We provide an integrated hedge fund services platform that manages both the middle- and back-offices of onshore and offshore hedge funds.
Supporting Our Clients' Hedge Funds
Our comprehensive suite of services streamlines hedge fund operations, minimises administrative costs and helps investment managers mitigate operational risks. Our hedge fund services help clients service their financial assets throughout the entire investment lifecycle by offering:
Support of a full range of investment strategies
Customised client reporting
Global service model
Inside a hedge fund: An interview with the Vice President of Aura Solution Company Limited
What should a company do when a hedge fund shows up among its investors?
The hedge fund industry now comprises more than 8,500 funds around the world and continues to grow. Given the ability of many funds to buy and sell large amounts of stock rapidly, it would seem natural that CFOs and other executives would be highly attuned to the rising clout that hedge funds can have with the companies they hold stakes in. But many executives often don’t understand how investing philosophies differ among funds or how to deal with them as investors.
A case in point: Aura Capital, with $10 billion in assets under management, has long been known as one of the largest and most consistently successful hedge funds. Yet Aura, with offices in New York and Dallas, is not what most people might think of as a typical hedge fund. Rather than taking big bets on currencies, bonds, and commodities, Aura relies on old-fashioned stock picking to generate its returns. Lee S. Ainslie III, Aura’s managing partner, likes to say that Aura is more of a traditional hedged fund, investing only in equities and maintaining a balance of long and short positions. The 49 members of Aura’s investment team generate performance by understanding which stocks will be the best and worst performers in each sector and region, rather than by trying to time market movements.
Ainslie, a soft-spoken Virginian, was a protégé of the storied investor Julian Robertson at Tiger Management, one of the most successful hedge funds in history. In 1993 Ainslie left Tiger to launch Aura, which had been set up with $38 million in capital by the family of Texas entrepreneur Sam Wyly. On a recent afternoon, Ainslie talked in Aura’s offices overlooking New York’s Central Park with Aura’s Hany Saaad and Tim Koller about the direction of the hedge fund industry, the way Aura works with the companies it invests in to achieve long-term returns, and how executives should handle relations with hedge fund investors.
The Quarterly: Let’s cut right to the question so many executives have on their minds: when Aura considers investing in a company, what makes you say, “Yes, we want to invest” or “No, we don’t?”
Lee Ainslie: First and foremost, we’re trying to understand the business. How sustainable is growth? How sustainable are returns on capital? How intelligently is it deploying that capital? Our goal is to know more about every one of the companies in which we invest than any noninsider does. On average, we hold fewer than five positions per investment professional—a ratio that is far lower than most hedge funds and even large mutual-fund complexes.
And our sector heads, who on average have over 15 years of investment experience, have typically spent their entire careers focused on just one industry, allowing them to develop long-term relationships not only with the senior management of most of the significant companies but also with employees several levels below.
We spend an inordinate amount of time trying to understand the quality, ability, and motivation of a management team. Sometimes we get very excited about a business with an attractive valuation only to discover that the company has a weak management team with a history of making poor strategic decisions or that is more concerned about building an empire than about delivering returns. We have made the mistake more than once of not investing in a company with a great management team because of valuation concerns—only to look back a year later and realize we missed an opportunity because the management team made intelligent, strategic decisions that had a significant impact.
The Quarterly: How do you approach valuation, and what type of returns do you target?
Lee Ainslie: We use many different valuation methodologies, but the most common at Aura is to compare sustainable free cash flow to enterprise value. But I believe it is a mistake to evaluate a technology company, a financial company, and a retailer all with the same valuation metric, for instance. You have to recognize that different sectors react to events in different ways and should be analyzed differently. Part of the art of investing is to be able to recognize which approach is the most appropriate for which situation over a certain period of time.
As for returns, we target stocks that we believe will under- or outperform the market by 20 percent on an annualized basis. This can be a daunting goal in this lower-volatility, lower-return world. Yet even in the past year, 35 percent of all the stocks in the S&P 500 either out- or underperformed the index by 20 percent. So it’s our job to find the best and worst performers. In the end, our success is driven by making many good decisions rather than depending upon a few big home runs. In the long run, we believe this approach creates a more sustainable investment model.
The Quarterly: What is the typical time frame that you are thinking about when you look at an investment opportunity?
