UNDERSTANDING FAMILY BUSINESSES AS VALUE. CREATION ... Keywords:
FITS model, simulation modelling, system dynamics, family governance,.
UNDERSTANDING FAMILY BUSINESSES AS VALUE CREATION SYSTEMS THROUGH SYSTEM DYNAMICS Gianluca Colombo Laboratory of System Modelling Institute of Management University of Lugano (USI) Via G. Buffi 13, 6900 Lugano, Switzerland Tel: +41586664735 Fax: +41586664647 [email protected] Matti Koiranen School of Business and Economics University of Jyväskylä P.O Box 35 (MaE) FI-40014 University of Jyväskylä, Finland Tel: +358405012631 Fax: +358142603331 [email protected] Francesco Chirico Laboratory of System Modelling Institute of Management University of Lugano (USI) Via G. Buffi 13, 6900 Lugano, Switzerland Tel: +41586664548 Fax: +41586664647 [email protected] ABSTRACT The present paper highlights the main results of the FITS project through simulations made with the system dynamics methodology. The model, although still rather tentative, can be seen as a conceptual map showing the relations between key variables. The model includes several causal and reciprocal relationships with given parameters and assumptions. The challenges of dynamism, especially when the family enterprise is transferred to the third generation become very visible and much more understandable through these simulations. We conclude that in the ‘best scenario’ liquidation, to reduce ownership fragmentation, is less effective than non-liquidation in terms of family wealth, while liquidation is more effective than non-liquidation in terms of transgenerational value. Keywords: FITS model, simulation modelling, system dynamics, family governance, family ownership.
1
INTRODUCTION: HOW VALUE IS CREATED AND ERODED IN FAMILY BUSINESSES In this article family businesses are viewed as value generator systems, where the value is created across generations, accumulated inside the firms and/or distributed to the families’ members in accordance to the ownership structure (degree of fragmentation). The value is accumulated through the innovations implemented and it is eroded due to the innovation obsolescence. This process is affected by two variables: the psychological ownership shown by the shareholders and the dynamic capabilities generated by the knowledge-related human capital and by the social capital. The FITS model is here simplified in order to make the computer simulation simpler (see figure 1). Figure 1: Simplified version of the FITS model without feedback loops
KNOLWEDGE-RELATED HUMAN CAPITAL DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES
SOCIAL CAPITAL TRANS-GENERATIONAL VALUE ACCUMULATED IN FAMILY BUSINESS VIA INNOVATIONS
PSYCHOLOGICAL OWNERSHIP
FAMILY WEALTH
The aim of the present research is to explore, extend and test the dynamics of the FITS model through computer simulations in system dynamics and provide new insights about the family business evolution across generations. Family governance and family ownership play a crucial role for the creation of value in family business. The two variables will be analysed and simulated in order to capture their effect on our model as a whole. A list of all the variables used in the paper is indicated in table 1.
2
Table 1: List of the variables KNOWLEDGE (or Knowledge-related human capital). Knowledge is defined
as pure knowledge and skill which family and non-family members working in the family firm have gained and developed through education and experience (see Chapter 1.1 and Chirico, 2006a). SOCIAL CAPITAL. Social capital is the network of relationships possessed by an individual or social unit, and the sum of actual and potential resources embedded within, available through, and derived from such a network (see Chapter 2.1, Salvato, 2006). DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES. Dynamic capabilities are defined as processes
embedded in firms designed to create, integrate and recombine internal and external resources in new and distinctive ways and, at times, shed them to build and sustain entrepreneurial performance in environments of rapid change (Teece et al., 1997). Absorptive capacity is itself a dynamic capability (Zhara and George, 2002). OWNERSHIP. Psychological ownership is the psychologically experienced-phenomenon in which owners, managers and employees develop possessive feelings that the family firm is “mine” or “ours”. For instance, strength of identifying oneself with the family business, sense of belonging to the family business, strong feeling of responsibility towards the family business and so on (see Chapter 3.1, Koiranen, 2006). PSYCHOLOGICAL
TRANS-GENERATIONAL VALUE CREATION IN FAMILY BUSINESS. It
is accumulated through continuous creation of business innovations that spans generations in family business. FAMILY WEALTH. Family wealth is represented by the family’s patrimony
outside the family business, invested in fixed assets (such as land, buildings, etc.) and held in current assets (deposits, outside shares etc.). Shareholder structure indicates the degree of ownership fragmentation/concentration in the family firm. OWNERSHIP/SHAREHOLDER
STRUCTURE.
