Data Update 6 for 2026: In Search of Profitability!

     Crass and mercantile though this may sound, the end game for a business is to make money, and a business that fails this simple test cannot survive for long, no matter how noble its social mission, how great its products and how much it is loved by its customers and employees. In this post, I start with a defense of this mercantile objective, and argue that attempts to expand it to incorporate social good leave both businesses and societies worse off.  I look at business profitability, first in absolute terms in 2025, and then relative to revenues, examining why profit margins vary across businesses and sectors. I then raise the ante and argue that making money is too low a standard to hold companies to, since the capital invested in these companies can generate returns elsewhere, opening the door to bringing in the opportunity costs (costs of equity and capital) that I introduced in my last post. 

The Business End Game

    In 1970, Milton Friedman argued in a New York Times article that the social responsibility of a business is to deliver (and increase) profits. That view has come under attack in recent decades, but even in the immediate aftermath of the article’s appearance, there was some push back. Some came from people who argued that Friedman was missing details, with a few noting that it is cashflows, not earnings, that businesses should focus on, and others arguing that it is profits over the long term, not just immediate profits, that should be the focus of a business. My guess is that Professor Friedman would have agreed on both fronts, arguing that he was talking about economic, not accounting, profits, and that there was nothing in his mission statement that foreclosed a focus on long term profits.

    In the decades since, there has been a more fundamental critique of the Friedman business end game, coming from those who believe that his view is far too cramped and narrow a vision for a business, and that businesses have obligations to society and the planet that need to be incorporated into decision-making. Initially, these critics argued for imposing social and environmental constraints on the profitability objective, and while Friedman may have taken issue with some of these constraints, arguing that that is what laws and regulations should be doing, he would (probably) have gone along with most of them, given real world frictions. Later, though, these critics decided to go for the jugular, arguing that the business objective itself be reframed to include these broader responsibilities, with some arguing for stakeholder wealth maximization, where businesses seek to maximize value to their different stakeholders (employees, lenders, customers). That idea gained traction among some academics, many of whom never grappled with putting this objective into practice in real businesses, and among some CEOs, who realized that being accountable to everyone effectively meant being accountable to no one, but I am not a fan.  About two decades ago, stakeholder wealth maximization was supplemented by ESG, an acronym that quickly got buy-in from the establishment. In 2020, when I first looked at ESG, it was at the height of its allure, with investment managers (led by Blackrock), consultants (with McKinsey up front) and academics, all pushing for its adoption. Given the broad buy in, I expected to see clear and conclusive evidence that ESG was not just good for investors and businesses, but also for society, and I was disappointed on every front. The alpha that was attributed to ESG in investing was accidental, coming almost entirely from its overload on tech stocks in its early years, the evidence that ESG helped businesses deliver higher growth and profits was laughably weak, and on almost every societal dimension that ESG was supposed to make the world a better place, it had failed. Even on risk, the one dimension where a rational argument can be mounted for companies following the ESG rulebook, its impact was hazy, with no discernible effects on costs of capital and only anecdotal (and mostly ex-post) evidence for protecting against reputational and catastrophic risks. In the last five years, ESG has fallen out of favor, largely undone by its own internal inconsistencies, but the gravy train that lived off its largesse has moved on, and taken much of what filled the ESG space, repackaged it, and renamed it sustainability. While advocates for sustainability try to create distance between ESG and sustainability, in my (biased) view, much of that discussion is akin to painting lipstick on a pig and then debating what shade of lipstick suits the pig best, rather than attempting to create real change.

    It is with intent, therefor, that I named these three forces - stakeholder wealth maximization, ESG and sustainability - the theocratic trifecta in a post that I wrote three years ago, and argued that they failed for the same reasons.

First, by rooting themselves in virtue rather than in business sense, they rendered a disservice to their own cause. After all, once you decide that you are on the side of goodness, any critics of what you do, no matter how well merited their criticism might be, are quickly consigned to the badness heap, and not just ignored, but also reviled for lacking moral fibre. The problem, of course, is that if an action makes business sense (increases profitability and value), you would not need a virtue brigade to push for that action in the first place. Second, by leaving the definitions of their central ideas (stakeholder wealth, ESG and sustainability) amorphous, they made it easier to sell to investors and companies, but at the expense of consistency and focus. In my 2022 post on ESG, where the Russian invasion of Ukraine had forced its defenders to morph in the face of evidence that that world was more dependent on fossil fuels and defense companies than they had been willing to concede in earlier years, I noted the loss of credibility that comes from shifting definitions of goodness. Third, and most critically, in their zeal to push these concepts to a wider audience and get more people to buy in, they sold a lie, i.e., that you can be good (whatever that definition of good may be) without sacrifice. I have no idea whether ESG and sustainability salespeople meant what they said when they argued that investors could earn higher returns, by adding ESG constraints to their portfolios, and that companies could become more profitable, if they incorporated environmental and social considerations into decision making, but my categorization of people in these spaces as either useful idiots or feckless knaves stems from a refusal to face up to the inherent trade offs.

    After decades of pushback from critics of the Friedman business end game, I, for one, believe that Milton Friedman was right, and that we would all be better off to follow up and ask the question of what can be done, given that businesses are profit-seekers, to advance social good and curb externalities. I don't believe that the disclosure route, which seems to have become the fallback for some seeking better business behavior, will accomplish much, and it may do more harm than good. While laws and regulations can provide a partial fix, they are blunt instruments, and in a setting where businesses can move easily across borders, they may not be effective. Ultimately, we (as consumers and voter) get the businesses we deserve, and if after paying lip service to social causes, we buy products and vote for governments hat undercut those causes, no acronym or word salad will repair the breach.

