Category Archives: Capital Deployment

6 priorities for health system strategists in 2024

Posted on by • Posted in Academic Medical Center, Board, Board Purpose, Capital Budget, Capital Deployment, Clinical Operating Efficiency, Contract Labor, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Inpatient Care, Labor Spend Management, Leadership Transformation, Leadership Vision, Operating Expense Reduction, Operating Expenses, Operating Income, Operating Margin, Operating Metrics, Operating Performance, Operating Revenue, Outpatient Care, Outpatient Migration, Patient Centered Care, Rebuilding, Recruiting, Risk Tolerance, Risk-Based Compensation, Risk-Based Contracting, Strategic Advantage, Strategic Alignment, Strategic Leadership, Strategic Plan, Talent Acquisition Strategy, Talent Management, Workforce Strategy • Leave a comment
https://www.advisory.com/topics/strategic-and-business-planning/2024/01/6-priorities-for-health-system-strategists?utm_source=acquisition_all&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=96132&utm_content=trending_x_x_marketinsights_x_6-priorities-for-health-system-strategists_x&elq_cid=4838956&elqcst=272&elqcsid=6878#accordion-5510325f84-item-6d16a917cb

Health systems are recovering from the worst financial year in recent history. We surveyed strategic planners to find out their top priorities for 2024 and where they are focusing their energy to achieve growth and sustainability. Read on to explore the top six findings from this year’s survey.

Research questions

With this survey, we sought the answers to five key questions:

  1. How do health system margins, volumes, capital spending, and FTEs compare to 2022 levels?
  2. How will rebounding demand impact financial performance? 
  3. How will strategic priorities change in 2024?
  4. How will capital spending priorities change next year?

Bigger is Better for Financial Recovery

What did we find?

Hospitals are beginning to recover from the lowest financial points of 2022, where they experienced persistently negative operating margins. In 2023, the majority of respondents to our survey expected positive changes in operating margins, total margins, and capital spending. However, less than half of the sample expected increases in full-time employee (FTE) count. Even as many organizations reported progress in 2023, challenges to workforce recovery persisted.

40%

Of respondents are experiencing margins below 2022 levels

Importantly, the sample was relatively split between those who are improving financial performance and those who aren’t. While 53% of respondents projected a positive change to operating margins in 2023, 40% expected negative changes to margin.

One exception to this split is large health systems. Large health systems projected above-average recovery of FTE counts, volume, and operating margins. This will give them a higher-than-average capital spending budget.

Why does this matter?

These findings echo an industry-wide consensus on improved financial performance in 2023. However, zooming in on the data revealed that the rising tide isn’t lifting all boats. Unequal financial recovery, especially between large and small health systems, can impact the balance of independent, community, and smaller providers in a market in a few ways. Big organizations can get bigger by leveraging their financial position to acquire less resourced health systems, hospitals, or provider groups. This can be a lifeline for some providers if the larger organization has the resources to keep services running. But it can be a critical threat to other providers that cannot keep up with the increasing scale of competitors.

Variation in financial performance can also exacerbate existing inequities by widening gaps in access. A key stakeholder here is rural providers. Rural providers are particularly vulnerable to financial pressures and have faced higher rates of closure than urban hospitals. Closures and consolidation among these providers will widen healthcare deserts. Closures also have the potential to alter payer and case mix (and pressure capacity) at nearby hospitals.

Volumes are decoupled from margins

What did we find?

Positive changes to FTE counts, reduced contract labor costs, and returning demand led the majority of respondents in our survey to project organizational-wide volume growth in 2023. However, a significant portion of the sample is not successfully translating volume growth to margin recovery.

44%

Of respondents who project volume increases also predict declining margins

On one hand, 84% of our sample expected to achieve volume growth in 2023. And 38% of respondents expected 2023 volume to exceed 2022 volume by over 5%. But only 53% of respondents expected their 2023 operating margins to grow — and most of those expected that the growth would be under 5%. Over 40% of respondents that reported increases in volume simultaneously projected declining margins.

Why does this matter?

Health systems struggled to generate sufficient revenue during the pandemic because of reduced demand for profitable elective procedures. It is troubling that despite significant projected returns to inpatient and outpatient volumes, these volumes are failing to pull their weight in margin contribution. This is happening in the backdrop of continued outpatient migration that is placing downward pressure on profitable inpatient volumes.

