The secret of stock market success

During the last nine years, Reckitt Benckiser has been one of the UK market's best-performing stocks. It's returned 17.6% a year in this time, compared to just 3.7% for the All-share.
What's the secret of this success?:

A drug company is facing accusations of ripping off the NHS with a secret plan to maintain a monopoly in the supply of Gaviscon, the lucrative heartburn medicine.
Internal documents show Reckitt Benckiser executives plotted under the codename 'project Eric' to create obstacles to block rival manufacturers from selling cheap generic copies of the indigestion treatment.

Sure,  profits from Gaviscon alone don't explain much of Reckitt's performance. But what this shows is that Reckitt's management have a clear sight of what causes corporate success.
The key to long-term success isn't innovation, because profits from this are bid away by competition. Nor does it come from keeping consumers happy - if they've nowhere else to go, it doesn't matter how happy they are. And nor does it come from employing good people, as these can walk.
Instead, corporate success requires monopoly power, the ability to exclude rivals. Reckitt's bosses understand this well. Good for them.
Could it be though, that investors have in the past understood it less well? This would explain why firms with monopoly power - such as tobacco firms with their strong brands and addictive products or mining companies with their access to valuable resources - have been among the few FTSE 100 stocks to do even better than Reckitt.
As I said, a healthy stock market isn't necessarily a sign of a healthy economy - though see some caveats here.

Comments

[james c]

You do love your non-sequitors, don't you.

[ad]

There is no secret to "long term success". If you wait long enough, every company fails.

[Gerard O'Neill]

Chris, are you not missing the blindingly obvious point that the only real 'monopoly' being exploited in your delightful conspiracy story was that of the NHS? When you have a monopoly buyer then guess what: you have EVERY incentive to make sure you are the preferred seller. Sure beats dealing with a bunch of fickle consumers any day.

So your advice to shareholders should be to buy stock in companies well established with monopoly (state) buyers. Arms manufacturers come to mind.

[chris]

Gerard - supplying to the state is by no means a licence to print money. Isoft and Jarvis, to name but two, have got into a terrible pickle in recent years.

[Roger Thornhill]

The best (only?) way to ensure a monopoly is to "secure"* the connivance of the State**.

Without the State** to enforce a monopoly via law or a defacto one via subsidy or purchasing decisions, companies are indeed a bid away from losing the deal. Ergo the issue is not the corporation but the State. The less the State buys, does or controls, the smaller the ground available for corporations to wangle monopolies.

Answer- shrink the state and stop it spending our money by cutting it at the source - taxation.

* buy, bribe, entertain, wine, dine or otherwise offer incentives to

** especially individuals in office or self-interested political factions.

[mls]

There is no secret to "long term success". If you wait long enough, every company fails. just have a look on it guys.
==============================================
Shane