Profitability in Businesses

    I meant to have a short lead-in on why profitability matters at businesses, but as you can see from the previous section, I did get side tracked, but the underlying message is that making money is central to business success and survival, and that measuring profitability is therefore a necessary part of assessing business success and value. 

Economic versus Accounting Profits

    The Friedman view on the business endgame may have been driven by a vision of economic profits, but in the real world, we are dependent on accounting measures of profits, which are, at best, imperfect substitutes for economic profits. The table below looks at an accounting income statement, highlighting the many measures of profits - gross, operating and net - that you will find in it:

Each profit measure has utility, with gross profits reflecting unit economics, the difference between gross and operating profits capturing economies of scale and the difference between operating and net profits being driven by taxes and choices that businesses make on debt and non-operating assets. In 2025, looking at the aggregate values (in millions of US $) for these line items across sectors, here are the numbers, for both global firms and just the US subset:

In the aggregate, global firms generated $6.2 trillion in net income and $7.7 trillion in operating income on revenues of $72.4 trillion, in 2025; during the same year, US firms generated $2.2 trillion in net income and $2.9 trillion in operating income on revenues of $22.7 trillion in revenues. Across sectors, and looking at revenues, industrials carried the most weight for the global sample, but health care generated the most revenues across the US sub-sample.

Profits scaled to Revenues - Profit Margins

    The problem with dollar profits is that comparisons across companies, industries or sectors are skewed by scale differences, and one simple scalar for earnings is revenues, yielding variants of profit margins. While you are undoubtedly familiar with these margin variants, their real use in analysis is in providing insight into business models

I am not a believer in financial ratio analysis, but I do believe that the income statements for companies, especially examined over time, give us insight into their business models and can help frame valuation narratives. In the table below, I look at differences in margins across sectors in 2025, again looking across global firms, and just US firms:

I have estimated margins, by sector, using the aggregated dollar values for profits and revenues from the previous table, and also reported the cross sectional distribution of company-level margins. Comparing the aggregated margin with the median margin across the sector should give you a sense of how top-heavy the sector is in terms of profitability. In technology, which has the highest weighted operating margin (24.7%) of across sectors, the median operating margin is only 3.41% (-0.30%) across global (US) technology firms; the bigger tech companies are money machines in a sector that still contains a lot of younger and smaller money-losing firms. Note that the margins are not computed for financial service firms, since revenues are often unreported (and mostly meaningless) and gross and operating profits don't have the same measurement value as they do for non-financial service firms.

Industry Margins and the AI Threat

    Breaking down sectors into industries provides more granular detail, and there is a link at the bottom of this post that reports the margin statistics, by industry group. At the risk of stating the obvious, there are large disparities on margins across industries, reflecting differences in unit economics, economies of scale and leverage, as can be seen in this table that lists the industry groupings with the highest and lowest aggregated operating margins among US firms:

At one end of the spectrum, you have industry groups like basic chemicals, which has an aggregated (median) gross margin of 9.31%, making the margin hill much steeper to climb, since operating margins and net margins will be lower. At the other end of the spectrum, in addition to tobacco and railroads (surprised, right?), you have system and application software, delivering an aggregated gross margin of 71.72%, operating margin of 33.21% and net margins of 25.49%, capturing the strong unit economics that characterize the business. 

    While high margins are a desirable feature for a business, these same high margins can make a business vulnerable to disruption, and the AI sell off that we have seen play out in the last few months in software reflects the concerns that investors have of AI putting significant downward pressure on software margins. If your pushback is that the drop off in revenues and margins has not happened yet, and that it is unfair to software firms to mark their market pricing down preemptively, this is exactly what markets are supposed to do, and these software companies benefited earlier in their lives, when market prices were marked up well ahead of the run-up in margins. You live by the sword (expectations of growth and high margins), you die by it (expectations that growth rates will hit a cliff and margins will decline)!

Time Trends in Profits

    I have tracked profit margins for companies for a long time (about three decades) in my datasets, and there is clear evidences that they have trended upwards during the period. In the graph below, I look at the net profit margins for the S&P 500 in the aggregate in this century (from 2000-2025):

As you can see, net profit margins have climbed over the last two decades for US companies, with a number of stories competing for why.  

• The most cynical explanation is that this increase in margins is all sleight-of-hand, where accountants are pushing through changes, aided and abetted by accounting rule-writers, to make companies look more profitable. As someone who has taken issue with the gaming of earnings that you often see at companies, I am disinclined to take this criticism seriously, since many of the changes in accounting rules (such as the expensing of stock-based compensation and R&D) should push earnings down, and accountants have more power to move income across periods than they do to increase the level of income.
• A second explanation is that the macroeconomic environment makes it easier for companies to deliver profits, and this explanation had resonance when interest rates were at historic lows in the last decade. As rates have risen back to more normal levels and the economy limps along, I am skeptical of the reasoning in this explanation.
• A third explanation, and this one has been eagerly adopted by many on the political left, is that that this reflects the increase in bargaining power for capital, relative especially to labor, implying that the increase in profits are coming primarily at the expense of worker wages. While there are certainly pockets of the economy where this is true, the margins for most manufacturing and service businesses, which have the highest employee count and wage costs, have stagnated or decreased over the last 20 years, indicating that neither capital nor labor has benefited at least in these sectors.
• The fourth, and in my view the most salient rationale for margin increases, is that the composition of the market has changed, as technology companies supplant old-economy companies, bringing superior unit economics and economies of scale to play. Put simple, a market that gets the largest portion of its value from tech companies will deliver much higher margins that one that gets much of its value from manufacturing and service businesses.