There are a variety of factors contributing to this phenomenon. Significant inflationary pressures on supplies and drugs have driven up the cost of providing care. Delays in patient discharge to post-acute settings further exacerbate this issue, despite shrinking contract labor costs. Reimbursements have not yet caught up to these costs, and several systems report facing increased denials and delays in reimbursement for care. However, there are also internal factors to consider. Strategists from our study believe there are outsized opportunities to make improvements in clinical operational efficiency — especially in care variation reduction, operating room scheduling, and inpatient management for complex patients.

Strategists look to technology to stretch capital budgets

What did we find?

Capital budgets will improve in 2024, albeit modestly. Sixty-three percent of respondents expect to increase expenditures, but only a quarter anticipate an increase of 6% or more. With smaller budget increases, only some priorities will get funded, and strategists will have to pick and choose.

Respondents were consistent on their top priority. Investments in IT and digital health remained the number one priority in both 2022 and 2023. Other priorities shifted. Spending on areas core to operations, like facility maintenance and medical equipment, increased in importance. Interest in funding for new ambulatory facilities saw the biggest change, falling down two places.

Why does this matter?

Capital budgets for health systems may be increasing, but not enough. With the high cost of borrowing and continued uncertainty, health systems still face a constrained environment. Strategists are looking to get the biggest bang for their buck. Technology investments are a way to do that. Digital solutions promise high impact without the expense or risk of other moves, like building new facilities, which is why strategists continue to prioritize spending on technology.

The value proposition of investing in technology has changed with recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI), and our respondents expressed a high level of interest in AI solutions. New applications of AI in healthcare offer greater efficiencies across workforce, clinical and administrative operations, and patient engagement — all areas of key concern for any health system today.

Building is reserved for those with the largest budgets

What did we find?

Another way to stretch capital budgets is investing in facility improvements rather than new buildings. This allows health systems to minimize investment size and risk. Our survey found that, in general, strategists are prioritizing capital spending on repairs and renovation while deprioritizing building new ambulatory facilities.

When the responses to our survey are broken out by organization type, a different story emerges. The largest health systems are spending in ways other systems are not. Systems with six or more hospitals are increasing their overall capital expenditures and are planning to invest in new facilities. In contrast, other systems are not increasing their overall budgets and decreasing investments in new facilities.

AMCs are the only exception. While they are decreasing their overall budget, they are increasing their spending on new inpatient facilities.

Why does this matter?

Health systems seek to attract patients with new facilities — but only the biggest systems can invest in building outpatient and inpatient facilities. The high ranking of repairs in overall capital expenditure priorities suggests that all systems are trying to compete by maintaining or improving their current facilities. Will renovations be enough in the face of expanded building from better financed systems? The urgency to respond to the pandemic-accelerated outpatient shift means that building decisions made today, especially in outpatient facilities, could affect competition for years to come. And our survey responses suggest that only the largest health system will get the important first-mover advantage in this space.

AMCs are taking a different tack in the face of tight budgets and increased competition. Instead of trying to compete across the board, AMCs are marshaling resources for redeployment toward inpatient facilities. This aligns with their core identity as a higher acuity and specialty care providers.

Partnerships and affiliations offer potential solutions for health systems that lack the resources for building new facilities. Health systems use partnerships to trade volumes based on complexity. Partnerships can help some health systems to protect local volumes while still offering appropriate acute care at their partner organization. In addition, partnerships help health systems capture more of the patient journey through shared referrals. In both of these cases, partnerships or affiliations mitigate the need to build new inpatient or outpatient facilities to keep patients.

Revenue diversification tactics decline despite disruption

What did we find?

Eighty percent of respondents to our survey continued to lose patient volumes in 2023. Despite this threat to traditional revenue, health systems are turning from revenue diversification practices. Respondents were less likely to operate an innovation center or invest in early-stage companies in 2023. Strategists also reported notably less participation in downside risk arrangements, with a 27% decline from 2022 to 2023.

Why does this matter?

The retreat from revenue diversification and risk arrangements suggests that health systems have little appetite for financial uncertainty. Health systems are focusing on financial stabilization in the short term and forgoing practices that could benefit them, and their patients, in the long term.

Strategists should be cautious of this approach. Retrenchment on innovation and value-based care will hold health systems back as they confront ongoing disruption. New models of care, patient engagement, and payment will be necessary to stabilize operations and finances. Turning from these programs to save money now risks costing health systems in the future.

