Interesting post, Dylan. My suggestion would be that, caught between these geo-political crosscurrents, Samsung should not underestimate the leverage it has in dealing with these governments given the sizeable investments it makes, the jobs it creates, and the taxes it pays. While it’s important to actively monitor and try to forecast these trade issues, Samsung should (i) execute relative to its strategy (e.g., build facilities close to customers, etc.) and (ii) take advantage of the best deals it can get from various governments, as it did in China. I strongly believe and hope that such irrational trade-related rhetoric is precisely that – just rhetoric. My sense is it would be very hard to engage in some of the initiatives the Trump administration is proposing and ultimately, administrations come and go. Samsung would be well served to remember that it has been around as long as it has been because they’ve made good global business decisions rather than good global politics decisions.
Interesting post, Henrique. The insurance business economics to an insurer work similarly to roulette economics to a casino. If a specific policy was priced at exactly the expected value of a claim, insurers would not make any money, just like casinos wouldn’t make money if all bets paid based on their expected probabilities. Insurance overall is not a perfectly rational decision for the policy holder, but due to the catastrophic nature of these events, people take out policies and insurers make money. Therefore, I would argue that no matter how much premia rise to respond to increase in frequency & costs of catastrophes, there will always be a market for these services. You bring up an interesting point around the possibility of having un-insurable claims. I think that, if we do get to that point, we’ll have much bigger problems to deal with…
Interesting analysis but I think the Trump administration trade-related threats are just that – hawkish signals to his voter base but (hopefully) unlikely to be put in practice due to the massive economic implications for our country and the global economy. While Walmart must pay close attention to these developments and continue its lobbying efforts, I’m not sure the situation calls for them to steer away from a labor cost advantage in China
Great to hear about these encouraging initiatives REI is undertaking to ensure they have an eco-friendly supply chain. Regarding your question about whether sustainable practices are a source of competitive disadvantage – I don’t think this is the case as (i) consumers value sustainable business strategies and (ii) while these investments are intensive on the front end, I believe they save costs (e.g., energy, regulatory, etc.) over time in the long run
Great post AYZ – while I don’t think enough consumers really care about where their food comes from to make investments in this technology necessary and financially viable, I do agree that Barilla has a great opportunity to leverage their supply chain and tech infrastructure to reduce food waste, which is a huge problem. What I like most about this is that both key stakeholder’s incentives are aligned – Barilla generates cost savings and consumers value that the company is socially conscious.
Great post, Ash. I’m less worried about counterfeiters catching up to the company and industry. I think Pfizer should have no trouble staying ahead of interlopers given the significant costs and know-how associated with these technologies. That said, the cybersecurity question you raise is an interesting one – while an increasingly digital supply chain brings tremendous benefits, the threat of hackers gaining access to drug information and HIPAA-protected patient information is significant. Alongside their supply chain initiatives, Pfizer should invest in their cyber-defense strategy to ensure that patients receive the drugs they need, when they need them, and don’t lose sensitive information in the process.