Should we concerned that margins may compress in the future? Of course, and we always should, but that compression, if it happens, will depend almost entirely on how the economy performs and the effects of disruption, if it is coming, for tech companies. 

Value Creation in Business

    If we define the threshold for business success as generating profits, we are setting the bar too low for a simple reason. Starting a business requires capital, and that capital can earn a return elsewhere on investment of equivalent risk. If those words sounds familiar, it is because I used them in my last post on hurdle rates to describe the costs of equity and capital. Thus, value creation requires a business to generate a return on its equity (capital) that exceeds its cost of equity (capital). That is a simple proposition, and a powerful one, but the measurement challenge we face is in determining the returns that companies generate, and for better or worse, we are dependent on accounting measures of these returns. A good way to see what an accounting return is measuring or at least trying to measure is to look at returns on equity and invested capital in a financial balance sheet:

While accounting returns are widely used in practice, as a gauge of investment quality, they can be skewed not just by accounting inconsistencies but efforts by accountants to do the "right thing" (like writing off bad investments. I have laid out my concerns in exhaustive and incredibly boring detail in this paper on accounting returns, which is dated, but still relevant. I summarize the factors that can cause accounting returns on equity and capital to deviate from reality in the picture below:

    With those concerns about accounting returns in place, I computed the accounting returns on equity and invested capital for all of the companies in my global sample (48.156 firms) and my US sample (5994 firms), and the following table reports the statistics for both groups, by sector:

Again, I report the accounting returns computed based on aggregated values first, and then the distributional statistics (first quartile, median, third quartile) for the company-level accounting returns. As with profit margins, you can see that even in sectors where the aggregated accounting returns are high (such as technology and communication services), the median value reflects the reality that most companies in these sectors struggle to deliver double-digit returns.

    Turning back to our value creation metric, where we compare accounting returns to costs of equity and capital, you have to be consistent, comparing equity returns to equity costs and capital returns to capital costs:

The excess return is a numeric, but as with all numbers in business, it is worth looking behind the number at its drivers, i.e., why do some business deliver returns that consistently outstrip their costs of equity and capital, whereas others struggle? The most powerful explainer of excess returns is not qualitative, since the capacity to generate excess returns comes from barriers to entry and competitive advantages. In the language of value investing, it is the width (strength of competitive advantages) and depth (sustainability of competitive advantage) of moats that determine whether a company can earn more than its cost of equity or capital:

If you are interested in this topic, and it is a fascinating one, Michael Mauboussin brings his erudition and knowledge into play in  this Morgan Stanley thought piece from October 2024.

    Since I have estimates of costs of equity and capital for each of my firms (see my last data update for details), I compute excess returns, by sector, for my global and US samples:

Given what you saw in the last table, with accounting returns, you should not be surprised to learn that only 29% (28%) of global firms earn returns on equity (capital) that exceed their costs of equity (capital). In fact, if you raise the threshold and look at companies that generate 5% or more as excess returns, the numbers drop off to 19% (17%) for equity (capital) excess returns. Most companies have trouble earning their costs of equity and capital, but if you look at the aggregated values, there are multiple sectors in the US (technology, consumer goods and communication services) that earn double digit excess returns, pointing again to larger companies within these sectors being able to set themselves apart from the rest.

    If your concern is that the global statistics are being skewed by regional differences, I compute the excess return statistics broken down by region:

As you can see, there is not a single geography where more than 50% of firms earn more than their required returns, with Japan ranking highest in percentages and Canada and Australia the lowest. Here again, the aggregated values tell a different story, with US companies collectively delivering excess returns of 8.44% on equity and 1.81% on capital, suggesting again that large US companies carry the weight of value creation in the market.

    Given how much time we spend in finance examining investments and developing decision rules (NPV>0, IRR>Hurdle rate) that are supposed to protect businesses from taking "bad" investments, you may be surprised at the prevalence of value destroying investments. Some of the failure at businesses to deliver returns on capital that exceed the cost of capital may reflect imperfections in our accounting return measures, since it is based upon earnings in the most recent year, and that may bias us against young and growing companies building up to scale. In my book on corporate life cycle, I highlight how accounting returns shift as companies go from youth to decline:

To see if this is a factor in our global findings on excess returns, I break companies down by age into deciles and compute excess returns across these groupings:

The table broadly reflects what you should expect to see, with a corporate life cycle, as the percent of companies that beat their cost of capital increase as companies age, but the aggregated excess returns peak in middle age (the middle of the life cycle), more pronounced with US than global firms.

A Profitability Wrap Up

    Looking at the data, and there is a danger here that I am overreaching, it seems to me that over the last four decades, moats have crumbled, partly as a result of global competition and partly because of disruption (which upends businesses, turning good businesses to bad ones), and the business landscape has tilted more decisively to larger firms, as more and more businesses become winner(s)-take-all. It is in this context that I take a more jaundiced view of what AI will do for company profitability and value. I believe that, as a disruptor, it will cause downward pressure on margins at most firms, and increase the advantages that larger firms have in each business. How do I reconcile this view with the happy talk of AI as a tool that will make companies more productive, and that the resulting lower costs will make them more profitable? Unless the AI tools that you are talking about are exclusive to these companies, in the sense that competitors cannot buy the same or equivalent tools, these AI tools will lower costs across the board, and competition will then kick in on the pricing front, lowering profitability. If that sounds like a reach, I would recommend a revisit of the US retail sector over the last three decades, as online retail, initially viewed as a boon by brick-and-mortar retail firms, ended up destroying most of them and reducing the margins for retail collectively. As consumers, we will benefit, but as investors or employees in the disrupted companies, we will pay a price that outweigh the benefits, for a sizable number of us. I do think that the AI disruption will be more akin to a slow-motion car wreck, in terms of its effect on overall profitability, and that the margin slippage will occur over time, but it will damaging. Time will tell!