Market intelligence and strategic planning are essential for health systems as they navigate these decisions. Holding back on initiatives or pursuing them in resource-constrained environments is easier when you have a clear course for the future and can limit reactionary cuts.

Advisory Board’s long-standing research on developing strategy suggests five principles for focused strategy development:
 

  1. Strategic plans should confront complexity. Sift through potential future market disruptions and opportunities to establish a handful of governing market assumptions to guide strategy.
  2. Ground strategy development in answers to a handful of questions regarding future competitive advantage. Ask yourself: What will it take to become the provider of choice?
  3. Communicate overarching strategy with a clear, coherent statement that communicates your overall health system identity.
  4. A strategic vision should be supported by a limited number of directly relevant priorities. Resist the temptation to fill out “pro forma” strategic plan.
  5. Pair strategic priorities with detailed execution plans, including initiative roadmaps and clear lines of accountability.

Strategists align on a strategic vision to go back to basics

What did we find?

Despite uneven recovery, health systems widely agree on which strategic initiatives they will focus more on, and which they will focus less on. Health system leaders are focusing their attention on core operations — margins, quality, and workforce — the basics of system success. They aim to achieve this mandate in three ways. First, through improving efficiency in care delivery and supply chain. Second, by transforming key elements of the care delivery system. And lastly, through leveraging technology and the virtual environment to expand job flexibility and reduce administrative burden.

Health systems in our survey are least likely to take drastic steps like cutting pay or expensive steps like making acquisitions. But they’re also not looking to downsize; divesting and merging is off the table for most organizations going into 2024.

Why does this matter?

The strategic priorities healthcare leaders are working toward are necessary but certainly not easy. These priorities reflect the key challenges for a health system — margins, quality, and workforce. Luckily, most of strategists’ top priorities hold promise for addressing all three areas.

This triple mandate of improving margins, quality, and workforce seems simple in theory but is hard to get right in practice. Integrating all three core dimensions into the rollout of a strategic initiative will amplify that initiative’s success. But, neglecting one dimension can diminish returns. For example, focusing on operational efficiency to increase margins is important, but it’ll be even more effective if efforts also seek to improve quality. It may be less effective if you fail to consider clinicians’ workflow.

Health systems that can return to the basics, and master them, are setting a strong foundation for future growth. This growth will be much more difficult to attain without getting your house in order first.

Vendors and other health system partners should understand that systems are looking to ace the basics, not reinvent the wheel. Vendors should ensure their products have a clear and provable return on investment and can map to health systems’ strategic priorities. Some key solutions health systems will be looking for to meet these priorities are enhanced, easy-to-follow data tools for clinical operations, supply chain and logistics, and quality. Health systems will also be interested in tools that easily integrate into provider workflow, like SDOH screening and resources or ambient listening scribes.

Going back to basics

Craft your strategy

1. Rebuild your workforce.

One important link to recovery of volume is FTE count. Systems that expect positive changes in FTEs overwhelmingly project positive changes in volume. But, on average, less than half of systems expected FTE growth in 2023. Meanwhile, high turnover, churn, and early retirement has contributed to poor care team communication and a growing experience-complexity gap. Prioritize rebuilding your workforce with these steps:

  • Recover: Ensure staff recover from pandemic-era experiences by investing in workforce well-being. Audit existing wellness initiatives to maximize programs that work well, and rethink those that aren’t heavily utilized.
  • Recruit: Compete by addressing what the next generation of clinicians want from employment: autonomy, flexibility, benefits, and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Keep up to date with workforce trends for key roles such as advance practice providers, nurses, and physicians in your market to avoid blind spots.
  • Retain: Support young and entry-level staff early and often while ensuring tenured staff feel valued and are given priority access to new workforce arrangements like hybrid and gig work. Utilize virtual inpatient nurses and virtual hubs to maintain experienced staff who may otherwise retire. Prioritize technologies that reduce the burden on staff, rather than creating another box to check, like ambient listening or asynchronous questionnaires.

