Tag: Research Centers

A.N. Sreeram and Dr. Clive Meanwell

The one American company that is the most innovative, the most effective at research and development, of the five most attention-grabbing US-based companies isn’t one that’s developing your cellphones, creating your home tech devices or delivering goods to your door.

Prof. Anne Marie Knott

Rather, it’s one you watch: Netflix.

The 2020 Research Quotient Top 50 (RQ50), highlighting the most innovative US companies, was unveiled September 18 at The Industrial Innovation Path to Economic Recovery Conference hosted by the Boeing Center at Washington University in St Louis.

A recent paper, forthcoming in the Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, finds that RQ is the only innovation measure that reliably predicts market returns.  That paper was co-authored by Michael J. Cooper of the University of Utah, Wenhao Yang of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen and  Anne Marie Knott, the Robert and Barbara Frick Professor in Business at WashU Olin, who pioneered the RQ measure.

The conference attendees, in an online audience poll, predicted Amazon would prevail as the most innovative among the FAANG notables: Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix and Alphabet (formerly Google). In addition to unveiling the new list, Knott, at the Boeing Center/Olin conference, oversaw a panel discussion with two “RQ50 Hall of Famers”—firms that have been in the RQ50 for 10 or more years: A.N. Sreeram, Senior vice president and chief technology officer of Dow (20 years in RQ50), and Dr. Clive Meanwell, founder of The Medicines Company (10 years in the RQ50), whose company became ineligible for the RQ50 after being acquired by Novartis last year.

Keys to research investment success

Knott pointed out it was interesting to hear their discussion echo what her RQ scholarship has found: The keys to successful innovation, even in this instance for a 123-year-old company and a biotech startup, are not all that different.

“Keeping secrets is overrated. If you don’t collaborate and share IP, you’re highly unlikely to develop anything of great use.” 

Dr. Clive Meanwell

“How can you build wisdom faster?” asked Sreeram. “Make research available to innovators.”  He noted that every research report conducted at Dow since 1934 is fully digitized and available to researchers at the firm today. Sreeram praised such information sharing as an effective means of facilitating wisdom and learning, even among expert-level professionals. 

The RQ50 session was part of the five-session conference that received national attention after it opened with a fireside chat that Olin Dean Mark P. Taylor hosted with St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank President James Bullard, who characterized the new debt associated with COVID-19 interventions and offered his perspective on lifting inflation. This set the stage for a series of discussions to understand how best to invigorate technological change to spur economic growth sufficient to handle the debt.

Research versus innovation

While many argue this is best accomplished by increasing research, which takes place predominantly at universities and government labs, the conference focused attention on innovation—converting research into products and services that people want to buy. The latter takes place in companies, where 70% of U.S. R&D is conducted.  

Recognizing that companies can’t drive growth themselves, the conference included a panel discussion with three investors known for their long-horizon approach: Michelle Edkins, managing director, BlackRock Investment Stewardship; Penny Pennington, managing partner, Edward Jones; and Jared Woodard, director for global investment strategy, Bank of America. The panel was moderated by Todd Milbourn, vice dean of faculty and research and Hubert C. & Dorothy R. Moog Professor of Finance.

Woodard spoke to the importance of R&D and the RQ metric.

“One of the things that has become incredibly important in a world of low-economic growth, low-interest rates and low profits is the ability to find companies that can use R&D and capex [capital expenditure] dollars efficiently,” Woodard said. “And I think RQ is a great example of one methodology for finding those kinds of firms.”

“We’re always talking to the boards and management of companies about long-term challenges and opportunities and that includes R&D and capex,” Edkins added. “We are seeing COVID-19 accelerate macroeconomic trends key to R&D.”

Pennington mentioned the importance of efficient R&D over long-investing horizons in any environment and the imperative to identify firms whose R&D drives “return on investment in excess of the cost of capital,” characterizing that search as a “fundamental root of serious long-term investing.”

