The top four exchanges that issuers will consider beyond their home exchange in 2030 are the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) (37%), Nasdaq (26%), London Stock Exchange (LSE) (24%), and Hong Kong Stock Exchange (24%), according to Capital Markets in 2030, new research by The Economist Intelligence Unit on behalf of PwC. The survey asked nearly 400 executives at companies from across the globe for their views on the factors that are defining the development of global equity capital markets, following up from a 2011 report.
This marks a change from 2011 when respondents predicted that Shanghai market would be the leading exchange by 2025, followed by NYSE, the Indian exchanges and Brazil’s Bovespa.
Ross Hunter, PwC Global IPO Centre leader, comments:“Excessive optimism about emerging markets has been tempered by political and market realities. Expectations are now for a more closely run race between developed and emerging markets exchanges.”
Looking at the IPO pipeline, China (55%) is the country predicted to generate the most new issuers by 2030 followed by India (45%), the US (41%), Brazil (21%) and, despite Brexit concerns, the UK (18%). China and India also led in this category in our previous survey. Both have been taking steps to develop their equity capital markets, with a number of recent initiatives in China in particular.
Liquidity remains the top priority (selected as most important by 49% of respondents) when choosing a listing location. There is also an increase in the focus on valuations (32%) and concern about the costs of listing (29%).
PwC anticipates that technology will continue to be a significant driver in the future of public companies. Increasing efforts by leading financial centres to win over technology and ‘new economy’ companies will continue to intensify competition between the New York and China (mainland China and Hong Kong) exchanges in particular.
It is clear that in recent years companies’ options for raising capital have increased. Some 76% of respondents believe that there are now more choices of both public and private financing routes in both developed and emerging markets.
Although 70% of respondents believe a public listing is becoming a less important source of funding globally, a similar proportion of survey respondents think it would be advantageous for successful companies to go public over some point in their life cycle. The most attractive private funding option, selected by 55% of respondents, is private equity.
Ross states: “Private equity has been significantly influencing capital markets in recent years, leading to fewer, larger, later IPOs – particularly with technology and ‘new economy’ companies.”
Ultimately, therefore, rather than simply being seen as rivals to public equity markets, companies increasingly consider private markets to be complementary sources of capital that they can tap into when appropriate.
Ross Hunter concludes:“For companies, the choice of credible exchanges for public listings, as well as the range of private funding options, will continue to expand, adding to the alternatives when they seek to raise capital.”
Capabilities fit is a winning formula for M&A: PwC’s “Doing the right deals” study
Ensuring there is a capabilities fit between buyer and target is key to delivering a high-performing deal, according to a new PwC study of 800 corporate acquisitions. . The study finds that capabilities-driven deals generated a significant annual total shareholder return (TSR) premium (equal to 14.2% points) over deals lacking a capabilities fit.
The “Doing the right deals” study looks at the 50 largest deals with publicly-listed buyers in each of 16 industries and evaluates the characteristics that delivered superior financial outcomes for the buyers, as measured by annual TSR.
A capability is defined as the specific combination of processes, tools, technologies, skills, and behaviours that allows the company to deliver unique value to its customers.
Two types of deals were found to outperform the market: capabilities enhancement deals – in which the buyer acquires a target for a capability it needs — and capabilities leverage deals – in which the buyer uses its capabilities to generate value from the target. These represent a true engine of value creation, delivering average annual TSR that was 3.3% points above local market indices. Deals without these characteristics – limited-fit deals – had an average annual TSR of -10.9% points compared to the local market indices.
While 73% of the largest 800 deals analysed sought to combine businesses that did fit from a capabilities perspective, 27% were limited-fit deals. The analysis shows that for every dollar spent on M&A, roughly 25 cents were spent on such limited-fit deals that in many cases destroyed shareholder value.
Alastair Rimmer, Global Deals Strategy Leader, PwC UK said: “Our analysis confirms that deals where the buyer is focused on enhancing its own capabilities or leveraging its capabilities to improve the target can result in a substantial TSR premium. Whether a deal creates value depends less on whether it is aimed at consolidation, diversification or entering new markets. What matters is whether there is a solid capabilities rationale between the buyer and the target.”
Capabilities fit delivers shareholder value across industries
The capabilities premium was found to be positive across all of the 16 industries studied. The share of capabilities-driven deals was highest in pharma & life sciences (92%), an industry where deals often combine one company’s innovation capabilities with another’s strength in distribution. Other leading industries in capabilities fit deals were health services and telecommunications (both with 90% capabilities-driven deals) and automotive (86%). Limited fit deals were found to be most prevalent in the oil & gas industry (62%), where asset acquisition can play an important role in addition to capabilities fit.