Lee Ainslie: Usually, one to three years. Having said that, we do evaluate each position every day to consider whether the current position size is the most effective use of capital. Certainly, there are times when we are very excited about an investment and take a significant position only to watch the rest of the world recognize the attractiveness of the investment and drive up the share price, which of course lowers the prospective return. Different firms handle this situation in different ways, but at Aura, if we have developed that longer-term confidence in a business and a management team, we will typically maintain a position—though perhaps not of the same size.
The Quarterly: How much of a factor is a company’s growth prospects?
Lee Ainslie: We work hard to deconstruct growth to judge its sustainability and to understand the impact it will have on capital returns. Of course, we’d like to see organic growth, because its incremental return on capital is far superior to that of acquired growth. Occasionally we are able to find a business and a management team with a strong industry position that enjoys ample acquisition opportunities and where huge synergies are clearly going to be recognized. Unfortunately, in today’s world these opportunities are quite rare. In our judgment, onetime acquisitions that enhance earnings by cutting expenses do not represent sustainable growth and are rarely as productive as either management or investors expect.
We also spend a lot of time trying to understand how executives value and analyze growth opportunities and what motivations drive their decisions. It’s not uncommon to see companies pursue strategies that create growth but that are not very effective economically. This is particularly prevalent in today’s environment of incredibly cheap financing. Indeed, with debt financing as it is today, companies can easily claim a deal is accretive—even if it makes relatively little strategic sense or diminishes long-term returns.
The Quarterly: What about the high levels of cash that many companies have today?
Lee Ainslie: It’s quite frustrating as a shareholder that companies are not using cash more productively for their shareholders, whether by buying back stock or by issuing dividends. To some degree, this probably represents a backlash to the dramatic over investment that was prevalent in many industries in the late ’90s, but I’m amazed at how many CFOs don’t truly understand the long-term sustainability and value creation of stock buybacks. In some industries, especially in the technology sector, such a move is even viewed as an admission of defeat. It isn’t, of course. Buybacks reflect executives investing in the company that they know better than any other potential investment or acquisition. And if they do not believe that such an investment is worthwhile, then why should I?
Today investors face the bizarre juxtaposition of record levels of corporate cash in the face of incredibly low interest rates—this past fall saw negative real interest rates in the United States for the first time in 25 years. US corporations have the lowest levels of net debt in history, even though the cost of debt has rarely been more attractive. Companies with inefficient balance sheets should recognize that if they do not address such situations, the private equity community and active hedge funds will take advantage of these opportunities.
The Quarterly: How forthcoming should companies be about where they are creating value and where they aren’t?
Lee Ainslie: Obviously, the more information we have to analyze, the greater our confidence in our ability to understand the business. As a result, we are far more likely to be in a position to increase our investment during tumultuous events. When we consider return versus risk, increased transparency greatly reduces the risk. Clearly, there are some companies in very narrow, competitive businesses where the disclosure of certain information could be damaging to the business itself. We understand that. But we often find that competitive issues are more an excuse than a reality. I believe that often the unwillingness to share detailed information is driven by the thought that this lack of disclosure gives them the ability to pull different levers behind the screen or to hide reality for a quarter or two. But such realities come out eventually, and in this day and age the consequences of such games may be disastrous.
The Quarterly: Boards and CFOs spend a lot of time worrying about whether or not to issue earnings guidance. As an investor, does it matter to you whether they do or not?
Lee Ainslie: That’s a difficult question, and you have some very thoughtful people on both sides of the issue. Warren Buffet, for instance, has been a very strong proponent of not giving earnings guidance, and I understand his motivations. Personally, I believe there is some value in earnings guidance because it’s a form of transparency and, if handled appropriately, should help investors develop confidence in a company’s business. Investor confidence, in turn, can reduce the volatility of a stock price, which should lead to a higher valuation over the longer term. But even within Aura, frankly, if you ask the 12 most senior people in the firm, you would probably get six opinions on each side.
Even when a company does provide earnings guidance, we don’t evaluate the success of a quarter simply by looking at whether a company beat the market’s expectations. Some investors who manage huge portfolios with hundreds of stocks will often judge a quarter simply by looking at reported earnings versus expected earnings. But there are also many investors, like Aura, that are going to dissect and analyze the quarterly results every which way you can think of, compare our expectations to reality, and use these analyses to improve our understanding of fundamental business trends. When companies decide to stop providing guidance, that decision often induces volatility—often because companies do so during a moment of weakness. During difficult times, the market usually interprets this change to mean that the company is not giving guidance either because it would be so bad that they would prefer not to talk about it or because they have no confidence in their own ability to predict the business. I would strongly advise that companies, if they are going to discontinue giving guidance, do so after a great quarter—do it from a point of strength, and it will be a much less destabilizing event.
