Is it Worth the Investment on a Full Time MBA?

(Link to version in Portuguese)

It is worth quitting a good job and investing 1-2 years of your life, plus all the financial cost, on a full time MBA?

Even for those that pursue a top management position in an organization, the answer is no longer automatic as it used to be 10 or 20 years ago. However, if meeting certain conditions, I am confident that the answer is still an imperative Yes!

The decision should take into consideration several elements, some relatively recent, such as the large number and the relative commoditization of the MBA programs, the competition from Executive and Fully Employed MBAs and the high tuition costs, now at levels similar to the average annual salary of an MBA graduate.

Adding to the tuition expense the opportunity cost of a 1-2 year “no pay” period, the equivalent disbursement reaches 3 years of the graduate future compensation!

Given the risk of not getting a good and well paid job afterwards and of losing your space at your present employer, why not just attending an Executive or Fully Employed MBA (often financed by such employer), thus avoiding most of that cost?

And for a future Entrepreneur, does it make sense to get a full time MBA or is this degree more appropriate for those who want to pursue a career in a large corporation?

Obviously, if you cannot get access to financing, or are in a more advanced stage of life, career or family, putting everything on hold for a full-time MBA, specially if in another country, may not be the best decision. However, for the generation around 30 years of age, some elements can turn this project into a unique opportunity for personal and professional development!

The most critical factor is the selection of (and getting accepted by) one of the best 20-30 full time MBA programs in the world, where you will have access to, among other things, a top quality structure and intense academic program.

At such Business Schools, given the attendees’ relative work experience and maturity, they are able to learn in more depth and achieve mastery in Marketing, Finance, Accounting, Operations, Micro / Macroeconomics, Entrepreneurship and other subjects.

Frankly, how to read and study all the books, prepare the various cases required each quarter and necessary to learn well about such themes, when you have to reconcile that effort with a full time job?

The MBA program complements and enriches the education of BS or BA degree holders (on a lower scale for Business undergraduates), and the analytical background of engineers, for instance, permits an easier and deeper absorption of those subjects.

For entrepreneurs, such knowledge will bring significant benefits for the management of their company and of the different functional areas, as they will be able to “speak in the language” of CFOs, accountants, bankers and lawyers.

Financially, MBA graduates from the top Schools obtain initial compensation levels 60 to 80% higher than before the MBA, much better off than those graduating from programs placed at other layers in the ranking.

The network and friendships that can be developed during this period is a relevant factor. When you commit to a project with so much interpersonal interaction, such as a full time MBA, chances are that you will develop longer-lasting and deeper relationships. From a personal or professional perspective, the value of these friendships and network is high and that return is likely to be leveraged in the relationships developed at the top Business Schools.

And there is the life experience and international exposure, should you decide to study abroad. This is hard to quantify, even to describe. Only living! It is a period to reflect about what you want for your future, about your career, or projects for your possible start-up. To explore ideas and get advice from the faculty, peers, entrepreneurs and successful professionals. Time to make changes, or to meet your future partners.

For all those reasons, I strongly recommend the effort of applying and attending a top School full time MBA program, in a foreign country. It is an opportunity for a valuable, “once in a lifetime” experience!

Facebook on the Streets

(Link to the Portuguese version)

The movement Occupy Wall Street, which spans throughout several American cities (it is happening in more than 20 cities as I write), although with some similarities with recent protests in other countries, is a new type of manifestation that I think may be here to stay.

Despite the publicity in the American media, it is being underestimated by a few TV channels and major newspapers, for its lack of leadership, of a unified speech or a specific proposal from the protesters (such as the goal for democracy of the Arab Spring movement, or for free education in recent Chilean manifestations).

I think this is a misunderstanding. It is true that, such as in Facebook posts, the speeches on the streets express different opinions on various topics, sometimes seeming unrelated, with no expected outcome from such comments.

But they all share one important element. The communication that people are not happy, that they are feeling imprisoned, within this "Oppressing Wall” – a system, where others make mistakes and they suffer the consequences. The speeches do not say what they want to reach. But they are crying out loud that things have to change.

Be it the worsening income distribution and the growing poverty in the US. Or the financial system and its lack of effective regulation to prevent bankers, in pursuit of their bonuses and interests, from helping governments to lie, concealing relevant information, selling junk bonds, etc., causing a credit crunch that disrupted the economy.