FAMILY GOVERNANCE. Family governance specifies the governance
policies adopted by the family firm (family management, family council, family protocols, educational programs and transfer of value to new generations).
3
THE ROLE OF OWNERSHIP AND GOVERNANCE IN VALUE CREATION “We need passion for ownership since true ownership itself has a strong element of passion….Ownership makes a difference. Ownership has an indispensable role to play in creating sustainable value in companies, for overall prosperity.” These quotations are taken from Carlsson’s preface in the book called “Ownership and Value Creation.” (Carlsson, 2001: 9). In the foreword of Neubauer and Lank (1998: 9), John Ward writes: “For the familyowned business, good governance makes all the difference. Family firms with effective governance practices are more likely to do strategic planning and to do succession planning. On average, they grow faster and live longer. Moreover, they are more likely to develop the important formal policies addressing critical family business issues such as redemption, family employment and dividends, etc.” The above quotations suggest that ownership and owners’ governance are of vital importance in the value creation process of family firms. The FITS Project sets out to study, through simulation, whether it is possible to model the impact of ownership concentration/fragmentation as well as the strength of the feeling of psychological ownership in family business performance (or more precisely, their impacts on the value creation of family business). Furthermore, also the increase or decrease of family wealth outside the family business holdings will be studied. The impact of ownership will be modelled together with the dynamic capabilities created by knowledge-related human capital and social capital. The simulation will be done with a system dynamics analysis to be explained somewhat later in this article. Owners have a key responsibility to define the mission, goals, strategy and structure of their family business. They are responsible for governance, selecting the board of directors, distribution of ownership, and educating the next generation. (Hilburt-Davis and Dyer, 2003: 53-54). Ownership does not only provide money and power, it also provides the owner an identity. Emphasising the socio-psychological nature of ownership, Dittmar (1992) thinks “to have is to be”. In the broad sense, ownership is a socially constructed phenomenon and the possessions have also symbolic dimensions. They “… can serve as important vehicles for expressing and reproducing owners’ selfdefinition and identity” (Dittmar, 1991: 182). Kao et al., (2005: 40-42) write that ownership is “…the right of the individual or a group of individuals to make proprietary decisions and to act upon them, governing or controlling resources, including human resources for the purpose of satisfying one’s needs or desires.” Later on, they expand their thinking from this utility function to a socalled social function. The emphasis of the utility function is self-interest, i.e. satisfying one’s own needs and wants. The social function of ownership reminds about the need of sharing with others and serving the common good, like many family firms have practiced throughout history and are still doing today. Combining the utility and social function of owning expands the ownership thinking to stewardship thinking, where stewardship is defined as “making proprietary decision and act upon for self-interest, and assume stewardship responsibility for the common good”. This expansion shows that ownership is not just a right but also a responsibility (Kao et al. 2005: 53). One of the owners’ rights and responsibilities is to decide on the dividend policy and the ownership structure. Over the years, legal and economic ownership tends to be fragmented. If siblings start the business, already by the second generation is a cousins’ 4
consortium in ownership, but normally this challenging structure arrives after the second succession when the third generation becomes owners. At this stage, if not earlier, very often a “we and they” – culture becomes dominant in a family business setting, which is due to the fragmentation. Examples are many, such as: -
We are active owners and they are passive; We are retiring and they are the new generation; We are blood relatives but they are in-laws; We are real, committed psychological owners and they are non-committed coupon-cutters (the latter referring to investor-type owners whose only or main interest is in short-term earnings from the company, either by dividends or by sales profits when selling out).