YouTube Video

Datasets

1. Profit margins, by industry (US and Global)
2. Accounting returns and excess returns, by industry (US and Global)

Paper on Accounting Returns (Long and Boring)

1. Return on Capital, Return on Invested Capital and Return on Equity: Measurement and Implications

Data Update Posts for 2026

1. Data Update 1 for 2026: The Push and Pull of Data
2. Data Update 2 for 2026: Equities get tested and pass again!
3. Data Update 3 for 2026: The Trust Deficit - Bonds, Currencies, Gold and Bitcoin!
4. Data Update 4 for 2026: The Global Perspective
5. Data Update 5 for 2026: Risk and Hurdle Rates
6. Data Update 6 for 2026: In Search of Profitability
7. Data Update 7 for 2026: Debt and Taxes
8. Data Update 8 for 2026: Dividends and Buybacks

Data Update 7 for 2025: The End Game in Business!

I am in the third week of the corporate finance class that I teach at NYU Stern, and my students have been lulled into a false sense of complacency about what's coming, since I have not used a single metric or number in my class yet. In fact, we have spent almost four sessions (that is 15% of the overall class) talking about the end game in business. In an age when ESG, sustainability and stakeholder wealth maximization have all tried to elbow their way to the front of the line, all laying claim to being what business should be about, I have burnished my "moral troglodyte" standing by sticking with my belief that the end game in business is to maximize value, with earnings and cash flows driving that value, and that businesses that are profitable and value creating are in a much better position to do good, if they choose to try. In this post, I will focus on how companies around the world, and in different sectors, performed on their end game of delivering profits, by first focusing on profitability differences across businesses, then converting profitability into returns, and comparing these returns to the hurdle rates that I talked about in my last data update post.

Profitability - Absolute and Relative

    While we may all agree with the proverbial bottom line being profits, there seems to be no consensus on how best to measure profitability, either from an accounting or an economic perspective. In this section, I will begin with a simplistic breakdown of the income statement, the financial statement that is supposed to tell us how much a business generated in profits in during a period, and use it as an (imperfect) tool to understand the business economics. 

    While accountants remain focused on balance sheets, with a fixation of bringing intangibles on to the balance and marking everything up to the market, much of the information that we need to assess the value of a business comes from income and cash flow statements. I am not an accountant, but I do rely on accounting statements for the raw data that I use in corporate finance and valuation. I have tried my hand at financial statement analysis, as practiced by accountants, and discovered that for the most part, the analysis creates more confusions than clarity, as a multiplicity of ratios pull you in different directions. It is for that reason that I created my own version of an accounting class, that you can find on my webpage.

    During the course of the class, I assess the income statement, in its most general form, by looking at the multiple measures of earnings at different phases of the statement:

Which of these represents the bottom line for businesses? If you are a shareholder in a company, i.e., an equity investor, the measure that best reflects the profits the company made on the equity you invested in them is the earnings per share. That said, there is information in the measures of earnings as you climb the income statement, and there are reasons why as you move up the income statement, the growth rates you  observe may  be different:

• To get from net income to earnings per share, you bring in share count, and actions taken by companies that alter that share count will have effects. Thus, a company that issues new shares to fund its growth may see net income growth, but its earnings per share growth will lag, as the share count increases. Conversely, a company that buys back shares will see share count drop, and earnings per share growth will outpace net income growth.
• To get from operating income to net income, you have multiple variables to control for. The first  is taxes, and incorporating its effect will generally lead to lower net income, and the tax rate that you pay to get from pretax profit to net income is the effective tax rate. To the extent that you have cash on your balance, you will generate interest income which adds on to net income, but interest expenses on debt will reduce income, with the net effect being positive for companies with large cash balance, relative to the debt that they owe, and negative for firms with large net debt outstanding. There is also the twist of small (minority) holdings in other companies and the income you generate from those holdings that affect net income.
• To get from gross income to operating income, you have to bring in operating expenses that are not directly tied to sales. Thus, if you have substantial general and administrative costs or incur large selling and advertising costs or if you spend money on R&D (which accountants mistakenly still treat as operating expenses), your operating income will be lower than your gross income.
• Finally, to get from revenues to gross income, you net out the expenses incurred on producing the goods/services that you sell, with these expenses often bundled into a "cost of goods sold" categorization. While depreciation of capital investments made is usually separated out from costs of goods sold, and shown as an operating cost, there are some companies, where it is bundled into costs of goods sold. In many cases, the only statement where you will see depreciation and amortization as a line item is the statement of cash flows.