A Congress, heavily influenced by these same bankers, with several of its members preferring chaos to a serious negotiation with the government.

The perspective of a long recession. An environment where every American is born with a $50 000 public debt and growing, with no relevant measure to reverse the trend. Add to that the large number of young people leaving college unemployed and already with a bank debt of $ 50-100 thousand.

Perhaps Occupy Wall Street will have no serious consequence. But it is the dawn of a new type of manifestation, which I count will remain pacific and within the limits of law. The protesters just want to generate resonance. But this, in the right frequency and intensity, can put down any Wall.

I wish our leaders cared and changed a few things to start. But they seem too old to understand Facebook.

Renewal for Survival

(clique aqui para versão em Português)

When starting to prepare a presentation on "management of start-ups applied to large enterprises", I decided to support my view about the importance of them reinventing themselves, analyzing the recent evolution of some NYSE corporations.

To this end, I selected Apple, HP, IBM, Kodak and Microsoft - all well known, frequently mentioned in news and over 30 year old companies.

Through Yahoo Finance, I generated a chart displaying their stock price variation, as well as of the Nasdaq Composite Index, from September 30, 2009 until yesterday, September 30, 2011.

Obviously I expected some trend that could be used to support my thesis of their need to reinvent themselves to survive. But I was astonished by how direct and precise was the correlation between the stock price evolution and the market perception on such matter! See the chart below:

In the last two years, the Nasdaq appreciated approximately 20%. Apple, which revived after Steve Jobs' return, and kept evolving with its Ipod, Iphone and the new Ipad, has been the current big star and appreciated over 100% in the period.

At the other end of the chart is Kodak, which has just announced the hiring of restructuring attorneys. Who did not use Kodak's cameras and films? But despite a few attempts, it was unable to introduce new products that could invigorate the company, while demand for their products was smashed by digital media and smart phones.

Surprisingly close to Kodak in the chart, with 50% of depreciation (58% compared with the index), is the respected HP! In this case, the pain of its attempts to reinvent itself has been exposed in the media: the indecision about the future of its PC division, the $10 billion acquisition of Autonomy, the tablet business failure and its several CEO replacements. HP seems to be lost and the market is not complacent.

Placed in the the middle of the chart is Microsoft, with no stock price change in the last two years (negative return compared to the index). The message from the Market seems clear: despite high profits, the company needs to position itself in relation to the future - without a growth strategy, there may be negative surprises ahead. I think Microsoft knows this and the decision to pay US$ 8.5 billion for Skype, still an unprofitable business, may be related to such consideration.

Finally, with a relevant 50% valuation, there is IBM, a company that seems to really have reinvented itself. Known for its mainframes and portables (they were not called notebooks in the 80s), IBM sold its PC division to Lenovo a few years ago and decided it would become mainly a solutions company. Apparently, the strategy is working: IBM has just overtaken Microsoft to become the second largest technology company in the world, after Apple!

But the game never ends for those who are alive. Apple and its new leader have a challenge to continue innovating its product line, because commoditization is fast. IBM can not be complacent with its own success. HP must believe in its brand and culture and go all the way in the efforts to renew itself. Microsoft needs to position itself on the subject and act. And to Kodak I wish good luck and hope it's not a goodbye.

Let's see where we will stand in 2013!

Os termos do Brasil para ajuda a outros países

Alguns jornais nacionais e internacionais de ontem (15 de Setembro) noticiaram o apoio dos países conhecidos como Bric (Brasil, China, Índia e Rússia) para um possível pacote de ajuda na crise europeia.

Tal assunto foi gerado pela iniciativa da China em oferecer "ajuda"e propor adquirir um volume expressivo de debêntures e outros ativos de países da zona do Euro, e já em negociações mais avançadas com a Itália.

É conhecida a predisposição da China em diversificar seus US3,2 trilhōes de reservas em moedas internacionais, reduzindo sua exposição ao dólar americano. Assim, tal aquisição pode se considerada ajuda, mas é também necessidade derivada de uma gestão apropriada de riscos.

Nossa presidente, Dilma Rousseff, se manifestou com discurso apropriado, informando que o Brasil sempre estará disposto a apoiar esforços internacionais nesse sentido, neste caso dependente da Europa apresentar uma estrutura viável para um pacote de resgate e, ainda, sem se comprometer com qualquer proposta envolvendo apenas os Brics.