Emerging research on innovation

The conference also included a session of emerging academic research which offered an evidence-base for what innovation strategies and polices work, and which don’t. Participants included: Chad Syverson, University of Chicago, “Product Innovation, Product Diversification,and Firm Growth: Evidence from Japan’s Early Industrialization;” Florian Ederer, Yale School of Management, “Killer Acquisitions;” and Willy Shih, Harvard Business School, “Some Attention to the Demand Side, Please.”

While companies invest 70% of some $580 million invested in US R&D, the government is the next largest source of such funding—22%. In a closing keynote talk, Knott guided a discussion with Jaymie Durnan, director of strategic initiatives at Lincoln Lab, focusing on how those funds could be better spent. Moreover, Durnan discussed what government policies might drive more growth from R&D.

In the end, the audience met in breakout rooms to synthesize insights gleaned across the sessions to generate actionable recommendations to increase growth from innovation and thereby emerge from the pandemic in better shape. These insights and a conference report will be available on the Boeing Center’s LinkedIn page.

Alex Haimann

Koch Center for Family Business Associate Director Alex Haimann was recently published in the Harvard Business Review. His article, “How to Design a Better Hiring Process,” suggests a number of innovative alternatives to the standard “What are your strengths and weaknesses?” approach to evaluating prospective hires.

Better methods, he says, might be to “immerse job candidates in unconventional scenarios to gather the most useful insights about their critical-thinking abilities, tech savviness, and interpersonal skills,” for example, testing technical skills by observing the candidate’s real-time problem-solving process.

Haimann reports success since implementing this approach in his own business, seeing significant increases in retention and quality of new hires.

In addition to his work with the Koch Center, Alex is a partner and the head of business development at Less Annoying CRM, a simple CRM built from the ground up for small businesses. More than 10,000 small businesses worldwide use LACRM to manage contacts, track leads, and stay on top of follow-ups. LACRM continues to grow by engaging customers and finding new opportunities for mutually beneficial partnerships.

Family members who are CEOs of their family business remain in the role longer and are rarely forced out. That’s one finding in a newly released research brief from the Koch Center for Family Business, “Family CEOs, Turnover, and Firm Performance.”

The brief was co-written by Koch Center Director Barton H. Hamilton, Professor Andres Hincapie (UNC), and research fellows Simone Hanna and Noah Lyman.

The brief details the following findings regarding the turnover and performance of CEOs in family businesses:

  • CEO performance has a signicant impact on the likelihood of forced turnover.
  • Family CEO successors remain CEO for longer and are almost never forced out.
  • Insiders (both family and non-family) tend to be appointed in more profitable companies than outsiders. Insider CEOs appear to outperform outsiders as a result.
  • Family insiders are younger and have more experience in the firm at time of appointment than unrelated insiders.
  • Founders are more likely to be forcibly removed from office by year two than any other CEO type.

Find more research and resources on family business and succession at the Koch Center site.

Olin Blog post by Spencer Burke, Koch Center Eugene F. Williams Jr. Executive in Residence. See more of his reviews and articles on his page at the St. Louis Trust. Burke takes another look at this 2018 book—a tutorial on the exercise of corporate control of both private and public companies—a week after Sumner Redstone’s death on August 11, 2020.

Keach Hagey’s bookThe King of Content—Sumner Redstone’s Battle for Viacom, CBS, and Everlasting Control of His Media Empire (2018), tells the story of how Sumner Redstone parlayed National Amusements, Inc., the movie theater business (initially, drive-in movie theatres) developed by his father, into a multi-billion dollar media empire controlling Viacom, Paramount and CBS.

Along the way, Redstone became known as one of the wiliest dealmakers in Hollywood and a feared adversary in the world of corporate take-overs. It is quite a tale of corporate and family intrigue and perfect for Wall Street “deal” junkies and family business owners.

The book is very well researched and contains a lot of new information and insights not covered in the previous accounts of this saga in Vanity Fair and The Wall Street Journal. Redstone was hardly “self-made” (as he often suggested), but his career trajectory is still extraordinary and entertaining to read about.

Wresting ownership from family

He spent a lifetime wresting ownership of his family’s business away from his brother and his kids, his own grandchildren, his several wives and from any other family member who exhibited weakness, including his own son, Brent.