Schwass (2005: 30) has come to the conclusion that over a very long-term view, there are three family business archetypes: ephemeral, preserving, and entrepreneurial family businesses. The ephemeral family business is typically a single-generation business or a business, which fails during the early stages of the second generation. It is a “me” business, and it has not really moved from “me” to “us”. A preserving family business may have survived over several generations, but has not grown (typically a family farm or a vineyard). Fixed assets are often physically limited and not conducive to expanding the business. Social and human capital resources are also limited. The third archetype, i.e. entrepreneurial family firms are our main interest in the FITS Project. These firms embrace the complexity based on families growing over multiple generations. As seen from the value creation perspective, the entrepreneurial family business owners choose to stay together, and develop the firm for the added value. This is important, as otherwise the firm would not be able to satisfy the needs of a growing family (Schwass, 2005: 32). If the family members cannot agree on the mission, goals, and strategy of the firm, the fragmentation of ownership does not only dilute the power created by legal and economic ownership but, more importantly, often diminishes the feeling of identity and reduces the level of psychological ownership. Normally, the amount of dynamic capabilities, created by human and social capital, would increase over the years. So why do family firms easily fall into decline and become unproductive after the first two generations? With the forthcoming system dynamics analysis we try to make visible to the readers that the main force of cooling down the value creation in family business is the dilution of psychological ownership and the decrease of entrepreneurial innovativeness over generations. In the long run this could lead to the situation where the value creation turns negative and the family business becomes non-profitable. But, as successful old family firms have demonstrated (see convincing examples in Schwass, 2005; Neubauer and Lank, 1998, Aronoff and Ward, 2001), this negative turn can be avoided with good governance. One way to influence this development is by implementing a proactive strategy concerning the amount of owners, the dividend policy (vs. retaining profits in the firm) and educating the following generation how to practice responsible, entrepreneurial ownership. In addition, one challenge is to create governance mechanisms that are effective in the middle of the family and/or business growth. If the owners can do this, there is a possibility of increasing both the value of the family business and the financial wealth of the owning family. 5
As regards to the other variables of the FITS simulation model (like human and social capital creating dynamic capabilities) we do not want to repeat here what has been said earlier in this book. Based on the reviewed literature, we consider that: -
Owners have a key role to play in the value creation process; Ownership fragmentation, without a proper governance, can be very detrimental; Psychological ownership (in Carlsson’s terms: “a passion”) is a key factor behind the commitment to longevity (Carlsson, 2001: 9).
Finally, we would like to say that very often the owning families do not regard the increased shareholder value as their only target. Unlike many conventional economic theories suggest, business schools teach, strategic planning textbooks tell, and models describe, but in the real world the ownership thinking of owning families may be different. The family business owners may be more interested in successful stewardship, limited growth, remaining private, offering jobs to family members, and securing rather than taking high risks. It is also important to remember that our simulation exercise does not include explicitly certain key variables, like physical assets, debt/equity-ratio, market competition, nature of industrial branch, nor board composition. Even without those important variables, our model offers more than enough complexity. METHOD: A SYSTEM DYNAMICS APPROACH System dynamics is an approach to modelling the dynamics of complex feedback systems through formal computer simulations. Feedback is a core concept in system dynamics. It refers to the situation of X affecting Y and Y, in turn, affecting X through a chain of causes and effects. Causal loop diagrams are used to represent the feedbacks of a system, that is, the way a system is connected by positive (self-reinforcing) and negative (self-balancing or self-correcting) feedback loops (Forrester, 1961, 1968; Sterman, 2000)1: +/-
X
Y +/-
For more details, see Chapter 4.1, Chirico, 2006c, Appendix D. Feedback loops are useful to capture and communicate mental models but they have many limitations. For instance, they do not take into consideration the stocks and flows of the system (Sterman, 2000). System dynamics is based on the Principle of Accumulation. It states that all dynamic behaviours in the world occur when flows accumulate in stocks2:
1
Balancing and reinforcing loops can be identified by counting the number of “-” and “+” in the feedback loop. A feedback loop is a balancing loop if the number of “-” is odd; it is a reinforcing loop if the number of “-” is even or zero. 2
Sterman (2000:192) explains that “- Stocks are represented by rectangles; - Inflows by a pipe pointing into (adding to) the stock; - Outflows by a pipe pointing out (subtracting from) the stock; - Valves (at the center of flows) control the flows; - Clouds (at the extremities) represent the sources and sinks for the flows (boundaries)”.
