Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 202

What matters most? A good industry or a good management?

With the 2017 Federal Budget targeting the profits of banks for a special levy, and questions about who’s next, let’s take a look at business profitability and shatter some myths. There are misunderstandings about excess profits that some well-intentioned but uninformed or envious people suggest are the norm, but aren’t.

There are thousands of good and truly impressive performers among our 840,000 employing-businesses in Australia. It’s a tiny minority indeed, but a minority we would surely all like to become more mainstream.

 

The business of business

Businesses are started for all sorts of reasons: to buy a job; to satisfy an entrepreneurial or freedom-seeking passion; or to make more money than in a job, via profits on top of a wage or salary. Most don’t achieve any of these. We currently have around 2.1 million businesses in Australia according to the ABS. Some 280,000 start up each year and nearly the same number close each year, mostly within three years of commencement. About 78% of businesses, on average, make a profit each year, 2% break even and 20% run at a loss. It’s tough.

The average profit of the businesses other than general government - in terms of the net return after tax on shareholder funds (ROSF) - has averaged just over 5% over the past 30 years, or about the same as the 10-year bond rate over the same period.

Surely it is much better among our big corporations, say the 1,500 biggest, accounting for around 42% of the nation’s revenue. Sadly, no. Over the past five years, their average has been just 8.7%, or much the same as the return on commercial property which is a passive asset. Some 20% of these 1,500 giants ran at a loss over the five-year period. Yes, one in five.

The 100 worst loss-making enterprises ranged from a five-year average ROSF of minus 16% pa to more than ten times that annual loss. The average over the 100 or so corporations was minus 44.7% pa, although slightly-less scary on a weighted average basis at minus 30.0%. These 100 negative earners were evenly split between foreign and local corporations. Almost one in five of the 100 were caught unprepared for the minerals prices collapse over this five-year period.

Of course, a number of them were investing heavily for the very long term and they could not be considered mismanaged.

Our 100 best government businesses, made up of Government Business Enterprises (GBEs) and general government organisations, fared a lot better, and had an average ROSF of 9.8% over the five years to 2016. Eleven of them achieved world best practice profitability of 20% or more. Around 80% of them bettered the average 10-year bond rate (3.1%) over this period. That’s no mean achievement for government enterprises, and half of the best 100 are listed below.

profitability

profitability

 

Performance of other clusters of companies

The 100 biggest corporations that account for just under one fifth (19%) of the nation’s revenue had an average ROSF of 11.6%, but only 8.4% on a weighted basis – also around the passive return on commercial property. Almost one in seven (18%) ran at a loss over the five-year period.

Cutting company taxes a bit wouldn’t improve this awful performance much. Why just get a 7% improvement to the bottom line by cutting the tax rate from 30% to 25%, when knowing how to achieve world’s best practice (WBP) profitability could double or even quadruple the bottom line, as well as the top line, profit.

Let’s look into serious territory where WBP profitability is common rather than scarce.

Our 100 best listed public companies on the ASX had an average ROSF of 23.3% over the five years to 2016. Some 47 of these had an average over 20%, matching WBP. Among those in the top 10 were: Tamawood (house construction), Platinum (funds management), Blackmores (vitamins), the Dulux Group (paint manufacture), Cochlear (hearing implants) and Telstra (telecommunications). These and a dozen others achieved over 30% in their returns on shareholder funds after tax over the five years to 2016.

The 100 best local private companies’ average ROSF, at 26.4%, was even better, not by a lot, but over half (53) did better than WBP over the five-year period. Names that are familiar to most include: Wotif; Lorna Jane; Penfolds Motors; Carpet Call; the GHD Group and Kennards Hire.

The 100 best foreign companies averaged a much higher 51.3% ROSF over five years, or double the 100 best public listed corporations and nearly double the 100 best privates. All 100 beat the cut-off for WBP profitability in ROSF terms at over 20%. There are a lot of well-known and household names in this list, including: Bechtel; Hilton International; FedEx; Diageo; Philips; Colgate Palmolive; Nestle and Apple.

The 100 Best Companies over the five years, regardless of the type of company or ownership, saw the average ROSF jump to a staggering 62.9%. But the best 100 have averaged well over 30% for decades, without suggesting they have always been the same companies. That doesn’t happen: companies get taken over; split up or new management breaks the rules of success that got the company there in the first place.

