Given the current market conditions, is it safer to work with large established companies or smaller emerging companies?
We at Blackhawk believe that there is still a big fallacy in today’s world; despite all what we’ve recently witnessed in the US with the demise of real established “financial powerhouses” that “big is safe” and “small is risky”. How untrue this is. What makes a company safe and sound is the character, talent and insight of its management team and not the size of its balance sheet. Besides, with all the institutional pools of capital floating around today, a large company is much more subject to the vagaries of the public market and the whims of aggressive predators than a smaller private company smartly surfing below the radar of such “vultures” and adding value. So why do some companies achieve sustained high growth in both revenues and profits whatever their size while others don’t? In a five-year study of high-growth companies and their less successful competitors, researchers found that the answer lies in the way each group approaches “Strategy”. The difference in approach was not
Related Questions
- Should unbundling rules apply to foreign companies operating in the European market under the same conditions as to European companies?
- Given the resource constraints, how should smaller public companies address the implementation needs economically and effectively?
- I see that many large companies use Nexternals software. Can smaller companies use this software also?