Em escala 10 vezes menor, temos o mesmo problema da China na gestão de nossas reservas. E tal postura do Brasil demonstra seu peso crescente no cenário global. O Financial Times reconhece que "qualquer esforço do Brasil de coordenar uma resposta dos Brics à crise da dívida europeia marcaria um grande passo nos esforços do país para aumentar sua influência em questões mundiais".

Mas daí vem minha preocupação. O que vamos demandar? Vamos tornar público? Aumentar a influência e receber o quê em troca?

A China, através de seu primeiro ministro Wen Jiabao, não teve problema em tornar público o que espera. Apesar do interesse chinês na operação, como acima mencionado, deu um puxão de orelhas nos países endividados, dizendo que os "países devem cumprir suas responsabilidades e colocar suas próprias casas em ordem" - repetindo o já dito aos EUA - e fez uma ligação direta entre tal apoio e a antecipação do reconhecimento da China como "plena economia de mercado", o que favoreceria algumas empresas chinesas envolvidas em disputas comerciais.

E o que o Brasil vai pedir? A única demanda internacional recente do Brasil que temos notícia é o tal assento permanente no Conselho de Segurança da ONU - tema que faz mais sentido tratar em particular com os 5 países com direito a veto em tal conselho. Ultimamente, temos visto o Ministro Mantega esbravejar a respeito dos programas conhecidos por "Quantitative Easing" dos EUA e da chamada "guerra cambial", ambos assuntos mais de economia doméstica - políticas monetárias, fiscais e cambiais - dos países ao tentar estimular suas economias, do que na esfera de política internacional.

Vejamos o exemplo no caso da desapropriação dos ativos da Petrobrás na Bolívia, alguns anos atrás. O que o Brasil recebeu como compensação, além dos elogios do presidente Evo Morales ao "amigo" Lula? Nada que tenha sido divulgado aos contribuintes.

Seria exemplar tornar público o que Brasil espera como contra partida para ajudar a Europa ou qualquer país/ organização internacional. Para não haver especulações de que continuamos sendo República de Bananas e chamados de bons amigos, enquanto nossos ativos são usados em troca de doações para campanha de partidos políticos, com possível sobra para fundações de senadores e outros "favores particulares".

Além dos clamores populares contra a corrupção, os quais endosso com fervor, precisamos e temos uma oportunidade de aumentar a transparência na gestão dos ativos públicos, e evoluirmos como sociedade e como país digno de respeito.

About Venture Capital Firms, Entrepreneurs and Investors (and their Differences on Variance)

Venture Capital firms play an important role for entrepreneurs and in the overall economy, offering sound equity financing for growth projects of new companies.

They contribute with management expertise, governance practices and knowledge about capital markets, thus helping to take the invested company to the next level.

Moreover, they make most of the profits when realizing returns from the successful investments and, as such, do pursue maximum return for their funds.

Perfect match among interests of VC firms, investors and entrepreneurs? Well, not quite. See for instance the quotes below:

"Our business can reach a good size, with steady growth and manageable risk, thus indicating a good return on investment. Why couldn't we attract VC firms? Am I missing something?"

"Shouldn't the VC firm, as our partner, have the same interests that we do? So why pushing for faster growth, if it increases our risk so much?

The answer to the questions above lies in two components that can create conflicts between VC firm and the entrepreneur (and often also with the investor in the VC fund): (i) impact of risk in the VC performance fees and (ii) differences in risk aversion.

They can be better explained with one example. Let's suppose that we should select one of the following US$ 1 million investment alternatives.

In the first, chances are that in 2 out of 10 you would lose the whole $1 million. In 4/10 you could recover the invested amount with no profit or loss; and in another 4/10 you could get $2 million back, making $1 million in profit!

In the second alternative, in 8/10 times you would lose the whole $1 million. And in 2/10 you would get back $6 million.

Where would an entrepreneur - who could be investing most of his/her savings in the business - place the bet? And what would be the choice of an individual making an investment in a VC fund?

From a pure expected return perspective, both alternatives would average total cash back of $1.2 million, or 20% return. From the investor point of view, the difference would be mostly dependent of his/her aversion to risk.

Clearly, alternative one has a much lower risk (statistical "standard deviation" and "variance"). The above mentioned entrepreneur would probably select that option. I believe that even the average investor in a VC fund, as long as not in a "casino betting" type of strategy, would probably finance the first business.

