Small Business Survey Illustrates Trade-Offs

A new survey of how U.S. small businesses are behaving provides a good example of how unintended consequences, externalities and trade-offs work in the real world. The ScaleFactor survey looked at small business thinking about hiring and technology, including artificial intelligence.

Most of us might generally consider rising pay rates to be a good thing. But higher pay rates and benefits also mean it is more costly for a small business to hire a new employee, and that seems to be constraining hiring by small businesses.

Health care costs were a big reason new employees were not hired, the survey found. But the wider use of technology-based accounting and back office software also has caused more smaller firms to avoid hiring chief financial officers as well.

That illustrates a key trade-off: higher wages and more jobs might both be desired public policy outcomes. But the two tend to be inversely related. Choices.

Economics has been at times called the dismal science. The phrase has had a number of meanings, originally expressing a fear that human population growth was destined to outstrip food production. But the term also has been used by some to decry social implications of markets.

The more useful framework might be the sense of discipline and informed making of choices every resource allocation and policy entails. The issue is not so much “dismal” outcomes; more the notion that choices must always be made.

Means are scarce; ends unlimited. Another way of putting it is that appetites are unlimited; resources limited.

Some might liken the idea to the phrase “no free lunch,” meaning principally that resources are scarce and that choices have to be made.

That is illustrated best by the term opportunity cost, the foregone benefits a person, firm or other entity misses out on because resources were committed to another use. The notion of “trade-offs” is helpful, in that regard.

The other popular phrase related to economic thinking (allocation of scarce resources, trade-offs, opportunity costs)  is “no gain without pain.” Choices between multiple competing claimants for resources must always be made.

To some extent, the discipline is supposed to help people and entities make better choices (more efficient use of resources; avoiding waste).

Externalities are one example of applied economics thinking. An externality is a cost or benefit received by a third party because of a transaction between two others. Pollution is the now-classic example.

Some might liken that concept to the notion of unintended consequences. Public or private policies are intended to solve one particular problem, but also have other unintended consequences.

This does not mean dismal outcomes are to be expected. It does mean benefits always must be weighed against costs, and with at least some view to possible direct externalities.

How Much Upside from Mobile Substitution for Fixed Internet Access?

Strategy always is affected by a firm’s assets and liabilities. Consider U.S. fixed networks. Comcast, Charter and AT&T have 50 million to 60 million residences in each of their service areas. Verizon has but 14.6.

So relatively speaking, Verizon has much more to gain by attacking outside its fixed network footprint. It also has a smaller installed base to attack, compared to the other three biggest fixed network service providers.

AT&T, by virtue of its smallest ISP customer base, likewise is a less-inviting target. Of all the biggest four service providers, AT&T has the greatest need for a platform better able to compete for internet access customers.

T-Mobile US, with virtually no fixed network assets, has talked about attacking the installed base of cable internet access customers, for example, because cable has the lion’s share of customers to be taken.

source: Mobile Experts

Comcast has 45 percent take rates for internet access; Charter 48 percent; AT&T 26 percent and Verizon 48 percent.

Of the four biggest fixed network ISPs, Verizon has the greatest upside from out-of-region market share gains, while AT&T gains most from lower-cost access infrastructure of all types.

Cable operators, as the market leaders in internet access, have the most share to lose. Comcast and Charter are among the service providers with the most potential exposure, as both have big footprints and relatively high ISP market share. Verizon has relatively high share, but a much-smaller number of customers.

The ability to use the mobile platform to take fixed network internet access share therefore very much appeals to T-Mobile US, Verizon and AT&T.

At least in part, the big push by Comcast and Charter to supply gigabit speeds is a reflection of that exposure. Cable hopes its lead in gigabit internet access will provide protection against the assault from mobile and wireless alternatives.

Will Telco Acqusition Strategies Have to Change?