2. Become the provider of choice with patient-centric care.

Becoming the provider of choice is crucial not only for returning to financial stability, but also for sustained growth. To become the provider of choice in 2024, systems must address faltering consumer perspectives with a patient-centric approach. Keep in mind that our first set of recommendations around workforce recovery are precursors to improving patient-centered care. Here are two key areas to focus on:

  • Front door: Ensure a multimodal front door strategy. This could be accomplished through partnership or ownership but should include assets like urgent care/extended hour appointments, community education and engagement, and a good digital experience.
  • Social determinants of health: A key aspect of patient-centered care is addressing the social needs of patients. Our survey found that addressing SDOH was the second highest strategic priority in 2023. Set up a plan to integrate SDOH screenings early on in patient contact. Then, work with local organizations and/or build out key services within your system to address social needs that appear most frequently in your population. Finally, your workforce DEI strategy should focus on diversity in clinical and leadership staff, as well as teaching clinicians how to practice with cultural humility.

3. Recouple volume and margins.

The increasingly decoupled relationship between volume and margins should be a concern for all strategists. There are three parts to improving volume related margins: increasing volume for high-revenue procedures, managing costs, and improving clinical operational efficiency.

  • Revenue growth: Craft a response to out-of-market travel for surgery. In many markets, the pool of lucrative inpatient surgical volumes is shrinking. Health systems are looking to new markets to attract patients who are willing to travel for greater access and quality. Read our findings to learn more about what you need to attract and/or defend patient volumes from out-of-market travel. 
  • Cost reduction: Although there are many paths health systems can take to manage costs, focusing on tactics which are the most likely to result in fast returns and higher, more sustainable savings, will be key. Some tactics health systems can deploy include preventing unnecessary surgical supply waste, making employees accountable for their health costs, and reinforcing nurse-led sepsis protocols.
  • Clinical operational efficiency: The number one strategic priority in 2023, according to our survey, was clinical operational efficiency, no doubt in response to faltering margins. Within this area, the top place for improvement was care variation reduction (CVR). Ensure you’re making the most out of CVR efforts by effectively prioritizing where to spend your time. Improve operational efficiency outside of CVR by improving OR efficiency and developing protocols for complex inpatient management. 

Getting serious about providing community benefit

Posted on by • Posted in Board, Capital Allocation Process, Capital Deployment, Community Benefit, Community ROI, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Key Metrics, Key Performance Indicators, Social Determinants of Health, Tax Exempt Status • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/59f0ab20e40d/the-weekly-gist-october-27-2023?e=d1e747d2d8

How should health systems spend their “community benefit” dollars?

That question was at the heart of a discussion we participated in recently at a member board meeting. To maintain their nonprofit status, all health systems are required to devote a portion of their earnings to activities that benefit the communities they serve, based on an assessment of local health needs.

The question our member’s board was grappling with, led by the system’s executive team, was how to ensure their “investment” in the community is as leveraged as possible, and generates the greatest “bang for the buck” in terms of better community health. 

As the importance of addressing the social determinants of health grows, many systems are trying to target their resources toward activities that that enhance their ability to improve health status, and to reduce the barriers to better health faced by many. That requires a level of rigor and commitment to “community ROI” that goes beyond simply pointing to charity care statistics and the number of uninsured served.

What most impressed us in the discussion was the application of the same investment mindset to community benefit that the system brings to capital allocation decisions—with due attention to implementation plans, outcomes metrics, and accountability. 

As the system’s COO framed it, “We don’t just want to be a ‘piggy bank’ for charitable causes, we want to make sure our investment in the community is really making a difference” in local residents’ health. At the same time, the board recognized that its role extends beyond simply contributing dollars to acting as a convener and facilitator of other community organizations working together toward a common set of goals. A worthy discussion for the board, for sure, and a priority we’re seeing leading systems begin to embrace in a serious way.

When Financial Performance Matters

Posted on by • Posted in Board, Capital Allocation Process, Capital Deployment, Cross Subsidy Model, Financial Stewardship, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Investment, Leadership, Leadership Commitment, Leadership Investment, Leadership Legacy, Leadership Will, Right Size, Sunk Cost, Sunk Cost Fallacy, Underperforming Assets • Leave a comment

https://www.kaufmanhall.com/insights/thoughts-ken-kaufman/when-financial-performance-matters

The Sunk Cost Fallacy

In behavioral economics, the sunk cost fallacy describes the tendency to carry on with a project or investment past the point where cold logic would suggest it is not working out. Given human nature, the existence of the sunk cost fallacy is not surprising. The more resources—time, money, emotions—we devote to an effort, the more we want it to succeed, especially when the cause is an important one.

