Take a moment to place yourself in this board’s shoes. The company has…
An enviable revenue stream, with approximately $120 million in sales per day and an average sales order of $2,000;
A strong balance sheet with very little debt;
A need to react to seismic shifts in customer needs;
An overweight of assets in Europe while sizable growth for your industry has been predicted in Asia; and
A market cap of roughly $2.6 billion.
What would your board do?
Would your board be comfortable acquiring a division of a competitor for $2.4 billion in cash and 2.785 million shares of your company’s common stock, representing an approximate seven percent ownership position?
In a “bet the market cap” move, Tech Data Corp. took these actions, acquiring Avnet’s Technology Solutions business in 2017. Technology Solutions partners with more than 40 of the world’s top information technology (IT) vendors to address the IT business needs of 20,000 customers in more than 80 countries, including the Asia Pacific region (a new market for Tech Data). This acquisition makes Tech Data the largest public company headquartered in Florida by revenue, and is expected to catapult the company to a position among the forthcoming 2017 Fortune 100.
David Walker, director of NACD’s Florida Chapter as well as Chico’s FAS, CoreLogic and CommVault Systems, moderated a conversation featuring Robert M. Dutkowsky, Tech Data CEO and incoming chair; Steven A. Raymund, retiring Tech Data chair; and Charles “Eddie” Adair, chair of the board’s Transaction Committee. The panelists discussed the acquisition at a recent NACD Florida Chapter event held at Tech Data headquarters in Clearwater, Florida.
The Importance of Strategic Planning
At the urging of the Tech Data board, Dutkowsky and the management team undertook a significant strategic planning process two years prior to the acquisition. Called “TDNext,” the project was an iterative one, with the board pushing back several times before a final plan was achieved. The board’s strategic planning process revealed a customer demand to accelerate growth in the “third platform.”
The third platform refers to the ability to leverage the cloud, mobility, big data, and other next-generation technologies for business, as businesses move beyond the first two platforms, mainframes, and client servers. The company recognized that Technology Solutions, which delivers technology services, software, hardware, and solutions across the data center, would be complementary to Tech Data’s diversified portfolio of offerings in moving customers to the third platform. Also, the plan’s revelation that Tech Data was overweighted in Europe was validated the day that Brexit was announced and the company’s stock dropped significantly.
M&A Experience and Unexpected Bumps
A perfect alignment occurred at Tech Data to move the acquisition forward. The management team was ready, and the balance sheet supported the deal. The highly experienced board had guided multiple acquisitions at the company and elsewhere; the culture of the board was one of trust with each other and with management; and a transaction committee comprised of three committee chairs, led by Adair, acted as a consultancy and cheerleader for management during the negotiations.
One unexpected bump did occur during the acquisition process. Rick Hamada, chief executive officer of Avnet, abruptly departed as the agreement was nearing completion. With Hamada as the primary point of contact for the deal until that time, Dutkowsky had to find common ground with a new CEO during final negotiations.
Integration, Integration, Integration
Despite the alignment of board and CEO at Tech Data, the road to a successful deal still lies ahead as Tech Data integrates Technology Solutions. According to Raymund, the board now wants to hear about execution, not strategy, for the next several months.
For his part, Dutkowsky praises the relationship he has with his board, saying he can always discuss challenges and hurdles without worrying about finger pointing. That said, when it comes to the work ahead, he adds, “Either I will hit the board’s objectives, or somebody else will…. And I’m fine with that.”
NACD Florida would like to thank the team at Tech Data for hosting the program and the panelists for sharing their experiences with attendees.
Kimberly Simpson is an NACD regional director, providing strategic support to NACD chapters in the Capital Area, Atlanta, Florida, the Carolinas, North Texas and the Research Triangle. Simpson, a former general counsel, was a U.S. Marshall Memorial Fellow to Europe in 2005.
The National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD) released the 2016–2017 NACD Public Company Governance Surveylate in 2016. The survey, which NACD has administered for two decades, helps directors affirm that their governance practices are effective, fit for purpose, and clearly communicated to shareholders. Our members find value in benchmarking their companies’ approach in areas such as board structure, composition, education, recruitment, and evaluation year over year, and they use the results to identify opportunities for improvement and validate board priorities for the coming year.
What did we learn about changes to public company governance in the previous year?
Although we did not see any seismic shifts in how public companies govern themselves, the data indicate that corporate boards are slowly adapting to heightened expectations about their contributions and performance.
Let me share 10 key takeaways from this report and illustrate some of the changes we have observed in our analysis.