Over the last few decades, many mobile service providers have grown their revenues by making horizontal acquisitions of similar firms in different geographies. In recent years about $119 billion worth of transactions have happened in the telecom industry.

source: IMAA

There is a simple reason for merger and acquisition activity: for many firms, organic growth pales in comparison to acquisitions as a way of building revenue volume.

source: Zayo

That might be especially true if the global telecom industry continues to see slim revenue growth, overall. But something important also might happen: Horizontal acquisitions might offer some opportunity for synergies, but if the acquired assets also have low growth, the acquirer winds up a bigger company, with greater revenue volume, but profit margins that are not changed much.

Earlier waves of acquisitions had a different set of assumptions, including the ability to buy growth. If growth is negligible, then horizontal acquisitions will lift gross revenue, but perhaps not growth.

The signs that horizontal acquisitions are not paying off so well is the present trend where firms divest portions of their businesses that were bought not so long ago. The same might be said for vertical acquisitions that did not supply sufficient revenue growth.

source: STL Partners

That suggests a different path: acquisitions that are vertical, adding new types of assets. Another option is a move into new segments of the value chain beyond connectivity, for example, that offer higher growth rates.

What might become more difficult are horizontal acquisitions that add heft, and possibly cash flow, but not growth. In many cases, that will mean moving out of territory or out of country, if regulators will not allow particular companies to gain more market share in the domestic market.

The point is that though acquisitions will likely continue to be important, it is not so clear that horizontal strategies are going to work as well as they did a couple of decades ago.

PTC Academy Grows to 3 Events in 2019

The 2019 PTC Academy series is ramping up substantially, with not one,  but three events to be held throughout the Asia-Pacific region.

The first PTC Academy course is being held in Bangkok 23-25 September 2019, with the theme Executive Insight for Exceptional Leaders and is open for registration. This course will be closely followed by additional offerings of this theme for classes in Hong Kong and Beijing in December.

PTC Academy events have continued to evolve over the last three years and represent a fantastic opportunity to allow our future leaders the chance to explore what skills they need to develop in leading, managing change, and transitioning to senior leadership roles.

We received fantastic feedback from our most recent event held in Bangkok, not only from those that attended the PTC Academy, but also from their management that sent them – it is seen not only as highly relevant, but also time and cost effective.

The expansion of the PTC Academy into Hong Kong and Beijing is just the first planned phase of extended outreach. Next year, we will look to add India, another option in China, and potentially the Pacific Islands.We encourage senior executives to send their rising stars! If you are already part of the PTC Academy Alumni, please help support this PTC Outreach Initiative by telling your colleagues and management about this year’s exciting course. More details outlining this year’s program can be found here.

U.S. Internet Access Speeds are Climbing Rapidly

U.S. mobile and fixed network speeds are on a rapid climb. In 2018, mobile network speeds increased for all the four leading mobile service providers. AT&T average 4G speeds grew from about 43 Mbps to nearly 70 Mbps, on average. Sprint speeds climbed from less than 40 Mbps to about 65 Mbps.

T-Mobile US speeds were boosted from about 40 Mbps to 51 Mbps, while Verizon speeds were up from about 50 Mbps to 60 Mbps.

source: PCmag

Fixed network speeds speeds are climbing rapidly as well. In 2018 alone, average speeds climbed 36 percent in the U.S. market. In the third quarter of 2018, for example, average downstream speeds were 96 Mbps, upload speeds 33 Mbps.

source: Speedtest

Comcast, the largest U.S. fixed network ISP alone sells gigabit service to 58 million U.S. homes, and says it “has increased speeds 17 times in 17 years and has doubled the capacity of its broadband network every 18 to 24 months.”

Charter, the second-largest U.S. cable operator, sells gigabit service to at least 33 million U.S.homes. Since the footprints of the two firms do not overlap, those two companies alone can provide gigabit service to 91 million U.S. homes, roughly 70 percent of all homes in the United States.

Scaling Up in Video Distribution Now is Risky

Scaling up or out of the video entertainment business is a decision Citi equity analyst Michael Rollins believes Verizon could make if it were to acquire Dish Network.

Ignoring for the moment the mid-band spectrum Verizon would acquire, this latest version of an older story (Verizon “needs” to buy Dish for its spectrum), the thesis runs counter to the general narrative about AT&T’s similar moves in video distribution, where the linear video assets help fuel a move into streaming.