The analysis shows that the stated strategic intent of a deal, as defined in corporate announcements and regulatory filings, has little to no impact on value creation. Whether a deal fits or not depends less on stated goals of consolidation, diversification or entering new markets. What matters is whether there is a capabilities fit between the buyer and the target. Deals aiming for geographic expansion notably stood out as performing less well than others, largely because many of them (34%) were limited-fit deals.
The M&A playing field has shifted due to COVID-19
More than ever, companies must be clear in defining which capabilities they can leverage to succeed, and which capabilities gaps they need to fill.
Hein Marais, Global Value Creation Leader, PwC UK added: “Deal rationales have shifted in a COVID context, reflecting the heightened need for new and different capabilities if an enterprise is to generate value and create sustained outcomes. The need to move quickly increases the pressure to do deals at pace – and thereby the risk of failing to evaluate capabilities fit with enough care. Ensuring such capabilities fit, however, dramatically increases the chances of your deal creating value.”
Companies may be overlooking the riskiest cyber threats of all
A majority of companies don’t have a handle on their third-party cyber risks – risks obscured by the complexity of their business relationships and vendor/supplier networks. This is the finding of the PwC 2022 Global Digital Trust Insights Survey. The survey of 3,600 CEOs and other C-suite executives globally found that 60% have less than a thorough understanding of the risk of data breaches through third parties, while 20% have little or no understanding at all of these risks.
The findings are a red flag in an environment where 60% of the C-suite respondents anticipate an increase in cyber crime in 2022. They also reflect the challenges organizations face in building trust in their data — making sure it is accurate, verified and secure, so customers and other stakeholders can trust that their information will be protected.
Notably, 56% of respondents say their organizations expect a rise in breaches via their software supply chain, yet only 34% have formally assessed their enterprise’s exposure to this risk. Similarly, 58% expect a jump in attacks on their cloud services, but only 37% profess to have an understanding of cloud risks based on formal assessments.
Sean Joyce, Global & US Cybersecurity & Privacy Leader, PwC United States said: “Organizations can be vulnerable to an attack even when their own cyber defenses are good; a sophisticated attacker searches for the weakest link – sometimes through the organization’s suppliers. Gaining visibility and managing your organization’s web of third-party relationships and dependencies is a must. Yet, in our research, fewer than half of respondents say they have responded to the escalating threats that complex business ecosystems pose.”
Asked how their companies are minimizing third-party risks, the most common answers were auditing or verifying their suppliers’ compliance (46%), sharing information with third parties or helping them in some other way to improve their cyber stance (42%), and addressing cost- or time-related challenges to cyber resilience (40%). But a majority have not refined their third-party criteria (58%), not rewritten contracts (60%), nor increased the rigor of their due diligence (62%) to identify third-party threats.
Simplifying the way to cybersecurity
Nearly three quarters of respondents said the complexity of their organization poses “concerning” cyber and privacy risks. Data governance and data infrastructure (77% each) ranked highest among areas of unnecessary and avoidable complexity.
Simplification is a challenge, but there is ample evidence that it is worthwhile. While three in 10 respondents overall said their organizations had streamlined operations over the past two years, the “most improved” in our survey (the top 10% in cyber outcomes) were five times more likely to have streamlined operations enterprise-wide. These top 10% organizations are also 10 times more likely to have implemented formal data trust practices and 11 times more likely to have a high level of understanding of third party cyber and privacy risks.
CEO engagement can make a difference
Executive and CEO respondents differ on how much the support the CEO provides on cyber, with CEOs seeing themselves as more involved in, and supportive of, setting and achieving cyber goals than their teams do. But there is no disagreement that proactive CEO engagement in setting and achieving cyber goals makes a difference. Executives in the “most improved” group, reporting the most progress in cybersecurity outcomes, were 12x more likely to have broad and deep support on cyber from their CEOs. Most executives also believe that educating CEOs and boards so they can better fulfill their cyber responsibilities is the most important act for realizing a more secure digital society by 2030.
Sean Joyce concluded: “Our survey shows that the most advanced organizations see cybersecurity as more than defense and controls, but as a means to drive sustained business outcomes and build trust with their customers. As leaders of organizations, CEOs set the tone for focusing their cyber teams on bigger-picture, growth-related objectives rather than narrower, short-term expectations.”
