ink Advisory - M&A, Corporate Strategy, Wealth Advisory

INERTIA AS A TRAP:


LACK OF STRATEGIC CHANGE DESTROYS VALUE

Download (ENG)

In any mature market, there are both growing and stagnant companies. Some increase sales and operational efficiency, while others are content with maintaining revenues and profits. However, amidst shifts in consumer behavior, rising capital costs, and inflationary pressures, passive stance on strategic issues becomes especially dangerous: it directly impacts company's ability to maintain or create shareholder value.

This context makes it interesting to compare two players in the Russian dairy market. Company A and Company B operated in the same macroeconomic environment during 2020–2024 but took fundamentally different approaches to business and capital management.
Both companies produce dairy products, are located in different regions of the Central Federal District near Moscow, offer identical product lines, and had comparable business sizes as of 2020. They are selected due to the similarity of their businesses and market context - thus, the divergence in their development paths post-2020 is largely due to differing strategic approaches of their shareholders.

1. Business Growth and Strategy

Company A vs Company B: Financial Performance 2020–2024, RUB M
EV/EBITDA
Source: SPARK, ink Advisory calculations

Company A shows sustainable growth in both revenue and EBITDA: from RUB 6.9 bn in 2020 to RUB 13.7 bn in 2024, with EBITDA increasing more than fourfold.

This suggests an effective scaling strategy and a clear focus on operational efficiency by owners and top management.

Company B demonstrates modest sales growth from 2020–2024 (from RUB 6.2 bn to RUB 8.1 bn, with a dip in 2023 vs 2022). However, EBITDA margin significantly deteriorated. As a result, EBITDA declined by 7.3%.

This financial trajectory indicates either a lack of growth strategy or its poor execution by top management.

KEY VALUE


CREATION METRICS

2. Capital Efficiency and Economic profit (EP)

Company A maintained a ROIC consistently above WACC, thus generating economic profit (EP) and efficiently using invested capital.

Such metrics reflect Company A’s ability to manage invested capital efficiently and consistently increase its shareholder value.

Company B, on the other hand, demonstrates the opposite trend: since 2022 ROIC fell below WACC, with the gap worsening in 2023–2024.

Such a dynamic between ROIC and WACC indicates that Company B is destroying shareholder value, with negative returns for its owners.

Company A vs Company B:
Capital Efficiency, RUB M
EV/EBITDA
Notes:
EBIT – Earnings Before Interest and Taxes
NOPAT – Net Operating Profit After Tax
ROIC – Return On Invested Capital
WACC – Weighted Average Cost of Capital
EP Spread – Difference between ROIC and WACC
Source: SPARK, ink Advisory calculations

THE IMPACT OF STRATEGY


ON COMPANY VALUE AND SHAREHOLDER RETURNS

3. Missed Opportunity: Company B’s Failed Exit Timing

In 2020–2021, Company B had ROIC above WACC and potential for further growth of value – an ideal time to sell at peak valuation. However, its owners neither sought suitors for the business nor pursued aggressive growth. As a result, by the end of 2024, Company B's equity value declined more than 2 times.
This case illustrates a missed opportunity: owners could have exited at peak valuation, but they did not pull the trigger.

Businesses should ideally be sold at peak profitability, when valuation multiples yield maximum value. Without growth, worsening efficiency and apparent profitability decline owners see company valuations plummeting.

Company A vs Company B: Enterprise Value (EV) and Equity Value (EqV), RUB M
EV/EBITDA
Enterprise Value (EV) – Total business value (Equity plus Debt),
Equity Value (EqV) – Shareholders value

EV/EBITDA
IRR – Internal Rate of Return for shareholders
Source: SPARK, ink Advisory calculations

Company A used capital effectively and grew shareholder value: an end of 2024 exit would yield a shareholder IRR of 76,3% relative to the 2020 valuation.

This is the result of a systematic strategic effort that led to EBITDA growth and improved capital profitability.

Company B, by contrast, lost over 50% of equity value. Shareholder IRR in case of a 2024 exit would be –16,7%.

The decline in ROIC relative to WACC, driven by lack of strategic growth, resulted in value destruction.

Authors

Кудрат Нурматов
Kudrat Nurmatov
Managing Partner
k.nurmatov@ink-advisory.com
Руслан Измайлов
Ruslan Izmaylov
Managing Partner
r.izmaylov@ink-advisory.com
Катиев Никита, CFA
Nikita Katiev, CFA
n.katiev@ink-advisory.com
Up

This article is protected by copyright. The exclusive rights to this article belong to ink Advisory. Quoting is permitted provided the author(s) and source are properly cited. Any use of the article beyond quoting is allowed only with written permission from ink Advisory or if accompanied by the disclaimer: “Exclusive rights to this material belong to ink Advisory.”