Many observers did not like the AT&T acquisition of DirecTV, as many did not approve of the Time Warner acquisition, either, which positions AT&T with a broader role in the ecosystem most akin to Comcast.

Ignoring for the moment the free cash flow boost provided by both those acquisitions, one objection to the DirecTV purchase was that it represented the acquisition of a company whose product (linear subscription video) is in declining demand.

So the suggestion that Verizon could choose to “scale up” its video subscription footprint by acquiring Dish Network video accounts (though the spectrum holdings arguably are the real prize) would then represent the same sort of bad decision AT&T is reputed to have made.

Verizon has not been keen on an expanded role in consumer video distribution, it is safe to say, in either linear or streaming roles.

And it is arguably a tougher decision now that Netflix has changed the video distribution from a domestic-only to a global business. So now any firm contemplating surviving the eventual consolidation of the U.S.-anchored video streaming business has to decide whether it can gain enough scale to compete with the likes of Netflix, and likely YouTube, Hulu and Amazon.

To be sure, there are a couple different roles. Netflix and Amazon, so far, focus on pre-recorded content. Hulu and YouTube are anchoring their services with live streaming.

It remains unclear which roles Disney will attack, likely some combination of both, as it owns the ESPN live sports franchise plus a deep catalog of movies.

UBS equity analyst John Holulik estimates Disney could get 20-percent to 30-percent take rates from U.S. broadband households by 2024.

The other potential issue is whether success primarily in the U.S. market, or “going global,” is feasible, and a way to remain in the top five or six such services.

For consolidation is inevitable. And all contenders have to factor in how they deal with Netflix, in a multi-subscription market. An April survey from research firm Hub Entertainment Research showed that if consumers had to abandon one streaming service to get Disney+,  44 percent would keep Netflix, while 29 percent said they would keep CBS All Access.

Another survey, by Streaming Observer suggests 60 percent would keep Netflix, while 20 percent would subscribe to both Netflix and Disney+.

source: Streaming Observer

Why Verizon would want to reverse course and get into the crowded streaming field now is unclear. Eventually, consolidation of a few of the leading services seems inevitable, given the presence of brand names such as Netflix, Apple, Disney (ABC, ESPN), YouTube, Amazon, AT&T (Warner Media) and Hulu (Disney) at the top and upper end of the market share ranks, and some others, such as Comcast (NBC Universal), yet to make their moves.

The fate of many smaller services remains quite unclear. To be sure, Verizon eventually could change its mind, but there seems no obvious reason why it has to move now, and whether it has the financial strength to be an acquirer, if it desired to do so.

So scaling “up” in video distribution, from Verizon’s standpoint, seems unlikely. Whether some risky moves will eventually be necessary seems fairly clear, though. With revenue growth rates now very low, Verizon eventually will have to get more aggressive if it wants to boost growth.

Globally, Growth Now is the Issue

The telecom industry has had a historical growth rate of about three percent a year. So growth at rates lower than three percent might well be deemed a problem. According to estimates by STL Partners, only in Africa will growth rates exceed three percent, between 2019 and 2022.

In Europe and Western Europe, growth might well be negative over that period. If telecom service provider costs of capitalare 4.6 percent for debt, and perhaps 10 percent for equity, one-percent revenue growth rates are a key problem.

source: STL Partners

source: STL Partners

One might well argue that capital investment in U.S. fixed networks dropped off sharply in 2000 in large part because such investments no longer were expected to produce revenue growth.

source: Market Realist

Historically, faced with slowing growth, telecom companies have purchased growth by acquiring other firms, in horizontal deals (mobile firms buying other mobile firms; fixed network firms buying other fixed network firms; fixed network entities buying mobile assets; cable firms buying other cable firms).

That will remain an option for some firms. The new problem is that while scale helps with operating costs and gross revenue,  long-term growth might not benefit too much. A bigger firm, growing less than three percent, does not solve the growth problem.  And growth now is the key issue.

Firms might make mistakes when trying to grow outside the connectivity role. But staying exclusively in that role, as a strategy, might also falter, as it does not offer a path to growth.