He ignored his father’s wish that the business he built would remain a family business. In the process of accumulating 80% control of the business, he faced years of litigation to resolve accusations of self-dealing, conflicts of interest, fraud and even tax evasion.

Family business owners can learn a lot from this book about good corporate “hygiene,” i.e., the mechanisms needed to avoid loss of control of a family business from death, disability or divorce.

Sumner faced all these threats and still managed to come out on top. Along the way, you will learn about the importance of trusts, pre-nup agreements, health care powers of attorney, incapacity clauses and voting trusts to retaining control of your business. An important lesson of this book is that every control mechanism has its limits and why just owning the majority of stock in a company may not be sufficient protection from the risk of loss of control.

Outflanking Redstone’s paramours

Sumner’s ultimate weapon to maintain control of his empire was an Irrevocable Voting Trust that vested perpetual control of National Amusements in the hands of a few of his trusted business advisors in the event of his death or incapacity. 

His daughter, Shari, ultimately, was able to take control of (or “defang”) the voting powers in the trust and prevent the loss of control to those non-family outsiders. To do this, she also needed to outflank the two paramours of her father who had become agents on his healthcare power of attorney and reigned supreme over Sumner for several years. How Shari ultimately accomplished all this is quite a tale and the highlight of the book.

Sumner’s control of National Amusements enabled him to take enormous financial risks to stalk his “content” prey in the public markets. Viacom, Paramount and CBS were his most visible conquests but there were many others along the way. There also were some major (and costly) failures (Midway Gaming which resulted in a $500 million loss) and a few significant missed opportunities, including a failed attempt acquire Facebook in its early days.

For three decades, National Amusements has had just under 80% of the voting interest in Viacom and CBS through its ownership of most of their super-voting stock, despite “only” having an 8% or so economic interest in either company. 

‘A veritable dictator’

The control of those super voting shares by National Amusements made Sumner a veritable dictator over the governance and strategic direction of both companies. National Amusements’ roughly 8% economic interest in Viacom today has a market value of around $1.2 billion, a fraction of what it was worth at its peak.

Despite his business success, Redstone will never be anyone’s role model for best CEO or father; he is sui generis—an extremely cunning, ruthless and self-centered individual with boundless energy, grit, determination and sexual appetite. He is wickedly smart, well-educated (Harvard and Harvard law) and motivated to succeed, but what he sought most of all throughout his career was “control” of everything he touched, including family, business, mistresses and all the attendant personal relationships arising therefrom. 

The “empire” he still controlled is, contrary to all he set out to do, led by his daughter Shari and not doing particularly well (and this was the case before the COVID-19 pandemic).

Scandal emerges from fire

Redstone’s earned his reputation for grit and determination by surviving the 1979 Copley Hotel fire in Boston. There, to save himself, he climbed out of his third-floor hotel room window, held onto the window frame and sustained burns over 45% of his body before eventually being rescued by the fire department. 

It was widely reported at the time that he was sharing the same hotel room with a woman (not his wife) with whom he was having an extra-marital relationship. She also escaped from the same window and was completely nude (and suffered only minor injuries) at the time of her rescue.

As his relevance has faded with his age, Redstone may best be known today as the main character reference for Logan Roy, the dark and controlling CEO of Waystar Royco, a fictitious publicly traded media company, and patriarch of the Roy family media empire featured in HBO’s award winning TV series, Succession

Roy’s character is, in fact, an amalgam of several public personalities, including Rupert Murdoch, Robert Maxwell and Donald Trump, but the Redstone family story line dominates this popular series. If you are a fan of Succession, you will enjoy this book. 

Value destruction

My only disappointment with Hagey’s account of Redstone’s career is its failure to quantify the value destruction over the years that this man’s leadership visited on his other family members and the public shareholders of both Viacom and CBS. 

Redstone and his minions, led by his long-time lawyer pal, Philippe Dauman, the former CEO of Viacom, cost his family and the public shareholders of these companies a fortune by extracting excessive “rents” in the form of inflated executive compensation and missed opportunities for both companies in the capital markets. It is remarkable that he has not been held to account for this.

