by Financial Criteria for Capital Allocation
Capital allocation is about where and how a corporation’s chief executive officer (CEO) decides to spend the money that the company has earned. Capital allocation means distributing and investing a company’s financial resources in ways that will increase its efficiency, and maximize its profits.
A firm’s management seeks to allocate its capital in ways that will generate as much wealth as possible for its shareholders. Allocating capital is complicated, and a company’s success or failure often hinges upon a CEO’s capital-allocation decisions. Management must consider the viability of the available investment options, evaluate each one’s potential effects on the firm, and allocate the additional funds appropriately and in a manner that will produce the best overall results for the firm.
Greater-than-expected profits and positive cash flows, however desirable, often present a quandary for a CEO, as there may be a great many investment options to weigh. Some options for allocating capital could include returning cash to shareholders via dividends, repurchasing shares of stock, issuing a special dividend, or increasing a research and development (R&D) budget. Alternatively, the company may opt to invest in growth initiatives, which could include acquisitions and organic growth expenditures.
In whatever ways a CEO chooses to allocate the capital, the overarching goal is to maximize shareholders’ equity (SE), and the challenge always lies in determining which allocations will yield the most significant benefits.
Strategic Capital Budgeting. Smart companies rigorously translate their strategic priorities into resource budgeting guidelines, which they use to balance their investment portfolios.
Investment Project Selection. Top performers are equally tough-minded in their funding decisions with respect to individual project investments. Their CFOs perform investment evaluations that provide a comprehensive understanding of the projects under consideration.
Investment Governance. Superior capital allocators establish consistent governance mechanisms that they use to choose, support, and track investments at the corporate level.
Strategic Investment Decisions
Companies that exercise superior capital budgeting discipline do three things well: They invest in businesses rather than projects, they translate portfolio roles into capital allocation guidelines, and they strive for balanced investment portfolios.
Invest in businesses rather than projects. Capital allocation is about looking at the forest and the trees, and top performers look at the forest first. The outperformers in BCG’s capital allocation database invest systematically in businesses that create value from a strategic as well as a financial point of view, whereas underperformers invest too much in value-destroying growth.
Translate portfolio roles into capital allocation guidelines. Assigning clear roles to the individual businesses in the portfolio and setting corresponding capital allocation guidelines is a good way to link strategic potential to resource allocation.
Balance the investment portfolio. Another way to link corporate strategy to capital allocation is to analyze a company’s investment program from a portfolio perspective. Is the investment portfolio consistent with the company’s strategic priorities, and is it balanced according to key strategic criteria?
The energy company cited above regularly analyzes the risk-return balance of its investment portfolio. In this way, it found out that it was focusing too much on low-risk, low-return projects and making only a few big and risky bets with a high potential return. As a result, management changed its investment strategy and encouraged managers to take on smaller, but high-risk, endeavors in order to improve the company’s overall risk-return profile.
Investment Project Selection
Determining funding for individual capital projects is a financial exercise, but outperformers also make sure that they fully understand the financial profile of the projects in question the quality of the estimates, the variability of cash flows, and the payback profile over time.
Go beyond internal rate of return. In theory, there is a simple rule for choosing among competing investment projects: sort the list of projects based on their expected internal rate of return and select those with the highest IRRs until the budget is fully committed. In practice, however, the effectiveness of this approach is constrained by the quality of the assumptions that go into the valuations and by the influence of additional criteria that are not transparent or not explicit in selection decisions.
A good way to improve the quality of assumptions is to require all business cases for major investment projects to include a model that shows the important business drivers. This makes critical assumptions explicit and allows decision makers to understand the impact of the key drivers. Moreover, it facilitates simple sensitivity and scenario analyses. Managers can calculate the breakeven values of critical variables that must be achieved for the project to generate value. This approach will help avoid focusing only on the expected rate of return in a hypothetical base case.
At many companies, criteria beyond financial returns also come into play in making investment decisions. But if such factors are not made explicit, they can distort the decision-making process and encourage political behavior. One European industrial conglomerate addresses this challenge by evaluating investment projects based on four explicit criteria that are summarized in a simple scoring model: strategic profile (growth potential and fit with the strategy of the underlying business), financial profile (expected project return and short-term impact on EBIT), risk profile (payback time and assessment of market risks), and resource profile (fit with existing capabilities and required management attention).
Management still makes the final investment decision, but the decision-making model ensures that all perspectives are taken into account. Sustainability considerations and metrics can also be factored into the decision in this way.
Apply relevant criteria. Depending on the structure of a company’s investment portfolio, decision makers may need to apply different criteria in order to highlight differences in the value drivers of various investment types. For example, a strict focus on internal rate of return and payback time may systematically favor incremental improvement investments at the expense of larger breakthrough investments that tend to have longer-term and uncertain payoffs.
The process followed at a large mining client illustrates best practice. The company applies relevant, but different, evaluation criteria for each investment type. Efficiency improvement investments such as equipment upgrades are assessed based on their direct financial impact. Capacity extensions, on the other hand, are evaluated in the context of market assumptions, such as competitor capacity and the outlook for commodity prices. And long-term investments, such as R&D in digital technology, are weighed on the basis of strategic attractiveness and prospective longer-term options; financial returns are not part of the analysis. Such an approach ensures that the company chooses the best projects within each investment type without discriminating against individual categories.
Embrace risk—based on true understanding. Understanding the underlying risks should be a particular focus in project selection. Research has shown time and again that human beings are weak at risk assessment, but some techniques can help. A good starting point can be to frame the discussion in terms of a base question: What do we need to believe in to make this an attractive investment? This framing can help uncover the implicit business assumptions behind a proposal and the key risks hidden in the business plan.
