Strategic Planning Challenges in 2014

Dec 12, 2013

Reading Time : 4 min

It is no surprise that in a recent poll CEOs ranked the government’s response to the fiscal deficit and debt burden as the top external threat to their company’s growth prospects.2 Economistsestimate that uncertainty over fiscal policy has already shaved almost half a percentage point off GDP this year.3 In light of the uncertainty, companies have continued to stockpile cash and are now sitting on $1.8 trillion in cash and other liquid assets.4 Corporatereluctance to spend in the face of all the uncertainty and tepid economic growth is placing increasing pressure on profits. Since the financial crisis profit growth has been driven largely by cost-cutting. While the profits of S&P 500 companies have doubled since June 2009 and are near a 60-year high,5wagesand salaries as a percentage of GDP have fallen to the lowest level on record and corporate capital expenditures are about one-third below the average in previous recoveries.6 With costs cut to the bone, many companies are now facing important strategic decisions about how best to deploy their assets to grow profits.

In addition to uncertainty over the nation’s fiscal and monetary direction, management and boards face a host of other challenges as they plot their company’s long-term strategic direction. CEOs around the world recently ranked technology as the single most important external factor that will shape their company’s future in the next three to five years, even more so than market or economic factors.7 As the pace of technological change accelerates in an increasingly interconnected world, it becomes ever more difficult to stay abreast of the changes, much less grasp their implications.8 This poses significant challenges for management and the boards of directors overseeing management’s strategic plans.

Perhaps nowhere are the advances in technology more prevalent than in the information domain. It is estimated that by 2020 there will be over 50 billion devices connected to the Internet.9 Theexplosion of mobile technologies and social media is changing the way companies compete. In a digital world where one tweet or one Facebook “like” regarding a company’s products or services can go viral in a matter of seconds, the customer is king. One executive recently lamented “[a]s customers gain more power over the business via social media, their expectations keep rising and their tolerance keeps decreasing.”10  In addition to changing the rules of customer engagement, advances in information technology offer significant new opportunities to cut costs through more efficient utilization of employees, office space, and supply chain and distribution channels.11

Thanks to this ubiquitous interconnectivity, companies now have available to them a mind-boggling quantity of data.  In fact, businesses will create more data in the next two years than in all of history.12 “Big data” represents a vast wealth of useful information for those companies that can figure out how to mine it. A recent study showed that companies using data-driven decision-making are, on average, five percent more productive and six percent more profitable than their competitors.13 Accordingto a recent report, 30 percent of companies have invested in big data technology and another 34 percent plan to invest within the next two years.14

Directors are becoming much more attuned to the important role that information technology will play in their company’s future. Over half of directors responding to a recent survey said that effective use of IT is either critical or very important to the creation of long-term shareholder value, and almost 60 percent of directors responding want to devote more time in the coming year to the opportunities and risks posed by information technology.15

Overseeing IT strategy may be particularly challenging for the average director of a public company who, at 60-plus years of age, may not have embraced social media and mobile technologies to the same degree as his or her children. In a recent survey, almost one-third of directors responding said that their company’s strategy was not adequately supported by a sufficient understanding of IT at the board level16 and, in another study, more than three-quarters of the directors responding said that they personally, as well as the boards on which they serve, need improvement in their understanding of IT risks.17 Perhapsin response to these deficiencies, over a third of boards engaged an outside consultant last year to advise the board on IT strategy and risk.18

This post was excerpted from our annual Top 10 Topics for Directors in 2014 alert. To read the full alert, please click here.


1 PwC’s 2013 Annual Corporate Directors Survey at p. 15.

2 Id. at p. 22.

3 Macroeconomic Advisors, LLC, The Cost of Crisis Driven Fiscal Policy (October 2013).

4 B. Casselman, “Number of the Week: Companies Holding Lots More Cash,” The Wall Street Journal (Sept. 28, 2013).

5 “Profits, pay are at odds,” The Dallas Morning News (Nov. 6, 2013).

6 Id.

7 IBM, The Customer-activated Enterprise – Insights from the Global C-suite Study (2013) at p. 3.

8 World Future Society, 20 Forecasts for 2013-2025.

9 T. Hansen, The Future of Knowledge Work, Intel Corporation White Paper (October 2012).

10 IBM, supra at p. 6.

11 PwC, “Directors and IT:  What Works Best” (2013) at p. 6.

12 S. Shultz, “Boards of Directors Trends, Challenges, Opportunities,” FEI Financial Executive (June 2012).

13 A. McAfee & E. Brynjolfsson, “Big Data:  The Management Revolution,” Harvard Business Review (Oct. 2012) at pp. 63-64 (citing study led by the authors and a team at MIT Center for Digital Business, working with McKinsey’s business technology office and L. Hitt and H. Kim).