6
Variable (e.g. Rate of Knowledge Creation) +
+
INFLOW (e.g. Creation of Knowledge)
Variable (e.g. Rate of Knowledge Erosion)
STOCK (e.g. Knowledge)
+
+
OUTFLOW ( e.g. Erosion of Knowledge)
Stocks and flows are the basic building blocks of a system dynamics model which allow us to analyse the feedback loops of the system3 (Forrester, 1961, 1968; Morecroft, 1982, 1983; Morecroft and Sterman, 1992; Sterman, 2000; Mollona, 2000; Lomi and Larsen, 2001). A stock is an entity which is accumulated over time by inflows and depleted by outflows. It accumulates past events characterising the state of the system. A Stock typically has a certain value at each moment of time (e.g. knowledge). Mathematically, a stock (S) can be seen as an integration (accumulation) of the difference between inflow and outflow (F) in the long term: St = ∫ [Inflow(t ) − Outflow(t )]dt + S (t 0) t
t0
A flow changes a stock over time by inflows (e.g. creation of knowledge) and outflows (e.g. erosion of knowledge). It is typically measured over a certain interval of time. Mathematically, a flow (F) can be seen as the derivative of the stock (S) with respect to the time (t) that is its net rate of change: F = inflow – outflow; F =
dS dt
Stocks are the source of delays. A delay is the amount of time by which an event is retarded. It is the time between the instant at which a given event occurs and the instant at which a related aspect of that event occurs (e.g. time between the creation and absorption of Knowledge). Delays are responsible for generating effects which are very often nonlinear and counter-intuitive in the real world (Sterman, 2000). The system dynamics methodology follows three steps: - taking into consideration a System4; - Model5 the System; - Simulate6 the Model. To make simulations, we assign numerical values to all parameters, initial values to stocks and proper shapes to graphic functions according to the literature, case studies analysed and, sometimes, assumptions when useful information cannot be taken from literature and case studies. Sterman (1992: 10) points out that “the skilled modeller uses all available information sources to specify the relationships in the model (numerical data, interviews, direct observation and other techniques)”.
3
A series of variables are also needed to simulate the model of the system. A system exists and operates in time and space. 5 A model is a simplified representation of a system at some particular point in time or space intended to promote understanding of the real system. 6 A simulation is the iteration of a model in such a way that it operates on time or space to compress it, thus enabling one to perceive the interactions that would not otherwise be apparent because of their separation in time or space. 4
7
The initial values of stocks as well as the values given to parameters in each scenario are shown in Appendix A; the computational equations are listed in Appendix B; and the graphs of the lookup variables in Appendix C. The software used for the computer simulation is Vensim PLE for Windows, Version 5.4d with the following settings: INITIAL TIME: 0; FINAL TIME: 90 (the software Vensim makes the simulation over three generations of a generic family firm in which each generation lasts 30 years); TIME STEP: 0.125 (results of simulation are saved every 1.5 months. This way, numerical integration errors are kept very small); UNITS FOR TIME: 1 year (the software Vensim simulates the model every year). FEEDBACK LOOPS Feedback loops built up through the review of the literature and case studies analysed in this book are plotted in figure 2. The following relationships emerge: 1) The family members’ learning process increases the knowledge-related human capital which is in part transformed into dynamic capabilities with positive effects on the creation of value over time. 2) The socialisation within and outside the family increases the social capital, which contributes to increase the dynamic capabilities and in turn, the value generated. 3) Dynamic capabilities positively influence the creation of knowledge-related human capital and social capital. 4) The identification of family members with the family business increases the psychological ownership, which positively affects the trans-generational value. 5) Part of this value is passed to family members, thereby increasing the family wealth. The value distributed may vary over time as a function of the pressures of family members to transfer value from the family business to the family. We assume a normal rate of dividends paid to shareholders which increases when the pressures increase and vice versa. 6) The shareholder structure is characterised by a degree of ownership fragmentation. A highly fragmented structure will increase the pressures to transfer value from the family business to the family. 7) If the ownership fragmentation increases, the psychological ownership and the socialisation inside the family decrease. 8) The higher the psychological ownership, the lower the pressures to transfer value to the family. 9) The higher the social capital and, in particular, the trust among family members, the lower the pressures to transfer value to the family. 10) The higher the family wealth, the lower the ownership fragmentation as the family can use other assets than family business shares to manage the succession. In particular, family wealth can be used to liquidate some shareholders, thereby reducing ownership fragmentation. Some reinforcing loops as well as balancing loops can be observed (see figure 2).
