by 18%. Why do these percentages matter? Because they demonstrate the value of good security programs, their recognition by the markets and the impact on their shareholder value.



This is something our government needs to underscore with the private sector – good security is good for business. And by security, I don’t mean staffing the ships with heavily armed mercenaries. As romantic an alternative that as that might be against a romanticized criminal, it isn’t a practical solution. A meaningful security solution entails planning, analysis, and risk mitigation and avoidance to keep ships out of harms way. The US Navy, while fully capable of such a task, neither has the time or resources in its current configuration to deal with seaborne criminals.

We need to rethink our policy and its implication for Homeland Security. Security is key function to businesses and there are measures shipping companies (foreign and domestic) can take to reduce the burden on the US and the US Government should have other priorities than to once again bail out more unwilling or irresponsible managers.

Falling Dominos

Nir Kossovsky - Monday, April 27, 2009
On or about 13 April, 2009, in a small Domino's Pizza (NYSE:DMZ) franchise in North Carolina, two employees posted a prank video of some unsanitary and scatological food-preparation practices. Thanks to the power and reach of social media, within a few days there were more than a million views on YouTube and a viral spread of the subject on Twitter. Google trends reported a 50% increase in searches for "Dominos Pizza."

According to Patrick Vogt who writes for the CMO Network on Forbes.com, .'..the cost to the Domino's national brand equity over the long term is still undetermined. Two recent surveys seemed to indicate that it will take time for the national brand to recover. An online research firm called YouGov confirmed that the perception of Dominos' brand quality went from positive to negative in approximately 48 hours. In addition, a national study conducted by HCD Research using its Media Curves Web site found that 65% of respondents who would previously visit or order Domino's Pizza were less likely to do so after viewing the offensive video."

By any conventional marketing metric, this would appear to be a corporate reputation crisis. From the Intangible Asset Finance Society's perspective, this appears to be a failure in the business processes that give rise to reputations based on quality - a universally important intangible asset. We ran a quantitative reputation analysis using the Steel City Re Intangible Asset Index.



The data show that this past week, Domino’s IA Index dropped from an 11 month high of the 52nd percentile to the 47th percentile among the 47 companies of the Restaurant sector. This past year, the company has had a progressively declining IA index, EWMA volatility at 4 logs or more, and an economic return that is 14% below the median of its peers.

Much has been written about the marketing challenges associated with the employee prank and the slow corporate response. We believe the real story, as suggested by the index data, is that Dominos is currently perceived to be no more than an average steward of its intangible assets. Its business process controls are weaker than the leading firms, and thus, its resilience in the face of this challenge will likely disappoint shareholders.

Dominos can resolve this problem with classic risk and reputation management – better business process controls on the human factors that underpin its reputation for product quality. Training, compliance and monitoring, and behavior enforcement tools need to complement its media-focused crisis management campaign. Because this is a franchise-sourced risk, there are unique insurance instruments that can increase the efficiency of compliance enforcement.

Marketing and crisis communications efforts are important but not sufficient. Customers need to know that in addition to management’s contrition, there are material changes in the company’s operations that place management in an improved state of control -- a level of command and control that will preclude this challenge to quality from happening elsewhere in the organization.

Dominos' mid-range reputation ranking contrasts with the top Restaurant sector IA index companies this week. In the top position, Panera Bread Co. (NASDAQ:PNRA), with an EWMA of three logs and an superior economic return that is 72.32% in excess of the median of its peers; McDonald’s Corp. (NYSE:MCD) in the 97th percentile slot, with extraordinary IA index stability comprising a near zero EWMA and an economic return that is 21.36% in excess of the median; and Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. (NYSE:CMG) in the 95th percentile position with a lively EWMA of 4 logs and a marginally superior return at 1.18% above the median.


Valuation truth vs truthiness

Nir Kossovsky - Friday, April 24, 2009
The past week, Intellectual Asset Management magazine, the official publication partner of the Society, has been hosting a debate on intangible asset valuation. As Joff Wild, editor of IAM magazine describes it,

One subject area that always seems to generate a large number of reader comments is valuation. Witness, for example, the fantastic thread tha developed following a post I wrote back in January entitled Intangible values collapse - the old 70% to 80% claim is now officially dead and buried. Among those taking part in that conversation - indeed the man who indirectly inspired it - was Nir Kossovsky, executive secretary of the Intangible Asset Finance Society and CEO of Steel City Re. Now Nir has written in to question some of the points made by Pat Sullivan and Alexander Wurzer in their IAM article on IP/intangible valuation myths, which I recently previewed on the blog.

The Intangible Asset Finance Society has weighed in on the debate along with our colleagues at the Athena Alliance, with classic language and arguments from the school of American Pragmatism that reflect the financial market principles we support. To follow the debate on the IAM site, click here. To read the comments of Ken Jarboe, President of the Athena Alliance on the Alliance blog, Intangible Economy, click here.