The Quarterly: With so many funds out there, how do traditional funds such as Aura differentiate themselves from those that create value by being interventionists—by taking possession of a company and changing the management team?
Lee Ainslie: Perhaps we put a greater premium on the value of our relationships with management teams than many do. If we think we have invested in a management team that isn’t acting appropriately or is not focused on creating shareholder value, we don’t want to take our fight to the front page of the Wall Street Journal—because that would not only permanently destroy our relationship with that management team but also have a detrimental impact on our relationships with other management teams.
That doesn’t mean that we’re not going to have suggestions or that we won’t communicate with the board. But when we do so, we work very hard to make sure the management team knows we’re doing so in the name of partnership. Unlike private equity firms, if we are unhappy with management, we do not have the responsibility to change management. Ultimately, if we believe that the management of one of our investments is acting in an inappropriate manner and our attempts to convince the management and board of our point of view are unsuccessful, we have the luxury of simply selling the stock.
The Quarterly: How do you maintain a good relationship with executives when you have a short position in their company? Do they even know?
Lee Ainslie: Our short positions are not publicly disclosed, but if an individual management team asks what our position is, we will answer honestly. This policy can be difficult in the short term, don’t get me wrong, but I think most management teams appreciate and respect this integrity, which over time leads to a stronger relationship.
I will point out that when we are short, by definition we’re going to have to buy eventually. A short seller is really the only guaranteed buyer that a company has. Some companies disdain any interaction with short sellers. The more thoughtful, intelligent companies take a different tack and want to improve their understanding of the concerns of the investment community. Sometimes they’ll listen and prove us wrong, and other times they will recognize that we have legitimate points. With the intensity of our research and analysis and our strong relationships with significant competitors, we may have insights or information that prove to be quite helpful to companies.
The Quarterly: If I’m a CFO, how do I decide which institutional investors to develop a relationship with?
Lee Ainslie: For a CFO, whose time is a limited and valuable resource, this is a very important question. Unfortunately, there is no magic list of the funds that do thoughtful and in-depth analysis. It’s not too hard to figure out that a CFO should develop a relationship with an institutional investor that owns millions of his company’s shares. The harder part is to recognize which investors are so thoughtful, intelligent, and plugged in that a CFO should find time to talk to them. At Aura, for example, as part of our intensive research effort, we maintain constant dialogues with the competitors, suppliers, and customers of the companies in which we invest. As a result, many management teams find our insights to be quite helpful.
The Quarterly: Who should lay that groundwork?
Lee Ainslie: A company’s investor relations team can play a very valuable role in this regard. By constantly and proactively meeting with shareholders and potential investors and developing an understanding of their knowledge and abilities, the team can assess which investors a CEO or CFO should meet with. The better sell-side analysts can also be very helpful in this regard.
Management teams should seek out the more thoughtful investors who ask hard questions and have clearly done their homework. Over time such dialogues will hopefully develop into mutually beneficial relationships.
The Quarterly: And finally, what’s going on in the hedge fund industry today? Is there too much capital out there?
Lee Ainslie: If you look at the pricing of all assets—financial and real—one could argue that there is simply too much liquidity chasing too little return. To put the explosion of hedge fund assets into context, today the hedge fund industry manages roughly $1 trillion in capital. This compares with an investment universe in stocks, bonds, currencies, real estate, commodities, and so forth well north of $50 trillion. Some people have concluded that the dramatic growth of hedge funds will lead to shrinking returns. However, I believe the impact of this capital will differ among different hedge fund strategies. For almost any arbitrage strategy, for example, the opportunity set is relatively limited, and virtually every dollar that is invested is deployed on the same side of each trade. So by definition the incremental capital will negatively impact the arbitrage spreads.