8
Figure 2: Feedback loops of the model* KNOWLEDGE-RELATED HUMAN CAPITAL
+
+ SOCIAL CAPITAL -
DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES
+
+ TRANS-GENERATIONAL VALUE THROUGH INNOVATIONS
+
+
PSYCHOLOGICAL OWNERSHIP
-
+ PRESSURES TO TRANSFER VALUE FROM THE FAMILY BUSINESS TO THE FAMILY
FAMILY + WEALTH
OWNERSHIP FRAGMENTATION -
(*) The “+” means that the two variables move in the same direction, all other things being equal. The “-” means that the two variables move in opposite directions, all other things being equal.
We briefly examine those loops in order to show their reciprocal effects: Loop 1: the “Learning loop” The knowledge-related human capital is partially used to generate dynamic capabilities in terms of absorptive capacity (AC) with some delays. In turns, AC creates new knowledge. Loop 2: the “Socialisation loop” Transforming the social capital into dynamic capabilities also takes time and thus a delay can be assumed in this relationship. Dynamic capabilities are then applied to enrich the family members’ social capital. Loop 3: the “Cooling – off / recomposing loop”. The ownership fragmentation increases the pressures to transfer value to the family, thereby enhancing the family wealth. In turn, family wealth can be used to manage the succession process and avoid ownership fragmentation. In this way, the pressures to drain the trans-generational value from the family business are reduced. This loop is also affected by a delay that occurs in implementing the succession policy. Loop 4: the “Identification loops”. The psychological ownership increases the trans-generational value accumulated in the family business. Part of this value is passed to family members at a rate which is influenced by the pressures to transfer value from the family business to the family. Such pressures depend on the degree of fragmentation in the ownership structure. The family wealth accumulated outside the family business can be used to implement a succession policy that avoids the ownership fragmentation (as we described in loop 3). A concentrated ownership positively affects the psychological ownership. As a consequence, it contributes to increasing trans-generational value creation and reduces the value draining process.
9
Loop 5: the “Trustiness loops”. The social capital affects the trans-generational value, via the dynamic capabilities. It also reduces the pressures to drain the value from the business to the family due to the trust between family members, in particular between active and non-active shareholders. The model also shows that the social capital can be destroyed by the ownership fragmentation. FROM FEEDBACK LOOPS TO THE DYNAMIC MODEL In this section we move from the feedback loops described above to the system dynamics model as plotted in figure 3. It gives a simplified representation of the complex dynamic process which leads to trans-generational value creation in family businesses. Some direct relations have not been included in the model to avoid redundancies (e.g. the relation between ‘social capital or psychological ownership’ and ‘pressures to transfer value from the family business to the family’). We identify the following stocks accumulated and depleted by inflows and outflows: •
•
•
•
• •
•
Knowledge-related human capital is increased by the inflow of new knowledge created through investments in knowledge and it is decreased by the erosion of knowledge. Dynamic capabilities (in terms of absorptive capacity) have a positive effect on the adoption of new knowledge. Social capital is a stock increased by the new relationships inside and outside the family and decreased by the erosion of the social relationships. The ownership fragmentation reduces the creation of new social relationships among family members and increases the erosion rate of social capital. Dynamic capabilities are increased by the flow of new dynamic capabilities and decreased by the erosion of dynamic capabilities. The creation of new dynamic capabilities is increased by the knowledge-related human capital and by the social capital. Psychological ownership is a feeling increased by identification processes of family members with the family business and eroded by the cooling-off phenomenon. The identification is probably stimulated by the value accumulated in the family business. The cooling-off is on the contrary stimulated by the ownership fragmentation and by the value accumulated within the family. Trans-generational value accumulated in the family business is a stock variable measured as the difference between the new value created and the value destroyed over time. Family wealth is the result of the value passed from the family business to the family through the dividends, the profits and capital gains generated by family’s investments outside family business and diminished by the losses generated by those investments. The shareholder structure is a consequence of the generational drift (shareholders scenario), which is a natural process that increases the number of family members who become shareholders, in case of passive succession policies. The fragmentation can be reduced either by the adoption of active succession policies or by an ownership re-composition realised by the new generation (e.g. through family buy-outs, liquidation i.e. paying-off some shareholders, etc.).