A tale of two chassis

Nir Kossovsky - Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Over the past year, the monolithic big three US auto companies have resolved into their individual identities revealing, a rising Ford Motor Company (NYSE:F) and a sinking General Motors Corporation (NYSE:GM). Among the 11 companies that comprise the Automobiles sector, Ford has outperformed its peers by 6.23% while GM has underperformed by 44.9%.

Looking at the reputation metrics from the Steel City Re Intangible Asset Finance (corporate reputation) Index below, Ford shows a rising IA index and decreasing EWMA IA Index volatility with a final log magnitude of 2 while GM shows opposite directional movements and a final volatility log magnitude of 3. Our question to you - what business processes do you think are the most important drivers of corporate reputation in this sector: safety, innovation, quality, sustainability, ethics or other?  We look forward to hearing from you on this blog (post a note) or email the Society at secretariat@iafinance.org.

By the way, in case you were wondering, the number 1 ranked firm in this sector as of 17 April is Honda Motor Company Ltd (NYSE:HMC) with a return on equity this past year of 45%.



Tsk tsk, Liska

Nir Kossovsky - Monday, April 20, 2009
You may have heard about the spat between Motorola Inc. (NYSE:MOT) and its former CFO, Paul Liska. Briefly, Liska believes he was dismissed for blowing the whistle on inaccurate financial forecasts; Motorola's version is that he was dismissed for "serious misconduct and incompetence."

Our interest was piqued by a recent JP Morgan analysis that reported "this entire soap opera likely ends with little or no impact to Motorola." We are less sanguine for we see evidence of significant , albeit restorable, reputation impairment.

Liska was dismissed 29 January. He was officially fired 19 February according to an SEC filing. As shown below, between 2 and 9 February, Motorola's reputation as measured by the Steel City Re Intangible Asset Finance (corporate reputation) Index dropped precipitously from the 82nd percentile to the 23rd percentile among 93 companies in the Communications Equipment sector.


The data indicate a decreasing IA index, an increasing EWMA IA index volatility with an average log magnitude of 4, and a not unexpected economic underperformance of 3% below peers. In contrast, Qualcomm Inc. (NASDAQ:QCOM) the #1 ranked firm in this sector, shows a decreasing EWMA IA index volatility with an average log magnitude of 3, and an economic return that exceeds its peers by 41%

We believe Motorola's reputation issues are significant and now center about the core issue of ethics. This additional concern exacerbates pre-existing concerns about innovation which have dogged the company for some time. To stakeholders facing ambiguous facts as they now stand, ethical concerns place all executive pronouncements under a cloud. The discounting effect on share price, in our opinion, is similar to the discounting we saw years ago when Research in Motion was laboring under the uncertainty of intellectual property litigation.

It doesn't have to be this way. Operational transparency and some fine footwork by corporate communications should be able to undo the damage if indeed, as JP Morgan suggests, Motorola's case is the stronger of the two. The reward for success by our estimation, if you want to put a number to it, is up to $11B in restored market capitalization (F-test 10E-30, adj. R2 0.79). But as most companies are learning in these challenging times, in reality, reputation is priceless.

Serving reputation for dinner

Nir Kossovsky - Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Tweens and adolescents often playfully disparage their meals with monikers such as "mystery meat" or "tuna surprise." While this is good fun, it is something quite different when the CEO of a major food products company similarly characterizes his company's products. David McKay of Kellogg Company (NYSE: K) raised a few eyebrows when he testified last month before the House Committeee on Energy and Commerce that Kellogg relied on third parties to assure food safety. We wonder what thoughts ran through the minds of financial analysts who knew at that time that competitors, such as Nestle, conducted their own supplier inspections thereby signalling to their stakeholders that food safety is a core business process and critical intangible/reputation asset.

And while it has been a rough time as of late with Salmonella in peanuts and pistachios, the industry as a whole is settling down to a steady state of intangible asset volatilty. So it piques our interest when H. J. Heinz Company (NYSE: HNZ), a company that has made reputation enhancement a key business strategy, experiences a sudden drop in the Steel City Re Intangible Asset Finance (Corporate Reputation) Index.

The chart below shows Heinz. As seen in the upper chart, among the 56 companies comprising the Food Products Group, Heinz has ranked in the top 95th percentile earlier this year but has been declining and is now at the 83rd percentile. In terms of return on equity, this past year it has outperformed the median of its peers by 2.6% - the peer group having lost a median of about 27% over the past 12 months. As seen in the lower chart, Heinz's exponentially weighted moving average IA index volatility began this last six month period at under two orders of magnitude and is now approaching three orders.


Yet while Heinz is showing a reputation decline and increasing volatilty, the industry as a whole is showing increasing stability. In the upper half of the chart below, the variance amond different companies in the peer group is leveling off at about 0.25. Furthermore, among all 5000 companies tracked by the IA index, the median IA index value of the peer group is rising to about the 72nd percentile. Last, the lower half of the chart below shows that the % of value at the Heinz Company ascribable to intangible assets has been increasing and now stands at about 120% while the median fraction in the peer group has been decling slightly to about 60%.