And how about VC firms? Do they have similar incentives? Let's consider a firm and its partners who make most of their profits and bonuses from success fees, for instance, 20% of realized returns, if any is made.

In alternative one, their expected fees would be $40 thousand. Compare that to the $200 thousand in the second alternative. Five times larger! This explains why VCs seem to like so much internet traffic (and other high risk/high potential size) based businesses.

It is true that total fund diversification somewhat reduces portfolio risk. But with such compensation structure, it is to the firm's benefit to undertake riskier investments, even with the odds of losing the whole investment. Mostly if there is no VC partners' personal money being coinvested in the fund.

This is not a criticism to VC funds in particular. The conflict occurs with most asset managers that have a performance based compensation, who make investment decisions with third party (financial) assets.

Qualified investors (the market) should be able to negotiate their investment terms. They could demand adjustments to performance fee structure, establish practices to limit risk levels or require coinvestment practices, if they feel appropriate.

My objective is to alert Entrepreneurs, who should realize such different incentives, when negotiating with VCs and understand that the lack of VC interest could mean lower investment potential but also risk, not necessarily lower expected return.

Also, if possible, look for other financing alternatives to their business such as investors that would consider a longer term, dividend based return on their investments.

Reasons For Startup Failures

Much has been written about the subject. I particularly like John Osher’s “Top 17 Startup Mistakes You Can’t Afford to Make “(Entrepreneur.com http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/66454), as it has similarities and is, in some ways, an expansion of my view.

My experience shows that the most frequent reasons for startup failures can be summarized in three groups: (1) the market is not really there; (2) you end up needing more money than anticipated; and (3) you not only make, but persist on managerial mistakes

The first reason relates to believing that there is a market ready to buy your product or service and finding out that people do not perceive the value that you expected. Or a variant from the same theme, the market not being ready to take advantage of the value being offered. For instance, I have faced a situation where, although our product could have a relevant impact in our customers’ sales, they were not prepared to implement the management processes necessary to achieve such benefit.

There is no magic formula to prevent this, other than extensive research and in advance planning. Talking to potential customers - if possible testing the market. Controlling the enthusiasm about your idea and really hearing what they have to say, mainly their objections.

The second and most usual reason for startup failure is underestimating the cash needed in the company. Sales projections are almost always too optimistic (especially when you have to attract outside investors). Actually, I have never seen a startup original sales projection be met! Demand usually takes time to build and a new trend is different from just a fad!

Then, costs and expenses are often underestimated. Lower volumes mean higher indirect costs per unit. Organization is hired based on projections that do not realize and fixed costs built up. Expenses and taxes are sure things in business, but the same can not be said about customers or sales! And sadly, it is also usual to see entrepreneurs implementing a “rich company” mentality in startups and “eating – instead of raising – the golden eggs' chicken”, meaning their company.

The best advice for that is: plan carefully and conservatively, build an austere culture and, most importantly, have a contingency plan. Pursue breakeven like water or oxygen. Too much focus on sales and too little on profit is a serious risk.

The third reason is the owner him/herself messing up. Making mistakes is human, persisting will destroy the business. Insisting on a bad partnership; on unrealistic sales projections; on the wrong market strategy or approach; on a weak management group (maybe including yourself); and so forth.

That does not mean that you should give up early. Perseverance is key to a successful startup. It means that you should build trust based partnerships, with people that have a common set of values; that you should have a good and reliable set of advisors, with courage to tell you what you may not want to hear, and that you should listen to them.

Sure there are other reasons for failure and the advices above are easier to say than to execute. Experiences vary and chances are we all will mess up. But, hopefully we end up learning. What do you think?

Corruption in the BRIC Countries' Governments

Corruption in emerging countries seriously impacts the ability of such economies to occupy their increasingly relevant role in the international scene.

The topic is frequently in the news about the Brics, such as in these recent Financial Times posts about Brazil http://on.ft.com/nXG6NU, China http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/?p=368651 and India http://on.ft.com/ohC5p7.

It has different historical reasons and is harder to deal with where there is lack of free press or less educated population. But the problem in emerging countries remains high also due to other relevant factors.  

See, for instance, Brazil. The country is a stable democracy with a free press, government agencies and reasonable legislation. Even a Public Ministry, a sort of "Internal Affairs" for government actions. However, corruption among politicians and government agents is high and even worse in the top levels of Government.  