With that template in place, the place to start the assessment of corporate profitability is to to look at how much companies generated in each of the different earnings metrics around the world in 2024, broken down by sector:

For the financial services sector, note that I have left revenues, gross profit, EBITDA and operating profit as not applicable, because of their unique structure, where debt is raw material and revenue is tough to nail down. (Conventional banks often start their income statements with net interest income, which is interest expense on their debt/deposits netted out against net income, making it closer to nough to categorize and compare to non-financial firms). I have also computed the percentage of firms globally that reported positive profits, a minimalist test on profitability in 2024, and there are interesting findings (albeit some not surprising) in this table:

1. On a net profit basis, there is no contest for the sector that delivers the most net income. It is financials by a wide margin, accounting for a third of the net profits generated by all firms globally in 2024. In fact, technology, which is the sector with the highest market cap in 2024, is third on the list, with industrials taking second place.
2. As you move from down the income statement, the percentage of firms that report negative earnings decreases. Across the globe, close to 84% of firms had positive gross profits, but that drops to 67% with EBITDA, 62% percent with operating income and 61% with net income. 
3. Across sectors, health care has the highest percentage of money-losing companies, on every single metric, followed by materials and communication services, whereas utilities had the highest percentage of money makers.

While looking at dollar profits yields intriguing results, comparing them across sectors or regions is difficult to do, because they are in absolute terms, and the scale of businesses vary widely. The simple fix for that is to measure profitability relative to revenues, yielding profit margins - gross margins for gross profits, operating margins with operating profits and net margins with net profits. At the risk of stating these margins, not only are these margins not interchangeable, but they each convey information that is useful in understanding the economics of a business:

As you can see, each of the margins provides insight (noisy, but still useful) about different aspects of a business model.

    With gross margins, you are getting a measure of unit economics, i.e., the cost of producing the next unit of sale. Thus, for a software company, this cost is low or even zero, but for a manufacturing company, no matter how efficient, the cost will be higher. Even within businesses that look similar, subtle differences in business models can translate into different unit economics. For Netflix, adding a subscriber entails very little in additional cost, but for Spotify, a company that pays for the music based on what customers listen to, by the stream, the additional subscriber will come with additional cost. Just to get a big picture perspective on unit economics, I ranked industries based upon gross margin and arrived at the following list of the ten industries with the highest gross margins and the ten with the lowest:

With the caveat that accounting choices can affect these margins, you can see that the rankings do make intuitive sense. The list of industry groups that have the highest margins are disproportionately in technology, though infrastructure firms (oil and gas, green energy, telecom) also make the list since their investment is up front and not per added product sold. The list of industry group with the lowest margins are heavily tilted towards manufacturing and retail, the former because of the costs of making their products and the latter because of their intermediary status. 

    With operating margins, you are getting a handle on economies of scale. While every companies claims economies of scale as a rationale for why margins should increase as they get larger, the truth is more nuanced. Economies of scale will be a contributor to improving margins only if a company has significant operating expenses (SG&A, Marketing) that grow at a rate lower than revenues. To measure the potential for economies of scale, I looked at the difference between gross and operating margins, across industries, with the rationale that companies with a large difference have a greater potential for economies of scale.

Many of the industry groups in the lowest difference (between gross and operating margin) list were also on the low gross margin list, and the implication is not upbeat. When valuing or analyzing these firms, not only should you expect low margins, but those margins will not magically improve, just because a firm becomes bigger.

    The EBITDA margin is an intermediate stop, and it serves two purposes. If provides a ranking based upon operating cash flow, rather than operating earnings, and for businesses that have significant depreciation, that difference can be substantial. It is also a rough measure of capital intensity  since to generate large depreciation/amortization, these companies also had to have substantial cap ex. Using the difference between EBITDA and operating margin as a measure of capital intensity, the following table lists the industries with the most and least capital intensity:

Profit margins by industry: US, Global, Emerging Markets, Europe, Japan, India and China

Again, there are few surprises on this list, including the presence of biotech at the top of the most capital intensive list, but that is due to the significant amortization line items on their balance sheets, perhaps from writing off failed R&D, and real estate on the top of the least capital intensive list, but the real estate segment in question is for real estate operations, not ownership.

    The net margin, in many ways, is the least informative of the profit margins, because there are so many wild cards at play, starting with differences in taxes (higher taxes lower net income), financial leverage (more leverage reduces net margins), cash holdings (interest from higher cash balances increases net income) and cross holdings (with varying effects depending on how they are accounted for, and whether they make or lose money). Ranking companies based upon net margin may measure everything from differences in financial leverage (more net debt should lead to lower margins) to extent of cross holdings and non-operating investments (more of these investments can lead to higher margins).

Accounting Returns

    While scaling profits to revenues to get margins provides valuable information about business models and their efficacy, scaling profits to capital invested in a business is a useful tool for assessing the efficiency of capital allocation at the business., The two measures of profits from the previous section that are scaled to capital are operating income (before and after taxes) and net income, with the former measured against total invested capital (from equity and debt) and the latter against just equity capital. Using a financial balance sheet structure again, here is what we get:

The achilles heel for accounting return measures is their almost total dependence on accounting numbers, with operating (net) income coming from income statements and invested capital (equity) from accounting balance sheets. Any systematic mistakes that accountants make (such as not treating leases as debt, which was the default until 2019, and treating R&D as an operating expense, which is still the case) will skew accounting returns. In addition, accounting decisions to write off an asset or take restructuring charges will make the calculation of invested capital more difficult. I wrote a long (and boring) paper on the mechanics of computing accounting returns laying out these and other challenges in computing accounting returns, and you are welcome to browse through it, if you want.    