10
Modelling through system dynamics is aimed at identifying and testing the efficacy of alternative policies that can be implemented by the agents in order to influence the system’s behaviour (Sterman, 2006: 37). In family businesses we can recognise some family governance policies named FGI (family governance index: family council, family management, educational programs, family protocols and transfer of value to new generations) in the system dynamic model in figure 3. These policies may be identified in the following areas: Knowledge-related human capital development: In this area we include all the actions that allow the learning process of family and non-family members. From the owning family’s perspective it is important to underline the policies aimed at forming the new generation of active and non active shareholders, family directors and managers. Among these policies we include (see Chirico 2006a): • The transmission of family’s values to the new generation; • The selection of university and postgraduate programs; • Work experiences outside the family business. Social capital development: In this area, we consider the actions that enrich and consolidate the social relationships among family members as well as the relationships outside the family. These actions contribute to create a system of strong networks that can be leveraged to increase the family business’s dynamic capabilities. Among these networks we underline the importance of: • Professional network; • Social and institutional network. In order to exploit those networks, it is crucial to manage the relational dimension of social capital and in particular the trust among family members and the reputation of both family and family business (see Chapter 2.1, Salvato, 2006; Chapter 2.2, Salvato, Pernicone and Chirico, 2006). Among the actions aimed at improving the relational dimension of the institutional social capital we include: the organisation of family meetings, the institution of a family council and the stipulation of family protocols. Membership in the family council can also be used as a tool to increase psychological ownership. The professional networks can be founded also before a family member starts his/her professional life, and are built during the education phase and during the work experiences outside the family business. This network is then improved leveraging on the opportunities offered by the profession life inside the family business, but also serving in the industrial and professional associations as well as in the service clubs, political parties, churches, and so on. Dynamic capabilities: In this area we include the actions that allow the firm to convert knowledge-related human capital and social capital into dynamic capabilities (see Chapter 1.2, Chirico, 2006b; and Chapter 2.1, Salvato, 2006). Psychological ownership development: It is obviously very difficult to influence family members’ feelings about the family business, as these feelings are formed through personal experiences and inner mental growth. Nevertheless, we consider that some actions can be implemented to increase the feeling of ownership. The transmission of family values to the new generation is one of these actions that can create a platform on which the psychological ownership can be created. Most of the actions aimed at reinforcing the trust among family members and the family business reputation can also have a positive effect on the psychological ownership (see Chapter 3.1, Koiranen, 2006). This means the level of social capital has a positive relationship with the psychological ownership; we can also use the value accumulated in the family 11
business as a proxy of family and family firm reputation, which reinforces the identification. Succession planning: If the succession is not planned, the natural generational drift will produce the ownership fragmentation and the well known phenomenon of coolingoff. This will have negative consequences on the trans-generational value creation. Thus it is advisable to plan the succession well in advance and to carefully mange the succession process. We consider that the following actions are crucial for the succession planning: • To educate the new generation to assume the family’s values; • To educate the new generation in understanding the differences between the roles of active, non active shareholders, directors and managers; • To promote trust among family members; • To promote in the new generation the freedom of deciding whether or not to enter the family business; • To use family meetings, protocols and a family council in order to make the succession process more effective and smoother; • To carefully select the new family business leader (leaders), avoiding plural leadership when it is not justified by the complementarily of competences; • To support the new leadership with a cohesive ownership structure, which also means favouring the formation of a net shareholder majority; • To create a family patrimony outside the family business, in order to facilitate the liquidation of some family members, in order to create a compact ownership structure. Some of the policies we identify are integrated in the model, making explicit the relationship with the flows (Sterman 2006: 102). The actions we mentioned can be more or less effective because they interact with the system’s structure, which is characterised by the positive and negative feed-back loops that can reinforce or balance the effect of the actions. Thus it becomes very difficult to understand the result of each specific action. Nevertheless we can test the efficacy of an action through simulation.
12
13
FP
EDU SEL
K
FAM VAL TRANS
FGI FC
SC
Rate of SH ENL
SHS ENL
Normal rate C-O
FGI effect on C-O
C-O
DCD
DC Rate of SC in DCD
Effec t of K on DCD
SHS
Rate of LIQ
DCE
Rate of FWD
FW
LIQ VAL
FWD
PRESS
IND PRESS
VD
FWL
Rate of FWL
VT from FB to F
TGV in FB from INN
Normal rate of VT from FB to F
VC
Rate of VD
PO effect on INN DC effect on INN Cost of Investment