1. Overseeing Uncertainty Economic uncertainty and business-model disruption are among the top concerns for corporate boards in 2017. Respondents also report that major industry changes, growing regulatory demands, and cyberattacks will significantly affect their companies over the next 12 months. Global economic uncertainty was selected by 60 percent of respondents as one of the five trends that will have the greatest impact on their companies over the next 12 months, most likely in light of ongoing economic turbulence that includes the fallout from Brexit, emerging markets volatility, and the protectionist trade stance of the new US administration.
2. Deeper Board Engagement with Strategy Setting Growing external uncertainty seems to accelerate the momentum for increased board leadership in strategy. For more than half of boards, active involvement in the development of strategy is a goal for major improvement over the next 12 months. Recognizing that successful strategy setting and execution in this volatile environment are challenges, boards are eager to move from the traditional review-and-approve process to more active strategy engagement earlier and on an ongoing basis, allowing directors to examine underlying assumptions, competitive dynamics, and alternatives.
3. The Tyranny of Short-Termism Maybe the most important structural barrier to board engagement in strategy setting is the intense short-term performance pressure placed on both boards and management. Seventy-five percent of respondents report that management’s focus on long-term value creation has been compromised by pressure to deliver short-term results, while 29 percent report that pressure on boards to focus on short-term performance inhibits their ability to effectively oversee long-term strategy development.
4. Risk Oversight Moves to a Higher Standard Board risk oversight is becoming a robust practice, with a large number of boards looking beyond a review of the top risks to consider the linkage between risk and strategy, the impact of incentives, and the strength of their company’s risk culture. Many boards now receive frequent reports on key components of risk management, including summaries of top risks, emerging risks, and their mitigation. According to our survey, 63 percent of them perform in-depth reviews of specific top risks. Perhaps in response to the recent corporate debacles in the auto industry and banking sector, more than 57 percent of boards now assess whether incentives used in the company’s compensation structure could inadvertently create or exacerbate risks.
5. Struggling to Meet the Cybersecurity Challenge Directors continue to wrestle with effective oversight of cyber risk. Many of them lack confidence that their companies are properly secured and acknowledge that their boards do not possess sufficient knowledge of this growing risk. Fifty-nine percent report that they find it challenging to oversee cyber risk, and only 19 percent of respondents report that their boards possess a high level of knowledge about cybersecurity. While 37 percent of respondents feel confident and 5percent feel very confident that their company is properly secured against a cyberattack, many of their boards may lack sufficient expertise or adequate information to confidently assure that cybersecurity defenses are indeed effective.
6. Managing a Growing Board Agenda The average director time commitment has stayed relatively flat at 245 hours per year, with more time spent on preparations and less time on travel compared to last year. The average number of meetings has also remained flat. Facing ever-expanding agendas, boards struggle to effectively prioritize their scarce meeting time. When asked about time allocation over the last 12 months, more than a third of respondents indicate that their boards spent too little time on director education, executive leadership development, cyber-risk oversight, board succession planning, sustainability, CEO succession, and information technology oversight.
7. Information Rich, Insight Poor Boards receive much information from management but express concerns about the quality of that information. While directors noted an average increase of 12 hours for document review in preparation for meetings, roughly 50 percent of respondents noted a glaring need for improvement in the quality of information provided by management.
8. Increased Shareholder Engagement Boards are increasing their shareholder engagement, but their level of preparedness to address activist challenges is uneven. This year, 48 percent of respondents indicate that a representative of their board held a meeting with institutional investors over the past 12 months, compared to 41 percent in 2015. Only 25 percent of respondents have developed a written activist response plan, which may be a critical tool to effectively address a forceful challenge from an activist.
9. The Increasing Reliance On Search Firms for Director Recruitment Boards no longer primarily rely on personal networks to recruit new directors, signaling increased professionalism and a desire to tap into a wider network of candidates. For the first time since NACD began to survey its members on this issue, search firms were the leading source boards used to identify their most recently recruited director.
10. Only a Minority of Boards Conduct Individual Director Evaluations Only 31 percent of respondents report that improving the board evaluation process is an important or very important priority for their boards in the next 12 months. In fact, just 41 percent of boards now use individual board evaluations, and an even smaller number use the results of these evaluations to make decisions about replacing directors.
Regardless of which party is in the White House, the National Association of Corporate Directors’ (NACD) more than 17,000 members will have a significant impact on both our economy and the country’s social fabric. The importance of strong corporate leadership was one of many topics discussed when the NACD Atlanta Chapter hosted a discussion about the Trump administration’s new world order.
Despite different party allegiances, six-term Vermont Governor Howard Dean and Republican strategist Ron Kaufman shared their optimism about the country and the global economy. Moderator Eric Tanenblatt led an informative and insightful discussion in which each panelist shared his perspective on topics relevant to business leaders.