Today, Viacom and CBS, one company once again, are shadows of their former selves in terms of valuation and have lost the competitive advantages they enjoyed in the 1990s and early 2000s. Sumner may have been the “King of Content,” but he failed to exploit fully the two biggest media trends of this century—social media and the digital delivery of content.  The moral of this story is that Sumner Redstone is no Rupert Murdoc. He simply stayed at the gaming table too long and lost his edge.

Sumner’s widely proclaimed grand scheme was “to live forever” and, at all costs, prevent his daughter Shari, owner of 20% of National Amusements, from ever becoming CEO of his companies. This is how the book ends:

‘Total control’

“Unable to eat or talk, he communicates via buttons on a table loaded with recordings of his voice from stronger days—’yes,’ ‘no,’ and his favorite, ‘f**k you.’ The man who always wanted total control, who believed in his own abilities above those of anyone else, who vowed to never sell Viacom, who swore he would never die—as of this writing, this man, Sumner Redstone, still draws breath, thanks, perhaps, to a lifetime of healthy eating and, even more likely, his own iron will.

“It is he, not Shari, that owns the majority of the controlling shares in the companies, and so long as he is not declared incompetent, it will be he who must technically decide the increasingly urgent question of whether to merge or sell Viacom or CBS. Because while content may still be king, kings, it turns out, can be bought just like anybody else.” (p. 306)

We can only imagine what Sumner’s father would say today if he knew how his dream for the family business he created had turned out.

When recently asked about what being part of the Redstone family business was like, Shari responded “It’s a dream life, except when it is not a dream life.” What more can be said?

Olin Blog post by Spencer Burke, Koch Center Eugene F. Williams Jr. Executive in Residence. See more of his reviews and articles on his page at the St. Louis Trust.

Samsung Rising is the remarkable story of how a family-owned vegetable and dried fish shop established in 1938 has grown to become one of the largest and most valuable technology companies in the world.

It is part of Samsung Group, a Korean chaebol (a family group of companies or “wealth clan”) and is best known for Samsung Electronics, which is a global leader in the smartphone market and semiconductor manufacturing. The group is controlled by five separate branches of the founder’s (B.C. Lee) family; the family is one of the wealthiest in the world with an estimated net worth of over $40 billion.

The group is made up today of over 60 independent companies, many of them publicly listed, which, in the aggregate, account for approximately 20% of the GDP of South Korea and employ over 310,000. The family control is achieved through an opaque web of cross-shareholdings and inter-marriages among the Lee family and other owners of the constituent companies.

The current (de facto) head of Samsung is its Vice Chairman Jay Y. Lee, the son of Lee Kun-hee (Lee II). Lee II became chairman of Samsung in 1987 when his father, B.C. Lee, died. He retains the title of chairman despite having been incapacitated and non-functioning since May 2014 when he had a heart attack and a stroke.

Samsung Rising is subtitled “The Inside Story of the South Korean Giant that Set Out to Beat Apple and Conquer Tech” and reads like a Hollywood movie script. The author, Geoffrey Cain, a journalist with The Economist and The Wall Street Journal, has spent much of his career reporting on Samsung. The book is a compilation, more or less in chronological order, of hundreds of interviews, many of them anonymous, with key Samsung employees, competitors and suppliers.

The ‘exploding phone’

This “unauthorized” biography is undoubtedly the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the intrigue, family in-fighting, corruption and government entanglements with and support of this important company. As you will learn from reading this book, Korea’s success as a nation is intimately tied to the success of Samsung and vice versa.

The starting point of the story is the recent spectacular failure of the Samsung Galaxy Note 7 smartphone (the “exploding phone”). The author then takes the reader back in time to explain how this modest family vegetable shop transitioned its business to become the global leader in inexpensive and second rate consumer products, such as microwave ovens and TV sets, then on to challenge Apple’s domination in the global smartphone market and Sony’s domination in consumer electronics and, from there, to become a leading supplier of advanced semiconductors to the tech industry.