       If you are willing to live with the limitations, the accounting returns become proxies for what a business earns on its equity (with return on equity) and as a business (with the cost of capital). Since the essence of creating value is that you need to earn more than your cost of capital, you can synthesize returns with the costs of equity and capital that I talked about in the last post, to get measures of excess returns:

I have the data to compute the accounting returns for the 48,000 publicly traded companies in my sample, though there are estimation choices that I had to make, when computing returns on equity and capital:

Thus, you will note that I have bypassed accounting rules and capitalized R&D and leases (even in countries where it is not required) to come up with my versions of earnings and invested capital. Having computed the return on capital (equity) for each company, I then compared that return to the cost of capital (equity) to get a measure of excess returns for the company. In the table below, I start by breaking companies down by sector, and looking at the statistics on excess returns, by sector:

Note that across all firms, only about 30% of firms earn a return on capital that exceeds the cost of capital. Removing money-losing firms, which have negative returns on capital from the sample, improves the statistic a little, but even across money making firms, roughly half of all firms earn less the the cost of capital.While the proportions of firms that earn returns that exceed the cost of equity (capital) vary across sectors, there is no sector where an overwhelming majority of firms earn excess returns.

    I disaggregate the sectors into industry groups and rank them based upon excess returns in the table below, with the subtext being that industries that earn well above their cost of capital are value creators (good businesses) and those that earn below are value destroyers (bad businesses):

Excess returns by industry: US, Global, Emerging Markets, Europe, Japan, India and China

There are some industry groups on this list that point to the weakness of using last year's earnings to get accounting return on capital. You will note that biotech drug companies post disastrously negative returns on capital but many of these firms are young firms, with some having little or no revenues, and their defense would be that the negative accounting returns reflect where they fall in the life cycle. Commodity companies cycle between the most negative and most returns lists, with earnings varying across the cycle; for these firms, using average return on capital over a longer period should provide more credible results.

    Finally, I look at excess returns earned by non-financial service companies by sub-region, again to see if companies in some parts of the world are better positioned to create value than others:

As you can see, there is no part of the world that is immune from this problem, and only 29% of all firms globally earn more than their cost of capital. Even if you eliminate firms with negative earnings, the proportion of firms that earn more than their cost of capital is only 46.5%. 

Implications

    I have been doing versions of this table every year for the last decade, and the results you see in this year's table, i.e., that 70% of global companies generate returns on equity (capital) that are less tan their hurdle rates, has remained roughly static for that period.  

1. Making money is not enough for success: In many businesses, public or private, managers and even owners seem to think that making money (having a positive profit) represents success, not recognizing that the capital invested in these businesses could have been invested elsewhere to earn returns. 
2. Corporate governance is a necessity; Marty Lipton, a renowned corporate lawyer and critic of this things activist argued that activist investing was not necessary because most companies were well managed, and did not need prodding to make the right choices. The data in this post suggests otherwise, with most companies needing reminders from outside investors about the opportunity cost of capital.
3. Companies are not fatted calves: In the last few years, two groups of people have targeted companies - politicians arguing that companies are price-gouging and the virtue crowd (ESG, sustainability and stakeholder wealth maximizers) pushing for companies to spend more on making the world a better place. Implicit in the arguments made by both groups is the assumption that companies are, at least collectively, are immensely profitable and that they can afford to share some of those spoils with other stakeholders (cutting prices for customers with the first group and spending lavishly on advancing social agendas with the second). That may be true for a subset of firms, but for most companies, making money has only become more difficult over the decades, and making enough money to cover the cost of the capital that they raise to create their businesses is an even harder reach. Asking these already stretched companies to spend more money to make the world a better place will only add to the likelihood that they will snap, under the pressures. 

A few months ago, I was asked to give testimony to a Canadian legislative committee that was planning to force Canadian banks to lend less to fossil fuel companies and more to green energy firms, a terrible idea that seems to have found traction in some circles. If you isolate the Canadian banks in the sample, they collectively generated returns on equity of 8.1%, with two thirds of banks earning less than their costs of equity. Pressuring these banks to lend less to their best customers (in terms of credit worthiness) and more to their worst customers (green energy company are, for the most part, financial basket cases) is a recipe for pushing these banks into distress, and most of the costs of that distress will be borne not by shareholders, but by bank depositors.

YouTube Video

Data Updates for 2025

1. Data Update 1 for 2025: The Draw (and Danger) of Data!
2. Data Update 2 for 2025: The Party continued for US Equities
3. Data Update 3 for 2025: The times they are a'changin'!
4. Data Update 4 for 2025: Interest Rates, Inflation and Central Banks!
5. Data Update 5 for 2025: It's a small world, after all!
6. Data Update 6 for 2025: From Macro to Micro - The Hurdle Rate Question!
7. Data Update 7 for 2025: The End Game in Business!
8. Data Update 8 for 2025: Debt, Taxes and Default - An Unholy Trifecta!
9. Data Update 9 for 2025: Dividend Policy - Inertia and Me-tooism Rule!

Data Links

1. Excess returns by industry: US, Global, Emerging Markets, Europe, Japan, India and China
2. Profit margins by industry: US, Global, Emerging Markets, Europe, Japan, India and China

Paper Links

1. Return on Capital (ROC), Return on Invested Capital (ROIC) and Return on Equity: Measurement and Implications

    

Data Update 5 for 2024: Profitability - The End Game for Business?

In my last three posts, I looked at the macro (equity risk premiums, default spreads, risk free rates) and micro (company risk measures) that feed into the expected returns we demand on investments, and argued that these expected returns become hurdle rates for businesses, in the form of costs of equity and capital. Since businesses invest that capital in their operations, generally, and in individual projects (or assets), specifically, the big question is whether they generate enough in profits to meet these hurdle rate requirements. In this post, I start by looking at the end game for businesses, and how that choice plays out in investment rules for these businesses, and then examine how much businesses generated in profits in 2023, scaled to both revenues and invested capital. 