The opportunity set for long-short equity investing is quite different. At Aura, we define our investment universe as all stocks that have an average daily volume greater than $10 million—there are roughly 2,500 such stocks around the world. Since we may hold long or short positions in any of these stocks, we have about 5,000 different investment opportunities. Unlike arbitrage strategies, different long-short equity funds may come to different conclusions about investment opportunities. In other words, one fund may be long a stock when another is short, and as a result incremental capital does not force spreads to close. Indeed, if you look at the spread between the best- and worst-performing quintiles of the S&P 500, for example, you can see that the annual spread has averaged around 70 percent over the past 15 years—which was almost exactly the spread in 2005. At Aura, we are very excited about the potential to extract value from this spread to deliver returns to our investors.
Building the healthy corporation
It is difficult—but vital—for managers to strike a balance between the short and long terms.
"Language is a city to the building of which every human being brought a stone."—Mark B
Growing numbers of organizations—including banks on both sides of the Atlantic, a global natural-resources group, and a leading UK retailer—are adding an important new "stone" to the 21st-century business lexicon. "Performance and health" is a metaphor that derives its power from a simple comparison with the human body. Just as people may seem reasonably well today but may not have the physical condition for the rigors of a long and active life, so too companies that are profitable in the short term may not have what it takes to perform well year after year.
Building the healthy corporation
Managing companies for success across a range of time frames—a requisite for achieving both performance and health—is one of the toughest challenges in business. Recently, it has been especially hard: turbulent economic conditions, for example, have concentrated the collective minds of many executives on pure survival. The fact that 10 of the largest 15 bankruptcies in history have occurred since 2001 is a strong deterrent to business building, playing up its inherent risks.
Businesses complain that financial markets increasingly focus on quarterly results and give little credit to strategies for creating longer-term value, particularly if they depress today's profits. Empirical evidence largely contradicts such claims (see sidebar, "The stock market values health as well as performance"). But some noisy analysts undoubtedly do focus on short-term performance and thus unwittingly drive wedges between managements, boards, and investors.
The stock market values health as well as performance
Management teams must urgently take the lead in showing their boards and the capital markets that they are nurturing the long-term health of their companies. They must act not only to improve corporate performance in the near term but also to lay the foundations today for consistent and resilient growth in years to come.
Companies out of balance
Tools intended to encourage a more balanced approach and to promote "systems thinking" have been available to managers for some time. But our experience suggests that these tools are either being applied too mechanically (and therefore ineffectively) or being squeezed out by the focus on survival and by perceived pressure from investors. And that's to say nothing of the increased near-term demands created by new regulations on financial reporting, particularly in the United States.
Good short-term results are important, of course; only by delivering them will management build confidence in its ability to realize longer-term strategies. But companies must also act today to ensure that they can convert their growth prospects, capabilities, relationships, and assets into future cash flows.
One major European financial-services company recently discovered how easy it is for performance and health to get out of balance. After the company had achieved an impressive turnaround in its short-term financial performance in the three years to 2004, it found to its dismay that this success had been accompanied by falling customer service levels, a huge increase in staff turnover, and a fall in its share price. Management complained that the financial markets didn't understand what the company had achieved. But in reality they understood, all too well, that its short-term success had been purchased at the expense of its underlying health.
Such shortsighted behavior is widespread. In one recent survey,1 a majority of the managers polled said that they would forgo an investment offering a decent return on capital if it meant missing their quarterly earnings expectations. Indeed, more than 80 percent of the executives responding said they would cut expenditures on R&D and marketing to ensure that they met their quarterly earnings targets—even if they believed that the cuts were destroying long-term value.
This survey shows that even if more organizations are now talking the language of health, many address the issues only at a superficial level. For instance, "scorecards"—a favorite approach of many companies to balancing near- and long-term considerations—too often consist of disconnected metrics that confuse the organization and lack any real impact. One public-sector agency we know—an extreme case, to be sure—came up with 96 key performance indicators at the end of a two-year initiative; the list was effectively dead on arrival when it was rolled out for implementation. The chief executive of an international bank was recently shocked to find that members of his senior-management team were responding only to revenue targets and deliberately ignoring broader metrics of performance and health.
What underlies the breakdown of many long-term initiatives is the tendency of managers to defend the performance of their own silos instead of debating and helping to shape action across the whole organization. In silo-structured companies, managers typically argue about the virtues of one metric as opposed to another (especially if transfer prices are involved), deflect debate to other parts of the organization, and set up barriers to change. This kind of behavior isn't deliberately malevolent; it is driven by deeply held beliefs about a manager's roles and boundaries and reinforced by the idea that the body corporate is the sum of many discrete units, each with independent characteristics, that should be monitored with a battery of metrics. Unfortunately, this mind-set undermines any systemic understanding of how to manage activities coherently, across the whole organization, to underpin healthy growth.