To my surprise, Steve Jobs and Ellen DeGeneres each play a significant role in helping Samsung make these leaps, as do many U.S. based technology and marketing experts and advisors. Legions of patent lawyers also play their part in this story as Apple and Samsung have spent a fortune over the years battling in courts around the world over the ownership of the intellectual property that has made all their technology advances possible.

Samsung Rising is also a book about family business in Korea. The Lee family control of Samsung is in its third generation and faces many of the same challenges faced by many successful multi-generational family businesses.

There are disputes and jealousies among the different branches of the family over ownership and wealth, there are on-going leadership succession issues at the company and there is a massive estate tax liability lurking that may result in the Lee family’s loss of control of some or all of the Group. There is also the issue that the third-generation leader of the company, hand-picked by his father, may not be of the same caliber of his two predecessors.

This all sounds familiar, but there is a lot more to learn from the story because of the vast differences between the cultural and business environments in Korea and the US. Through the lens of the Samsung success story, it is fascinating to see how these differences are playing out in real time. So far, the Lee family and Samsung have benefited tremendously from them.

However, darker clouds are on the horizon. The most prominent differences include:

Business purpose

B.C. was a patriot and had immense pride in his home country. While working in Japan before WWII, he was a skilled observer of the Japanese economy and the companies that made Japan so successful. He dreamed of doing the same for his homeland and that is what he set out to do when he returned home in the late 1930s. B.C. Lee’s perspective on this is best illustrated by this quotation from a plaque in the miniature shrine that marks the company’s first place of business:

“I think people are most happy when they know what gives their life purpose. I am unshakeable in my faith that strengthening the nation through business is the path I must walk” (p. 32)

The motto on the Lee family crest also emphasized this: “First, serving the nation through business. Second, people and talent come first. Third, the pursuit of the reasonable.” (p. 41)

The shared identity of Samsung’s success with that of Korea has taken on an almost militaristic tone. The author notes:

“The odd similarities between the traditional culture of Samsung (and other South Korean companies) and the totalitarian dictatorship of North Korea are no coincidence. The Korea scholar B.R. Meyers has written about North and South Koreans’ belief in a shared, ancient bloodline that informs their politics and societies today. South Koreans, he argues have identified strongly with the Korean race that transcends a border with North Korea, a far stronger identification than with their democratic system of government.

“The result, he says, is that North Korea is the world’s most nationalistic country, while ‘the second most nationalistic country, in my view, is South Korea, which is completely open and completely wired, and still dominated by a very paranoid way of looking at the outside world’.” (p. 65)

The book makes many references to the “cult-like” environment and behavior at Samsung. Other successful companies have this as well, but this one is particularly focused on the company’s identity with the success of South Korea as a nation. This clearly has been a major contributor to Samsung’s success.

Chaebol business structure

B.C. was also a big fan of the success of leading Japanese companies, such as Sony, Toyota and Honda. These companies are called keiretsu and, unlike the traditional Japanese zaibatsu structure, are not always run by families but by “shareholding collectives, centered around a private bank, marking a break in Japanese tradition.” (p. 36) The keiretsu form of organizational structure arose in Japan because the U.S. military banned the formation of holding companies after WW II in an effort to reduce the economic power of the zaibatsu families. The author goes on to explain:

“South Korea followed with its own ban on holding companies. But its business leaders were determined to keep the zaibatsu practice of top-down family rule. So they embraced the cross-shareholding practices similar to Japan’s newer keiretsu companies, and found loopholes to pass those cross-shareholdings to their children, through charitable donations and mergers within their business empires.” (p. 36)

The Korean form of the keiretsu is the chaebol and here is what the author had to say about it:

“Pointing to the similarities between Samsung and other companies doesn’t dismiss the common culture and heritage between North and South Korea and, to some extent, Japan and China. The fact is that the South Korean chaebol have little in common with the more entrepreneurial and shareholder-driven firms in the United States.

“Even the biggest companies in the United States do not enjoy the privileges of companies in South Korea today. More than half of the family leaders of the ten biggest chaebol groups are convicted criminals. All have been pardoned by the president, often without serving prison time. Three of them, including Samsung chairman Lee II, have been pardoned twice.