The End Game in Business

    If you start a business, what is your end game? Your answer to that question will determine not just how you approach running the business, but also the details of how you pick investments, choose a financing mix and decide how much to return to shareholders, as dividend or buybacks. While private businesses are often described as profit maximizers, the truth is that if they should be value maximizers. In fact, that objective of value maximization drives every aspect of the business, as can be seen in this big picture perspective in corporate finance:

For some companies, especially mature ones, value and profit maximization may converge, but for most, they will not. Thus, a company with growth potential may be willing to generate less in profits now, or even make losses, to advance its growth prospects. In fact, the biggest critique of the companies that have emerged in this century, many in social media, tech and green energy, is that they have  prioritized scaling up and growth so much that they have failed to pay enough attention to their business models and profitability.

    For decades, the notion of maximizing value has been central to corporate finance, though there have been disagreements about whether maximizing stock prices would get you the same outcome, since that latter requires assumptions about market efficiency. In the last two decades, though, there are many who have argued that maximizing value and stockholder wealth is far too narrow an objective, for businesses, because it puts shareholders ahead of the other stakeholders in enterprises:

It is the belief that stockholder wealth maximization shortchanges other stakeholders that has given rise to stakeholder wealth maximization, a misguided concept where the end game for businesses is redefined to maximize the interests of all stakeholders. In addition to being impractical, it misses the fact that shareholders are given primacy in businesses because they are the only claim holders that have no contractual claims against the business, accepting  residual cash flows, If stakeholder wealth maximization is allowed to play out, it will result in confused corporatism, good for top managers who use stakeholder interests to become accountable to none of the stakeholders:

As you can see, I am not a fan of confused corporatism, arguing that giving a business multiple objectives will mangle decision making, leaving businesses looking like government companies and universities, wasteful entities unsure about their missions. In fact, it is that skepticism that has made me a critic of ESG and sustainability, offshoots of stakeholder wealth maximization, suffering from all of its faults, with greed and messy scoring making them worse. 

    It may seem odd to you that I am spending so much time defending the centrality of profitability  to a business, but it is a sign of how distorted this discussion has become that it is even necessary. In fact, you may find my full-throated defense of generating profits and creating value to be distasteful, but if you are an advocate for the point of view that businesses have broader social purposes, the reality is that for businesses to do good, they have  to be financial healthy and profitable. Consequently, you should be just as interested, as I am, in the profitability of companies around the world, albeit for different reasons. My interest is in judging them on their capacity to generate value, and yours would be to see if they are generating enough as surplus so that they can do good for the world. 

Profitability: Measures and Scalars

   Measuring profitability at a business is messier than you may think, since it is not just enough for a business to make money, but it has to make enough money to justify the capital invested in it. The first step is understanding profitability is recognizing that there are multiple measures of profit, and that each measure they captures a different aspect of a business:

It is worth emphasizing that these profit numbers reflect two influences, both of which can skew the numbers. The first is the explicit role of accountants in measuring profits implies that inconsistent accounting rules will lead to profits being systematically mis-measured, a point I have made in my posts on how R&D is routinely mis-categorized by accountants. The other is the implicit effect of tax laws, since taxes are based upon earnings, creating an incentive to understate earnings or even report losses, on the part of some businesses. That said, global (US) companies collectively generated $5.3 trillion ($1.8 trillion) in net income in 2023, and the pie charts below provide the sector breakdowns for global and US companies:

Notwithstanding their trials and tribulations since 2008, financial service firms (banks, insurance companies, investment banks and brokerage firms) account for the largest slice of the income pie, for both US and global companies, with energy and technology next on the list.

Profit Margins

    While aggregate income earned is an important number, it is an inadequate measure of profitability, especially when comparisons across firms, when it is not scaled to something that companies share. As as a first scalar, I look at profits, relative to revenues, which yields margins, with multiple measures, depending upon the profit measure used:

Looking across US and global companies, broken down by sector, I  look at profit margins in 2023:

Note that financial service companies are conspicuously absent from the margin list, for a simple reason. Most financial service firms have no revenues, though they have their analogs - loans for banks, insurance premiums for insurance companies etc. Among the sectors, energy stands out, generating the highest margins globally, and the second highest, after technology firms in the United States. Before the sector gets targeted as being excessively profitable, it is also one that is subject to volatility, caused by swings in oil prices; in 2020, the sector was the worst performing on profitability, as oil prices plummeted that year.

    Does profitability vary across the globe? To answer that question, I look at differences in margins across sub-regions of the world:

You may be surprised to see Eastern European and Russian companies with the highest margins in the world, but that can be explained by two phenomena. The first is the preponderance of natural resource companies in this region, and energy companies had a profitable year in 2023. The second is that the sanctions imposed after 2021 on doing business in Russia drove  foreign competitors out of the market, leaving the market almost entirely to domestic companies. At the other end of the spectrum, Chinese and Southeast Asian companies have the lowest net margins, highlighting the reality that big markets are not always profitable ones.

  Finally, there is a relationship between corporate age and profitability, with younger companies often struggling more to deliver profits, with business models still in flux and no economies of scale. In the fact, the pathway of a company through the life cycle can be seen through the lens of profit margins:

Early in the life cycle, the focus will be on gross margins, partly because there are losses on almost every other earnings measure. As companies enter growth, the focus will shift to operating margins, albeit before taxes, as companies still are sheltered from paying taxes by past losses. In maturity, with debt entering the financing mix, net margins become good measures of profitability, and in decline, as earnings decline and capital expenditures ease, EBITDA margins dominate. In the table below, I look at global companies, broken down into decals, based upon corporate age, and compute profit margins across the deciles:

The youngest companies hold their own on gross and EBITDA margins, but they drop off as you move to operating nnd net margins.