Corruption tentacles reach different institutions, in all countries. It is frequent even in private, first world companies, often in their  purchasing and sales departments - let's remember that this is a two way street, and the bribing party is also corrupt!  

However, private companies have closer and more efficient controls and take actions that significantly restrict such practices (at least people are fired and will have a relevant financial loss with the unemployment). And, from an economic perspective with the consideration that, in the private sector, it is the companies' shareholders, not the tax payers, who pay such bill!  

Oversimplifying, the reasons for public corruption in Brazil originate in the time the country was a Portuguese colony, when extracting as much wealth as possible from the colony was a common practice and the "king's friends" (future politicians?) felt like they had the right to take their share of profits from such activity.  

Since then, to take personal advantage of their position and to charge a "price" for granting licenses or for intermediating transactions has become a practice for several public authorities in all government levels, as if they were still the kings' friends, the owners of the public institutions.  

Such historical and widespread practice causes certain complacency and a relevant sense of mutual protection among government authorities. As several politicians are not good examples of ethics, they prefer to conceal the problem and not expose one another. Worse, a public perception that politics is a dirty system inhibits ethical people to get involved and incentives people with low standards to pursue such career!  

I believe that the Brazilian problem lies mostly in a ridiculously ineffective criminal justice system and, consequently, in the society's lack of trust in it. Despite clear disclosure by the press of unethical actions, Brazil has no history of a serious punishment for corruption, specially when committed by politicians and public employees. Often these actors are able to remain in power or, worst case scenario, step down from their mandate for a few years, with no serious consequence to their freedom or to their financial means.  

People perceive what is going on and see the lack of punishment. They end up getting used to an environment where "there is nothing to be done, nowhere to go for justice". What, in turn, creates a criminal snow ball in the system (by the way, the weakness of our justice system is also a major cause for violence, "justice with your own hands" and lack of security in Brazil).   

Finally, such environment is aggravated by an issue that relates to all Bric economies: the scale of government economic intervention and its dominant participation in the economy. The State controls and therefore public employees manage several key banks and companies.  

Government is involved in a larger that usual share of commercial and financial activity and is a major player in the total GDP, what multiply the opportunities for corruption. Add to that the issues discussed above and you have all elements to the spread out government corruption.  

Less government presence and an effective punitive system would have a major positive impact in several economic and social development indicators of Brazil and possibly other Brics.   

Microsoft Skype – New thoughts on the value of an unprofitable business

The recently announced deal, where Microsoft acquired Skype for US$8.5 billion, made me reflect about my opinion that a company should always be profitable (positive economic result) to generate a net value to society.

Of course it is understood that, often, the profit as stated in the GAAP Income Statement should be adjusted to reflect the actual economic result, mostly when intangible assets (such as brands, start-up costs, market share, etc.) are being built and not accounted for in the Balance Sheet.

My consideration so far had been that, if a for-profit company is not (economically) profitable, although some of its stakeholders could benefit from its operations, when considering the sum of all stakeholders' gains and losses, the company would be consuming more resources than the value generated, therefore wasting society’s resources.

Was Skype generating value to the society with its recurring loss, year after year? I do not believe so. What was Skype’s real economic value before the Microsoft deal, a company still losing money after several years of operations? Its stock market value? Maybe. 

However, the company had built an intangible asset that few people realized: its value to Microsoft (or the potential negative impact to Microsoft business if it were acquired by Google! – see related article http://www.ft.com/cms/s/3/e4866140-7bef-11e0-9b16-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=rss ).

Skype had an intrinsic value not related to its existing operations but, rather, to an outsider, not even a stakeholder. Within Microsoft, even if Skype is still unprofitable but contributes in a larger amount to the overall profitability, it is generating value!

This transaction made me remind that, even if a company is unprofitable, we should still look at the broader picture and see if it is strategically contributing to another party’s profit in a larger amount. If it is, there is a net benefit to society!

Another reinforced lesson is that we, entrepreneurs, should keep the perspective that our company may have an intrinsic or potential value to an outsider (not even stakeholder) beyond what it can generate by itself. Being able to identify such opportunities and work towards profiting from that value makes a lot of sense.

So far, the fall in Microsoft stock price implies that not every shareholder believes all that $8,5 billion value was there. But for the sake of our analysis, let’s assume that Mr. Gates and Mr. Ballmer know what they are doing…

Is Success Random and Successful Entrepreneurs Just Lucky?