From January 2015 to February 2016, the outside members of Samsung Electronics’ board of directors—who were supposed to be independent, as a check on corporate governance—unanimously approved every proposal put forward by the company, except the two times a director was absent.

“Imagine the heirs of the Carnegies and Rockefellers being so powerful and revered that The New York Times would self-censor its coverage out of deference. Imagine a White House pardoning the heirs of Sam Walton or Ray Kroc, as they ran the operations of Walmart or McDonald’s from their prison cells. Or seasoned journalists turning their eyes away when confronted with Donald Trump’s conflicts of interest between his presidential duties and his businesses.

“Because of the outsized privileges of Samsung and the Lee family, South Koreans tell me that Samsung has grown too big to fail”. (p.71-72)

Collective Harmony family culture

The dominant cultural style in East Asia is referred to as the Collective Harmony culture and the Lee family is a great example of it. Here are a few useful descriptions of its primary characteristics:

“[This culture is] premised on Confucian principles elevating loyalty and obligation to family, respect for parents and other authorities, knowing one’s place, and supporting the whole group rather than one’s individual position…..

“The concept of ‘face’ is central to Collective Harmony culture….The term has no exact counterpart in Western language. It contains elements of prestige, honor, respect, reputation and influence. However, it is much more socially-derived and -connected…

“In Collective Harmony, the web of social relationships is much more influential in maintaining individuals’ esteem. This is important because direct assertive communication may tear all too easily at the bonds between individuals and their social network if not handled carefully, especially in families.” Jaffe and Grubman, Cross Cultures (2016) (p. 37-38)

By contrast, US and other western countries typically are guided by an individualistic family culture. There, the purpose of larger organizations, such as family and businesses, is to support the independence and self-worth of each individual.

Cain emphasizes the important role of this family culture at various points in the story. He quotes a noted historian on Korea who said, “It’s a very basic Korean trait that trust rarely extends beyond one’s family, and that includes the Samsung family”. He goes on to say that Samsung’s and Korea’s common heritage evidences itself in five traditions:

“The extreme reverence for family dynasties; the belief that their strength is derived from an ethnic bloodline; the promulgation of military-like rituals, ceremonies, and slogans; nationalistic paranoia and distrust of outsiders; and the veneration of a supposedly wise, paternalistic emperor-like leader.” (p. 67)

This culture has served Samsung well through its first two generation of leadership. As it moves fully into the third generation and must compete with the largest and best run tech companies in the world, one must wonder if it will continue to do so. Command and control management and dynastic succession are not likely recipes for success in this competitive world.

Estate taxation/regulatory environment

It was fascinating to learn from this book about the rejection of the zaibutsu and holding company corporate structure in South Korea as a means to grow the economy after the devastation of the Korean War. Another key feature of the post war regulatory regime in Korea was the imposition of a 50% inheritance tax on the inter-generational transfer of wealth; in the case of an inheritance of a “controlling stake” in a company, the tax rate rises to 65%. As in the U.S., there is a correlative gift tax regime with the same tax rates for life-time asset transfers.

The chaebol corporate structure and this inheritance tax regime turn out to be a very toxic combination. Most of the ownership stakes in the chaebol are minority positions—it is the aggregation of these ownership stakes which give families the ability to “control” the entities but not necessarily the ability to monetize those stakes or use company assets to pay their taxes.

Family leaders need to transfer assets downstream very early in their careers when asset values are low to minimize the inheritance tax, but this endangers their ability to “indirectly” control the corporate entities in the group. If they wait too long and asset values have risen dramatically, as is the case with most of the chaebols, the tax obligations at death likely will force the sale of a substantial part of the ownership in the group and may lead to a loss of control. This is exactly the predicament that the Lee’s find themselves in today and it has caused no end of controversy.

The taxable estate of Lee II is estimated to be about $17 billion, meaning that a tax bill of roughly $8.5 billion in taxes will be due at his death, which could be at any time now. This is a problem shared by many of the large family-controlled companies in Korea. A recent Financial Times article estimates that the aggregate estate taxes owing by the largest 25 Korean companies now exceeds $21 billion. That liability grows daily.