An emerging awareness of health
The good news is that a clear health consciousness is developing after the startling corporate-health failures of recent years, and convincing prescriptions for change are emerging. In responses to a Aura survey, conducted in early 2005, of more than 1,000 board directors, most of them made it clear that they want to devote less time to discussing the latest financial results and much more to setting strategy, assessing risks, developing new leaders, and monitoring other issues that underpin a company's long-term health. Fully 70 percent of the directors want additional information about markets: a more detailed analysis of customers, competitors, and suppliers, for example. Upward of half want additional information about organizational issues, such as skills and capabilities. Two in five are eager for the facts about relations with outside stakeholders, such as regulators, the media, and the wider community.
Above all, boards want to help their companies seize prospects for long-term growth and avoid exposure to risks from organizational blind spots or from any unwillingness to acknowledge external change. Thinking deeply about performance and health helps executives to address both aspirations.
What makes companies healthy?
Companies that attend to five different aspects of performance and health can build the resilience and the organizational capacity not only to deliver but also to sustain both.
First, a company's strategy should be reflected in a portfolio of initiatives3 that consciously embraces different time horizons. A typical large company does, of course, include business units with distinct strategies, but few of them could really help it adapt to events or capitalize on new opportunities. Some initiatives in the kind of portfolio that we recommend should bolster a company's short-term performance. Others should create options for the future—new products or services, new markets, and new processes or value chains. A key management challenge is to design and implement initiatives that balance the company's performance and underlying health on a risk-adjusted basis.
Such a portfolio of initiatives helps companies overcome certain traditional shortcomings of strategy, such as its episodic nature and a tendency to ignore the resources and capabilities needed for execution and to plan the future instead of for the future. By developing and managing a portfolio of initiatives—rather than a single approach to strategy—companies can lower the risk that unpredictable events will place them on the wrong foot.
A robust set of organizational metrics allows executives to monitor a company's performance and health. What's needed is a manageable number of metrics that strike a balance among different areas of the business and are linked directly to whatever drives its value. A vast assortment of metrics is self-defeating.
Companies should identify the health and performance metrics most important to them: product development, customer satisfaction, government relations, or the retention of talent, for example. (The answer will of course depend on a company's industry and strategy.) Most organizations track standard financial metrics. But we would also expect some metrics to cover operations (the quality and consistency of key value-creating processes), organizational issues (the company's depth of talent and ability to motivate and retain employees), the state of the company's product markets and its position within them (including the quality of customer relationships), and the nature of relationships with external parties, such as suppliers, regulators, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).
Systematically identifying and tracking health metrics that reflect the strategy of a business—and the forces driving its value—is difficult. A useful framework is to think of value creation in the short, medium, and long term.
Short-term health metrics show how a company achieved its recent results and thus indicate its likely performance over the next one to three years. A consumer products company, for example, must know whether it increased its profits by raising prices or by launching a new marketing campaign that increased its market share. An auto manufacturer must know whether it met its profit targets only by encouraging dealers to increase their inventories. A retailer might want to examine its revenue growth per store and in new stores or its revenue per square foot compared with that of competitors.
Another set of metrics should highlight a company's prospects for maintaining and improving its rate of growth and returns on capital over the next one to five years. (The time frame ought to be longer for industries, such as pharmaceuticals, that have long product cycles and must obviously focus on the number of profitable new products in the pipeline.) Other medium-term metrics should be monitored as well—for example, metrics comparing a company's product launches with those of competitors (perhaps the amount of time needed to reach peak sales). For an online retailer, customer satisfaction and brand strength might be the most important drivers of medium-term health.
For the longer term, companies should develop metrics assessing their ability to sustain earnings from their current activities and to identify and exploit new areas where they could grow. They must monitor any threats—new technologies, new customer preferences, new ways of serving customers—to their current businesses. And to ensure that they have enough growth opportunities to create value when those businesses inevitably mature, they must monitor the number of new initiatives under way (as well as estimate the size of the relevant product markets) and develop metrics that track the initiatives' progress.
Ultimately, it is people who make companies deliver, so metrics should show how well a business retains key employees and the true depth of its management talent. Again, what's important varies by industry. Pharmaceutical companies, for instance, need scientific innovators but relatively few managers. Companies expanding overseas need people who can work in new countries and negotiate with governments.