Leonard Mlodinow in his book “ The Drunkard’s Walk” comments on how randomness rules our lives.

He reminds us of our statistics classes,  Pascal triangle, probability laws, randomness, series, sequences, limit. Shows us how we can make mistakes, misled by our intuition, that ignores the influence of random events (the "Ask Marilyn" example is remarkable) and presents a historic context on some people that have made a relevant contribution to such field.

And concludes with his view that, in the end, chance is more fundamental than causality: some of us will be successful and others unsuccessful – things are not really about competence and realization.

It is about this specific subject, in what it relates to entrepreneurship, that I want to comment.

Although I agree that we can all be placed statistically within a “normal curve” distributing different degrees of success, and that factors beyond our control have a relevant impact on the final outcome, our individual position in the curve is not random.

There is a difference between random and “of unknown trend or cause”, or even "uncontrollable" - and Mlodinow seems to often use these different concepts interchangeably. The consequences may be similar in some aspects, but it is incorrect to classify as random events that are very difficult to foresee or control.

Actually it is questionable if pure randomness can be achieved, as even the mentioned movement of a "dye in a glass of water" will have causes and trends that may be unkown, but not necessarily random.

I read in such determinism - "Randomness Rules!" - an implicit connotation of resignation,  like "there is nothing you can do, just give up"! It is like randomness is a “god”, the omnipotent cause of what we can not explain.

It is true that when we look at the whole population (say of entrepreneurs or fund managers) the chances are high that some will be positive outliers, that others will fail and the average will not beat the “market”. However, implying as a general truth that randomness is the main reason for outperformance (he mentions Bill Gates as an example) just underestimates the value of people who plan their actions, prepare for contingencies or know how to react to unforeseen events.

Of course, such events will take place and will have an impact. Good or bad luck are relevant. But individual decisions, actions or omissions will also significantly affect the outcome.

Entrepreneuring - actually life - is a lot about dealing with the imponderable, unforeseen and uncontrollable. Being lucky helps. But, do not underestimate the importance of doing your share of effective work. Be competent, proactive, anticipate, be flexible, adapt and, most important, persevere.

“Chances” that you will place yourself among the outperformers are just higher.

First Impressions about the Angel Investment World

As I am getting my first contacts with the world of Angel Investing, I am surprised with some seed investors who act in the market with the strategy of making several (dozens, hundreds) investments, often not even appropriately reviewed, trying by chance to get one big deal.

I believe that Angel Investing is different from that, what looks to me more like “supposedly educated” gambling - often betting with other’s people money - and sometimes also targeting at personal media exposure.

I believe in Angels trying to get an appropriate return for their financial risk, but also trying to contribute to the enterprise, sharing experience, network and coaching young people into good leadership practices.

On the other side, I have also seen a number of “entrepreneurs” aiming more at making money by selling stock of their early stage companies than from dividends of the profitable companies they were supposed to build. Of course, making money is a key aspect, driver of all such effort - and there is nothing wrong with that! - but it is not everything we, entrepreneurs, are usually looking for (see my previous post “personality profile”).

I believe that business related Entrepreneurship is about building an enterprise that should add value to the society. Within this context, it is about building a company that generates profit, operating within ethical principles.

Dear entrepreneur, remind that making money for ourselves from deficit generating business may be nice, but probably wastes society’s resources and investors’ net worth.  Making money as a consequence of a succesful company, an entity that you created and turned into a profitable and self sustained operation, is truly rewarding.

Angels and entrepreneurs should pursue to make money and also build value to society.

About Values and Culture - Inbev/ Anheuser Busch's Brito speech

Values and culture make a difference. They are not only the "law" to be followed by the whole organization but, when well disseminated in the company, also an important tool to facilitate fast decision making at all levels, making such company more agile, allowing for better customer service, etc.

According to Collins and Porras, in their best seller "Built to Last", companies that persevered in their culture for different management generations have outperformed their competitors in the market.

The enclosed video, a speech of Anheuser Busch's CEO at Stanford about the culture being introduced in the company by the new controlling group, presents what I consider to be some of the most important Entrepreneurial values - effective and already proven as a successful management model in different company sizes, industries and geographies:

• Sense of ownership;
• Focus on results
• Meritocracy
• Cost consciousness - spending in what makes sense for the customer and for the shareholder
• Candid relationships
• Acting fast, sense of urgency

Enjoy the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSnWnqq23JU