Efforts by families to minimize the impact of this tax have ensnared many chaebol leaders and Jay Lee is prominent among them. In fact, Jay Lee is currently being dogged by prosecutors who have alleged that he engaged in a fraudulent merger transaction among two Samsung affiliates for the purpose of shoring up his ownership stake in Samsung Electronics so the Lee family would have a funding source to pay the inheritance tax. Approval of this merger also led the Lee’s to manipulate the accounting records of yet another company in the Samsung Group to inflate the stated value of the acquiring company in the proposed merger transaction.

Coincident with all this, Jay Lee made a $38 million dollar “contribution” to a close friend of the former Korean President so she could finance her family’s efforts to compete in the equestrian events at the up-coming Summer Olympic Games. Prosecutors have alleged that this payment was in fact a bribe for approval of the merger transaction. If convicted of any of these charges, Samsung’s Chairman in waiting will be waiting in prison for a long, long time.

Jay Lee may have gotten away with all this but for the watchful eye of Paul Elliott Singer, the founder of US-based hedge fund Elliott Management. Singer, described by some as “The World’s Most Feared Investor,” owned a minority stake in the company that the Lee family was attempting to swallow-up in the merger for a price far below its fair market value. 

Singer sued to block the proposed merger but his claim was denied; a civil fraud suit is still pending. Despite obvious breaches of fiduciary duty and fraud, the transaction garnered close to 70% shareholder approval, including approval by the National Pension Fund of Korea that lost millions of dollars for pensioners on the transaction.

Behavior like this gets much greater scrutiny in the US and is a cautionary tale for those investing in the equity of non-US companies subject to different legal systems and cultural norms. The legal standards of fiduciary duty, anti-trust and corporate law are often very different there.

The story of the Lee family’s desperate efforts to address its looming estate tax liability is a highlight of the book. This story had gotten very little public attention outside of Korea considering the size and importance of the Samsung Group and the prominence of the Lee family. It also lays bare the difficult challenges faced by chaebol owners to remain in control of their companies in the future. Add to this a growing clamor in Korean politics over income inequality and the need to rein in the power (and wealth) of the chaebols. Clearly, the family owners have many challenges ahead.

Samsung Rising is well worth a read for those interested in the global technology market and Korea’s (aka Samsung’s) remarkable rise to prominence in recent years. It is especially interesting right at this time, since Samsung Electronics has become a key ally of the U.S. in its attempt to slow down the domination of Huawei in the 5G market.

For those interested in family business, this is a must read. It is an exciting growth story and highlights the prominent role of purpose, family culture and government regulation and support to Samsung’s success.

In a recent operations management research productivity study published in Decision Sciences, Panos Kouvelis was ranked among the top three in several significant categories. Kouvelis is WashU Olin’s director of The Boeing Center for Supply Chain Innovation and Emerson Distinguished Professor of Operations and Manufacturing Management.

The study includes the “most-published OM authors from across the world based on total number of papers on which the individual is included as author from across all four [major] journals [of the field: Management Science, MSOM, POM, and JOM] over the 15-year period of 2001-2015.”

Here are a few ranking highlights for Professor Kouvelis:

  • No. 3: Total number of papers
  • No. 1: Publications in MSOM
  • No. 3: Total number of papers, weighted for co-authorship (Management Science publications counted only in the OM department)
  • No. 2: Total number of papers, weighted for co-authorship (Management Science publications included in all departments, with some OM linkage)
Fuqiang Zhang

Fuqiang Zhang, the Dan Broida Professor of Operations & Manufacturing Management, ranked No. 39 for total number of papers and No. 36 in papers weighted for co-authorship.

Additionally, Washington University’s Olin OMM department ranked No. 18 for total number of papers carrying an institution’s affiliation in authorship, No. 9 for publications in MSOM, and No. 12 for publications in Management Science.

We congratulate profs. Kouvelis and Zhang, and the Olin Business School OMM department, on these impressive achievements, and wish them the best in continuing their incredibly productive careers in OM research!