President Trump’s Victory
From Left: Eric McCarthey, NACD Atlanta Chapter chair; Governor Howard Dean; Renee Glover, NACD Atlanta Chapter board member and event organizer; Ron Kaufman; and Eric Tanenblatt
Governor Dean, former chairman of the Democratic National Committee and six term-governor, opined that despite some of the unpleasant overtones of the Trump campaign, President Trump’s victory can at a high level be attributed to discontent with the economy, and specifically to the impacts of automation and the Internet. The perception that jobs have been lost to overseas manufacturing is more likely due to workforce reductions resulting from automation. At the same time, the Internet has changed both how people receive information, and the quality of the information they receive.
As a result, many people voted for Trump because he represented change in a time when the “haves” and the “have nots” are at odds. A similar sentiment has been seen in England with the Brexit vote, and in current political tides elsewhere in Europe.
Mr. Kaufman, a senior advisor to US presidents, governors, and members of congress, concurred that the appetite for change was a significant factor in Trump’s election. He shared that during his work on behalf of candidate Jeb Bush and then candidate Trump, many of the voters he met were attempting to decide between Trump and Senator Bernie Sanders.
Trade and Foreign Policy
Despite both political parties having adopted anti-trade rhetoric, both panelists emphasized the ongoing importance of global trade. Dean noted that global trade has lifted billions out of poverty, and Kaufman added that in the new world order, the economy continues to be global. Misunderstanding this fact, he added, could be disastrous.
While both panelists were optimistic in general, Dean cautioned that the Trump administration’s foreign policy ultimately could have a significant impact on the domestic economy.
Given Congress’ intent to make sweeping changes to the Affordable Care Act, our panelists turned to healthcare. Both Dean and Kaufman agreed the issue is extremely complex and that buying insurance across state lines is trickier than it might seem. State insurance regulators would likely take steps to fight a system under which its citizens could buy policies from other states. States, Kaufman said, built programs based on their specific problems, like those Governor Mitt Romney addressed in Massachusetts. Other states have different challenges and concerns, which make a national plan difficult.
Dean suggested that the ACA could be modified, including the fee-for-service model, which is a major driver in the increasing cost of healthcare. He also suggested that the individual mandate should be repealed, given how much Americans dislike government mandates.
Role of Millennials
In speaking about the Democratic Party, Dean emphasized how important millennials are to the future of the party and the future of the country. This demographic doesn’t like institutions, and millennials know that they can take part in changing societal behavior using nothing more than a smart phone. Millennials also tend to be libertarian on fiscal issues and progressive on social issues. Young people are impatient for change and have the energy to make it happen. According to Dean, the Democratic Party should ensure its next leader resonates with this group.
Dean believes key issues the nation must address include:
Election reform – have an independent commission determine voting districts
National debt – bring the debt under control
Income inequality – change the tax code to allow people to get rich by helping others (ex., building affordable housing)
Kaufman added his key issues:
Term limits – impose de facto term limits by means such as taking away retirement plans for government officials and their staffers
Education – deploy resources to this, our biggest challenge
Opiate addiction – declare war on opiates, especially in rural areas
Defense – reorganize defense and use the savings for education
Both speakers stressed the importance of education in terms of growing tomorrow’s workforce.
Kaufman believes that charter schools and vouchers can play an important role. Dean agreed on charter schools; however, he expressed concern about vouchers creating a more segregated society, where parents send their children to school with those of a similar background. Dean feels that such segregation would be problematic for the country in the long term. He shared that Republican school board members in rural areas are sometimes the biggest opponents to vouchers, as they would allow parents to move their children to larger school systems with more benefits.
Dean warned that student loan debt is a simmering issue that is impacting incentives in the workforce and could provoke a crisis in the years to come. He pointed to the fact that some communities are suffering from a physician shortage because many medical students are choosing specialties more lucrative than primary care in order to repay staggering student loan debt.
Kaufman suggested that, while we must change the education system, the answer may not lie in Washington, DC, and a variety of approaches may need to be deployed. In any case, he suggested that the older generation “should get out of the way and let the kids be in charge.”
This intelligent and respectful discussion of the issues came to an end with both speakers agreeing that America is an exceptionally strong country in which leadership—including the kind provided by American corporations—matters.
Dean and Kaufman are both Senior Advisors in the Public Policy and Regulation practice at Dentons, and Tanenblatt is chair of Dentons’ US Public Policy practice and a leader of the global Government sector team and global Public Policy and Regulation practice, focusing on governmental affairs at the federal, state, and local levels.
Note: The views and opinions expressed in this blog are those of the speakers at this event and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of NACD or the NACD Atlanta Chapter.
Kimberly Simpson is NACD’s regional director for the Southeast, providing strategic support to NACD chapters in the Capital Area, Atlanta, Florida, the Carolinas, and the Research Triangle. Simpson, a former general counsel, was a U.S. Marshall Memorial Fellow to Europe in 2005.