 

Types of ownership do not matter much

What is particularly interesting about the outstanding performance of these companies is that there is very little difference in profitability between types of ownership, locality of ownership (local or foreign) or industries.

profitability

Indeed, when it comes to industries, they imply there is no such thing as a ‘bad’ industry, only inadequate or inappropriate management. In fact, three of the best 100 were in mining, whereas there were 18 miners in the 100 worst companies during a time when mineral prices plummeted. And there were 16 manufacturers in the best 100 list, an industry considered to be one of the toughest around these days.

The ladder below is an interesting one in this regard.

profitability

These returns are way above the entry level of WBP profitability of 20% ROSF where the winners are to be found, and should not be seen as the yardstick of success. Too few can ever achieve these best 100 levels, and it is not expected. Achieving 20%, consistently, will do just fine.

 

Phil Ruthven is Founder of IBISWorld and is recognised as one of Australia’s foremost business strategists and futurists.

  •   18 May 2017
  • 1
  •      
  •   

RELATED ARTICLES

Why August company reporting season was poor

Corporate earnings show resilience against volatility but risks remain

16 ASX stocks to buy and hold forever, updated

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

It’s time for LICs to die

A high-profile dividend cut and a prominent fund manager’s apology have reignited a long-running debate. If investors can access similar exposures more cheaply and efficiently elsewhere, what exactly is keeping LICs alive?

Testamentary trusts survived the trust tax. The drafting battle has just begun.

The fight over testamentary trusts looked settled. Then the draft legislation arrived. Hidden in a technical detail is a question that could force many families to rethink wills they thought were already future-proof.

The new capital gains tax trap for your portfolio

Investors have long accepted one portfolio rule without much question. A major tax shift could change that calculation entirely, forcing difficult trade-offs between risk, discipline and an overlooked cost lurking beneath.

The retirement scorecard: how many of these questions can you answer?

From the maths of retirement, estimating spending and picking the right asset allocation to survive a poor decade, here are the questions every retiree – current or future – should be able to answer for themselves.

How the typical Australian Family could save $844,350 in taxes

The value of a testamentary trust is not determined by wealth alone. Depending on circumstances, it can reduce the tax burden on inherited income, create efficiencies and help build intergenerational wealth.

The housing slide could become a crash

House prices are sliding across Australia, yet the most dangerous ingredient for a housing crash is still missing. If job losses surge amid growing economic risks, today's correction could become a historic property downturn.

Latest Updates

Testamentary trusts: Treasury has picked the wrong reading

A decades-old estate planning tool has survived one tax crackdown only to be caught by another. The surprise isn't who the reform is targeting, but who could end up paying the price for drafting choices made years ago.

Latest from Morningstar

Does an American retirement rule work for Australians?

The 4% rule has survived decades of scrutiny, but Australia's retirement system changes the equation in ways most overlook. Before accepting or rejecting this rule of thumb, it pays to understand what really drives retirement outcomes.

Shares

Glencore lands on the ASX. Should BHP and Rio shareholders switch?

A coal-heavy miner with governance concerns isn't the obvious choice for investors. Yet, Glencore's ASX listing may offer something BHP and Rio can't. The challenge is working out whether the opportunity outweighs the risks.

Why does the system treat capital gains and losses differently?

Investors are often told not to let tax policy drive their investment decisions. Yet, under the new CGT rules, portfolio construction, volatility and even how assets are owned may have an outsized impact on their final outcome.

Economy

Three common sense reforms that Australia needs

What do frozen bank accounts, mortgage traps and pension penalties have in common? They're all symptoms of a system that makes life much harder. Yet the obvious solutions seem to have escaped the attention of Canberra.

Shares

The hidden cost of government debt for investors

Some of the important effects of rising public debt never make the headlines. Research shows the immediate effects may already be unfolding, influencing corporate behaviour in ways that many investors would never suspect.

Investment strategies

When do fundamentals matter?

Is fundamental investing losing its grip on markets? Investors continue to search for valuation-based explanations for every price move, but the dominant force behind short-term returns may be something else altogether.

Sponsors

Alliances

  • ASA-Logo-RGB-ActiveGreen-web.png

© 2026 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.