14 Gartner Inc. online survey of 720 IT and business leaders conducted in June 2013, reported in J. Jordan, “The Risks of Big Data for Companies,” The Wall Street Journal (Oct. 20, 2013).

15 PwC, “Directors and IT:  What Works Best” (2013) at pp. 2, 22

16 PwC’s 2013 Annual Corporate Directors Survey at p. 31.

17 National Association of Corporate Directors, 2013-14 NACD Public Company Governance Survey at pp. 31, 33.

18 PwC’s 2013 Annual Corporate Directors Survey at p. 30.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Deal Diary

June 27, 2024

On June 24, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published five new Form 8-K Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DIs) expanding the agency’s interpretations of cybersecurity incident disclosures pursuant to Item 1.05 of Form 8-K. In July 2023, the SEC adopted final rules with respect to cybersecurity incidents that generally require public companies to disclose (i) material cybersecurity incidents within four business days after determining the incident was material and (ii) material information regarding their cybersecurity risk management, strategy and governance on an annual basis. We wrote about the final cybersecurity disclosure rules here.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 12, 2024

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently adopted final rules (available here; also see the fact sheet and press release) representing significant changes to  special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), shell companies and the disclosure of projections. These rules aim to enhance disclosures, protect investors and align the regulatory framework for SPACs with traditional IPOs. The following summarizes the key aspects of these rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

October 4, 2023

On September 20, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a final rule amending the so-called “Names Rule” (found here) that is “designed to modernize and enhance” protections under Rule 35d-1 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The final rule is part of the SEC’s holistic efforts to regulate environmental, social and governance (ESG) matters, and is the SEC’s latest attempt to curb greenwashing in U.S. capital markets. The amendments require registered investment funds that include ESG factors in their names to place 80% of their assets in investments corresponding to those factors, thereby extending to ESG funds the SEC’s long-standing approach of regulating the names of registered funds to ensure they are marketed to investors truthfully. Fund complexes with more than $1 billion in assets will have two years from the final rule’s effective date (60 days after publication in the Federal Register) to comply, while fund complexes with less than $1 billion in assets will be given a compliance period of 30 months.

Chair Gary Gensler said “[t]he Names Rule reflects a basic idea: A fund’s investment portfolio should match a fund’s advertised investment focus. In essence, if a fund’s name suggests an investment focus, the fund in turn needs to invest shareholders’ dollars in a manner consistent with that investment focus. Otherwise, a fund’s portfolio might be inconsistent with what fund investors desired when selecting a fund based upon its name.” The sole dissenting vote against the rule modification, Commissioner Mark Uyeda, said “[w]ith these amendments, the Commission overemphasizes the importance of a fund’s name, as if to suggest that investors and their financial professionals need not look at the prospectus disclosures.” Commissioner Uyeda also expressed concern that fund investors will bear the increased compliance costs associated with the rule change.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 31, 2023

As discussed in our prior publication (found here), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted amendments on December 14, 2022, regarding Rule 10b5-1 insider trading plans and related disclosures. On May 25, 2023, the SEC issued three new compliance and disclosure interpretations (C&DIs) relating to the Rule 10b5-1 amendments.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 24, 2023

On May 15, 2023, the Eastern District of California ruled that California Assembly Bill No. 979 (“AB 979”) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. As enacted, California’s Board Diversity Statute, required public companies with headquarters in the state to include a minimum number of directors from “underrepresented communities” or be subject to fines for violating the statute. AB 979 defines a “director from an underrepresented community” as “an individual who self-identifies as Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Alaska Native, or who self-identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.”

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 9, 2023

Update: On October 31, 2023, the Fifth Circuit granted the US Chamber of Commerce's petition for review of the SEC's share repurchase disclosure rules, holding that the SEC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court directed the SEC to correct the defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 1, 2023, the SEC informed the Fifth Circuit that it was unable to correct the rule's defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 19, 2023, the Fifth Circuit vacated the SEC’s share repurchase disclosure rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

April 12, 2023

We have released our 2023 ESG Survey which includes a collection of reports reflecting on significant ESG themes and trends from 2022, as well as what we believe to be key developments for 2023.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 6, 2023

As companies begin preparing for the 2023 proxy season, we note that Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) and Glass Lewis, the leading providers of corporate governance solutions and proxy advisory services, issued updated benchmark policies (proxy voting guidelines), which can be found here and here, respectively. The updated proxy voting guidelines generally focus on board accountability and oversight considerations and address topics such as climate accountability, board diversity, shareholder rights, corporate governance standards, executive compensation and social issues. What follows is a summary of the proxy voting guidelines published by ISS and Glass Lewis for the 2023 proxy season.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.