    In summary, profit margins are a useful measure of profitability, but they vary across sectors for many reasons, and you can have great companies with low margins and below-average companies that have higher margins. Costco has sub-par operating margins, barely hitting 5%, but makes up for it with high sales volume, whereas there are luxury retailers with two or three times higher margins that struggle to create value.

Return on Investment

    The second scalar for profits is the capital invested in the assets that generate these profits. Here again, there are two paths to measuring returns on investment, and the best way to differentiate them is to think of them in the context of a financial balance sheet:

The accounting return on equity is computed by dividing the net income, the equity investor's income measure, by the book value of equity and the return on invested capital is computed, relative to the book value of invested capital, the cumulative values of book values of equity and debt, with cash netted out. Looking at accounting returns, broken down by sector, for US and global companies, here is what 2023 delivered:

In both the US and globally, technology companies deliver the highest accounting returns, but these returns are skewed by the accounting inconsistencies in capitalizing R&D expenses. While I partially correct for this by capitalizing R&D expenses, it is only a partial correction, and the returns are still overstated. The worst accounting returns are delivered by real estate companies, though they too are skewed by tax considerations, with expensing  to reduce taxes paid, rather than getting earnings right.

Excess Returns

    In the final assessment, I bring together the costs of equity and capital estimated in the last post and the accounting returns in this one, to answer a critical question that every business faces, i.e,, whether the returns earned on its investment exceed its hurdle rate. As with the measurement of returns, excess returns require consistent comparisons, with accounting returns on equity compared to costs of equity, and returns on capital to costs of capital:

These excess returns are not perfect or precise, by any stretch of the imagination, with mistakes made in assessing risk parameters (betas and ratings) causing errors in the cost of capital and accounting choices and inconsistencies affecting accounting returns. That said, they remain noisy estimates of a company's competitive advantages and moats, with strong moats going with positive excess returns, no moats translating into excess returns close to zero and bad businesses generating negative excess returns.

    I start again by looking at the sector breakdown,  both US and global, of excess returns in 2023, in the table below:

In computing excess returns, I did add a qualifier, which is that I would do the comparison only among money making companies; after all, money losing companies will have accounting returns that are negative and less than hurdle rates. With each sector, to assess profitability, you have to look at the percentage of companies that make money and then at the percent of these money making firms that earn more than the hurdle rate. With financial service firms, where only the return on equity is meaningful, 57% (64%) of US (global) firms have positive net income, and of these firms, 82% (60%) generated returns on equity that exceeded their cost of equity. In contrast, with health care firms, only 13% (35%) of US (global) firms have positive net income, and about 68% (53%) of these firms earn returns on equity that exceed the cost of equity.  

    In a final cut, I looked at excess returns by region of the world, again looking at only money-making companies in each region:

To assess the profitability of companies in each region, I again look at t the percent of companies that are money-making, and then at the percent of these money-making companies that generate accounting returns that exceed the cost of capital. To provide an example, 82% of Japanese companies make money, the highest percentage of money-makers in the world, but only 40% of these money-making companies earn returns that exceed the hurdle rate, second only to China on that statistic. The US has the highest percentage (73%) of money-making companies that generate returns on equity that exceed their hurdle rates, but only 37% of US companies have positive net income. Australian and Canadian companies stand out again, in terms of percentages of companies that are money losers, and out of curiosity, I did take a closer look at the individual companies in these markets. It turns out that the money-losing is endemic among smaller publicly traded companies in these markets, with many operating in materials and mining, and the losses reflect both company health and life cycle, as well as the tax code (which allows generous depreciation of assets). In fact, the largest companies in Australia and Canada deliver enough profits to carry the aggregated accounting returns (estimated by dividing the total earnings across all companies by the total invested capital) to respectable levels.

    In the most sobering statistic, if you aggregate money-losers with the companies that earn less than their hurdle rates, as you should, there is not a single sector or region of the world, where a majority of firms earn more than their hurdle rates. 

In 2023, close to 80% of all firms globally earned returns on capital that lagged their costs of capital. Creating value is clearly far more difficult in practice than on paper or in case studies!

A Wrap!

I started this post by talking about the end game in business, arguing for profitability as a starting point and value as the end goal. The critics of that view, who want to expand the end game to include more stakeholders and a broader mission (ESG, Sustainability) seem to be operating on the presumption that shareholders are getting a much larger slice of the pie than they deserve. That may be true, if you look at the biggest winners in the economy and markets, but in the aggregate, the game of business has only become harder to play over time, as globalization has left companies scrabbling to earn their costs of capital. In fact, a decade of low interest rates and inflation have only made things worse, by making risk capital accessible to young companies, eager to disrupt the status quo.

YouTube Video

Datasets

1. Profit Margins, by Industry (US, Global)
2. Accounting Returns and Excess Returns, by Industry (US, Global)

Data Update Posts for 2024

1. Data Update 1 for 2024: The Data Speaks, but what is it saying?
2. Data Update 2 for 2024: A Stock Comeback - Winning the Expectations Game!
3. Data Update 3 for 2024: Interest Rates in 2023 - A Rule-breaking Year
4. Data Update 4 for 2024: Danger and Opportunity - Bringing Risk into the Equation
5. Data Update 5 for 2024: Profitability - The End Game for Business?