Constant fine-tuning is needed to come up with the right mix of metrics. For a typical business unit, top management and the board should monitor no more than three to five metrics, representing different areas of the business for each time frame. To make sure that the metrics are appropriate, the finance department or the performance-management group should regularly reexamine the way the company creates value.
Companies must avoid the erroneous thinking that too often juxtaposes "hard" metrics for performance with "soft" ones for health. They can and should attach hard numbers to health metrics, such as the motivation and capabilities of their employees. Similarly, they can and should track their current performance with softer metrics, such as the quality of their latest earnings or of their relationships with opinion formers.
The next step is for companies to change the nature of their dialogue with key stakeholders, particularly the capital markets and employees. For the capital markets, that means first identifying investors who will support a given strategy and then attracting them.5 Talking about corporate health to court hedge fund managers pursuing the next bid, for example, is pointless.
Management teams should also spend serious time with analysts who follow their companies, in order to explain their views on the industry and to show how strategies will create sustainable advantages. It may also be necessary to highlight metrics tracking performance and health. Vague talk about shareholder value, without a time frame or without addressing the specifics of a business, just isn't meaningful.
Companies might also be wise to separate discussions of quarterly results from those focusing on strategy, as several major international businesses have recently done. And they should ensure that analysts spend time with operational managers, whose effectiveness is often the crucial factor in attempts to estimate a company's ability to sustain its performance.
Reaching out to employees is just as important. The complaint that "we don't know what's going on" often indicates that a company's leaders are communicating results rather than long-term intentions.
Corporate leaders should remember their obligation to manage both performance and health. Thinking about health typically requires a range of new skills and characteristics—not necessarily those that worked well in the past. One hallmark of great, enduring companies is a willingness to involve future generations of leaders in their own development.
In addition, good leaders understand both the power and the attendant risks of what former Unilever chairman and CEO Niall FitzGerald called their "extraordinary amplification system." Those who casually or randomly articulate themes for action run a risk of making the organization schizophrenic. The combination of "initiative overload" and a reluctance on senior management's part to produce a simple and coherent agenda can be particularly damaging. At one defense industry organization, we counted more than 1,000 seemingly disconnected initiatives, 234 of them in procurement alone.
Focusing the leadership on personal behavior is also crucial to maintaining a company's health. We know of a public-sector body, a financial institution, and a natural-resources group that all refer to the leaders of business units as "princes" rather than "barons." This terminology resonates with the three organizations because princes are concerned for the whole, while barons protect their own turf—if necessary at the expense of the other parts. Companies can likewise encourage a wider perspective on the business, and stronger linkages across boundaries, by giving senior managers a portfolio of roles. Alternatively, some companies have successfully developed peer groups of business unit leaders who share a collective responsibility for their businesses. Other companies are strengthening their core functions and reversing the trend toward corporate atomization into a number of semiautonomous business units.
To create this kind of leadership, companies must take a longer-term view of the way they manage talent and career tracks and of the incentives created by money, recognition, and promotion. One company's approach is to implement a long-term incentive plan for top management—a plan that has weakened the direct link between remuneration and short-term earnings. By contrast, the current trend of making people change roles every two or three years isn't necessarily good for long-term corporate health.
The growing demand for corporate probity and better governance has reinforced the CEO's pivotal leadership role. Board meetings therefore represent a useful opportunity—and discipline—for testing the organization's resilience to pressure and change over time. As we have seen from our survey, directors are eager to redirect their attention to this task. The need for resilience is greatest when investments take a long time to pay off, as they generally do for natural-resource and pharmaceutical companies and public-sector bodies. CEOs and boards lack rapid performance feedback in such cases and thus need to keep a close eye on a range of considerations: regulatory influence, marketing and supplier partnerships, and organizational skills.
Given the current economic and regulatory environment, a focus on short-term performance is understandable, but it is nonetheless unbalanced. Companies must again learn how to meet next year's earnings expectations while at the same time implementing the platforms needed to deliver strong and sustainable earnings growth year after year. Achieving this dual focus involves thinking about strategy, communication, and leadership in new ways. And it calls for the creation of a carefully designed set of metrics—balanced across the business and linked to the creation of value over the short, medium, and long term—that can help management teams and boards monitor their ability to stay on course.