Are we on track to meet the SDG9 industry-related targets by 2030?
A new report published by the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), Statistical Indicators of Inclusive and Sustainable Industrialization, looks at the progress made towards achieving the industry-related targets of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 9 of the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The report is primarily based on the SDG9 indicators related to inclusive and sustainable industrialization, for which UNIDO is designated as a custodian agency, showing the patterns of the recent changes in different country groups.
Six years after the adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its 17 SDGs, there has been increasing demand for information on whether the SDG targets could be reached, and what actions should governments take to accelerate progress. The UNIDO report introduces two new tools developed by UNIDO to help countries measuring performance and progress towards SDG9 industry-related targets: the SDG9 Industry Index and SDG9 progress and outlook indicators. The SDG9 Industry Index benchmarks countries’ performance on SDG-9 targets over 2000-2018 for 131 economies. In addition, the report develops two measures to answer the main questions:
- Progress: how much progress has been made since 2000?
- Outlook: how likely is it that the target will be achieved by 2030?
The global COVID-19 pandemic has inevitably had a negative toll on the progress towards reaching the SDG9 indicators, but the extent of the long-term impact remains to be seen. Industrialized countries continue to dominate global manufacturing industry, but their relative share has gradually declined over the past decade. In 2010, industrialized economies made up 60.3% of global production, which has decreased to 50.5% in 2020. China has been the largest manufacturer, now accounting for 31.7% of global production. This is a trend that has been reinforced by the pandemic.
Progress for the least developed countries (LDCs), at the heart of the 2030 Agenda, is a different story. While economic theory and countries’ experiences across the world have established that industrialization is an engine of sustainable growth, progress among LDCs remains very diverse. Asian LDCs are poised to double their share of manufacturing in GDP and thus meet SDG target 9.2, but African LDCs have stagnated.
SDG9 Industry Index
The SDG-9 Industry Index, consisting of five dimensions, covers three targets and five indicators and assigns a final score to countries. In 2018, the top ten consisted of exclusively industrialized economies, with Taiwan, Province of China, Ireland, Switzerland, the Republic of Korea and Germany making up the top five. In general, industrialized economies perform best in all dimensions of the Index.
The countries at the bottom of the ranking are LDCs, in particular those located in sub-Saharan Africa. Although some African countries have been displaying impressive growth rates, growth has been driven by an extended commodity boom and foreign capital inflows, while industrialization and structural transformation have stagnated. Additionally, substantial data is lacking for a significant amount of the countries. In the SDG9 Industry Index, only 24 out of 54 African countries are included, from which only eight are LDCs. It is clear that national statistics offices need strengthening, as data availability helps countries formulate, review and evaluate their development plans and programmes.
Online game showcases plight of our planet’s disappearing coral reefs
One of the world’s leading producers of online word games joined a global effort to help protect the planet’s coral...
A Peep into Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan’s Tricky Relations with Afghan Taliban
To understand the interesting relationship between the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), also known as Pakistani Taliban, and the Afghan Taliban, one...
Act Urgently to Preserve Biodiversity for Sustainable Future — ADB President
The world must act urgently to preserve ecosystems and biodiversity for the sake of a sustainable future and prosperity, Asian...
Stockholm+50: Accelerate action towards a healthy and prosperous planet for all
The United Nations General Assembly agreed on the way forward for plans to host an international meeting at the highest...
Is Myanmar an ethical minefield for multinational corporations?
Business at a crossroads Political reforms in Myanmar started in November 2010 followed by the release of the opposition leader,...
Logistics giant commits to Gothenburg Green City Zone
DB Schenker is collaborating with Business Region Göteborg to scale up electric freight transport as part of the Gothenburg Green...
Early signs of collective progress as banks work to implement the Principles for Responsible Banking
A new report summarising the progress made by banks who have signed the Principles for Responsible Banking finds that signatories...
Economy4 days ago
There Is No Business, Like Small Business: New Strategy
Africa4 days ago
Wagner: Putin’s secret weapon on the way to Mali?
Americas3 days ago
The U.S. Might Finally Be Ready to Back Down, to Avoid WW III
Finance4 days ago
Why Traders Should Never Miss Forex Trading Investment Opportunities
Americas3 days ago
How The West Subdue Us: An Approach of Colonial and Development Discourse
Green Planet4 days ago
Let’s play the squid game: but we play for our planet this time
Russia4 days ago
The Emerging “Eastern Axis” and the Future of JCPOA
Tech News3 days ago
Standards & Digital Transformation – Good Governance in a Digital Age