How is all this to be interpreted: decreasing IA index, increasing EMWA IA index volatilty, increasing IA fraction?

We believe its all about reputation. We believe that the extraordinarily high level of intangible asset value comprising some 120% of the company's market value (implying a negative book value) means stakeholders are relying greatly on extra-financial information to set a fair market price. Stakeholders are going with their gut, and gut is driven by reputation -- the impression stakeholders form on management's stewardship of a firm's intangible assets. The increasing volatilty associated with a decline in the IA index suggests to us that the impression stakeholders are receiving from these extra-fiancial channels is increasingly less uniform. Higher stock price volatility and increasing cost of both equity and debt will be among the earliest pains Heinz may experience.

Not convinced? Google search the stock ticker for Heinz, Kellogg, General Mills (NYSE:GIS), and Ralcorp (NYSE:RAH) - food product companies whose IA index values as of 6 April were .83, .90, .94 and .96 respectively - and the term "reputation." The hit counts are 504, 484, 543, and 1950. Did we mention that Ralcorp also had a peanut recall issue, yet their EWMA IA index volatility is decreasing and their ROE for the year is 23% above the peer-group median?

Eclipse of the sun

Nir Kossovsky - Monday, April 13, 2009
Last Monday, 6 April, the world learned that IBM (NYSE:IBM) was no longer interested in acquiring Sun Microsystems (NASDAQ:JAVA). Speculation as to the reasons for the collapsed deal include price, intellectual property and hubris. Let's look at the intangibles of this deal from the perspective of the Steel City Re  Intangible Asset Finance (corporate reputation) (IA) index.

The charts below shows IBM. As seen in the upper chart, among the 48 companies comprising the Computers and Peripherals sector, IBM has ranked in the top 99th or 100th percentile this past year. In terms of return on equity, it outperforms the median of its peers by 33%. As seen in the lower chart, the volatility of its index score is only two orders of magnitude and is decreasing. This is a company with an exceedingly strong reputation that stakeholders believe they understand, and clearly like.



The charts below shows Sun Microsystems. As seen in the upper chart, among the same 48 companies comprising the Computers and Peripherals Group, Sun (JAVA) has ranked no higher than the 50th percentile a year ago and is now ranking below the 20th percentile. In terms of return on equity, notwithstanding the surge in anticipation of a potential deal, it has underperformed its peers by nearly 20%. As seen in the lower chart, the volatility of its index score is three orders of magnitude and is now increasing. This is a company with a rapidly deteriorating reputation that stakeholders are liking less, and are concerned they no longer know.



The data indicate that since Sun Microsystem's reputation is not going to help IBM, the latter can afford to wait until hubris is humbled and the price stabilizes.


Imposing behavior

Nir Kossovsky - Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Cadbury plc (NYSE:CBY), Kellogg (NYSE:K), Mattel (NYSE:MAT) are iconic firms whose products, cash flows, and reputations have been sullied by their business partners through ethical breaches including melamine in milk, salmonella in peanut butter, and lead paint. These three are but a sample of firms afflicted by an epidemic of trading partner (third party) risk who have placed their corporate reputation at financial peril.

Risk & Insurance magazine's senior editor, Dan Reynolds, reviews the Society's conference call from 3 April with the leading question, "Imposing best practices on trading partners today is considered vital, but how does one secure an increasingly global trading community?"  He then brilliantly summarizes Robert Rittereiser's hour-long presentation in a short, entertaining and accessible article.

Rittereiser knows risk. As Reynolds summarizes, "In Rittereiser's deep past, he was a chief financial officer and chief administrative officer of Merrill Lynch & Co. and a president and CEO of E.F. Hutton. On Wall Street, according to press coverage from his glory days, he had a reputation as a guy people hired to solve problems. These days, he is on the board or serving as an officer with several risk management companies, including the Pittsburgh, Pa.-based companies
Zhi Verden and Steel City Re."
 
To link to the the Risk & Insurance article,
click here. To acess the original slides from the Intangible Asset Finance Society call or inquire about purchasing a recording, click here.

Introducing MISSION:INTANGIBLE

Nir Kossovsky - Monday, April 06, 2009
Dear Reader,

Beginning this week and with surprising regularity, the Society will post a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the intangible asset management implications of a current news story involving a publicly traded company. These analyses will draw on IA index data published by Steel City Re. Periodically, the Society will also post announcements to supplement the monthly news alerts, the quarterly newsletter, and the bimonthly publication in IAM magazine.

As always, the Society welcomes your comments and feedback.

Nir Kossovsky
Executive Secretary

Recent Comments


SuMoTuWeThFrSa
   123
4
567891011
12
1314151617
18
19202122232425
26
2728293031 
 

Subjects

Archive