Under normal circumstances, the sunk cost fallacy might qualify as an interesting but not especially important economic theory. But at the moment, given that 2022 will likely be the worst financial year for hospitals since 2008 and given that the hospital revenue/expense relationship seems to be entirely broken, there is little that is theoretical about the sunk cost fallacy. Instead, the sunk cost fallacy becomes one of the most important action ideas in the hospital industry’s absolutely necessary financial recovery.

Historically, cases of the sunk cost fallacy can be relatively easy to spot. However, in real time, cases can be hard to identify and even harder to act on. For hospital organizations that are subsidizing underperforming assets, identifying and acting on these cases is now essential to the financial health of most hospital enterprises.

For example, perhaps the asset that is underperforming is a hospital acquired by a health system. (Although this same concept could apply to a service line or a related service such as a skilled nursing facility, ambulatory surgery center, or imaging center.) The costs associated with integrating an acquired hospital into a health system are typically significant. And chances are, if the hospital was struggling prior to the acquisition, the purchaser made substantial capital investments to improve the performance.

As time goes on, if the financial performance of the entity in question continues to fall short, hospital executives may be reluctant to divest the asset because of their heavy investment in it.

This understandable tendency can lead the acquiring organization to throw good money after bad. After all, even when an asset is underperforming, it can’t be allowed to deteriorate. In the case of hospitals, that’s not just a matter of keeping weeds from sprouting in the parking lot. The health system often winds up supporting an underperforming hospital with both working capital and physical capital, which compounds the losses.

And the costs don’t stop there, because other assets in the system are supporting the underperforming asset. This de facto cross-subsidy has been commonplace in hospital organizations for decades. Such a cross subsidy was probably never sustainable, but it is even less so in the current challenging financial environment.

This is a transformative period in American healthcare, when hospital organizations are faced with the need to fundamentally reinvent themselves both financially and clinically. The opportunity costs of supporting assets that don’t have an appropriate return are uniquely high in such an environment. This is true whether the underperforming asset is a hospital in a smaller system, multiple hospitals in a larger system, or a service line within a hospital.

The money that is being funneled off to support underperforming assets may be better directed, for example, toward realigning the organization’s portfolio away from inpatient care and toward growth strategies. In some cases, the resources may be needed for more immediate purposes, such as improving cash flow to support mission priorities and avoiding downgrades of the organization’s credit rating.

The underlying principle is straightforward:

When a hospital supports too many low-performing assets, the capital allocation process becomes inefficient. Directing working capital and capital capacity toward assets that are dilutive to long-term financial success means that assets that are historically or potentially accretive don’t receive the resources they need to grow and thrive. The underlying principle is a clear lose-lose.

In the highly challenging current environment, it is especially important for boards and management to recognize the sunk cost fallacy and determine the right size of their hospital organizations—both clinically and financially.

Some leadership teams may determine that their organizations are too big, or too big in the wrong places, and need to be smaller in order to maximize clinical and balance-sheet strength. Other leadership teams may determine that their organizations are not large enough to compete effectively in their fast-changing markets or in a fast-changing economy.

Organizational scale is a strategy that must be carefully managed. A properly sized organization maximizes its chances of financial success in this very difficult inflationary period. Such an organization invests consistently in its best performing assets and reduces cross-subsidies to services and products that have outlived their opportunity for clinical or financial success.

Executives may see academic economic theory as arcane and not especially relevant. However, we have clearly entered a financial moment when paying attention to the sunk cost fallacy will be central to maintaining, or recovering, the financial, clinical, and mission strength of America’s hospitals.

Recalibrating a Responsive Capital Formation Program

Posted on by • Posted in Board, Capital Deployment, Capital Deployment Conviction, Capital Formation, Capital Formation Program, Counterparty Risk, Credit Quality, Credit Ratings, Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve Board, Public Debt Issuance, Risk Management, Unemployment, Unsustainable, Unsustainable Trends • Leave a comment
https://www.kaufmanhall.com/insights/blog/recalibrating-responsive-capital-formation-program?utm_source=mkto&utm_campaign=ken-weekly-blog&utm_medium=em&utm_term=230419&mkt_tok=NjU0LUNOWS0yMjQAAAGLOMvf3wlrxQiskARfvorkxds3JTcMc2G14da58d1UuzTNzCzrZEaiyJy2hHeespDdrd8KiyubgmMV4JOGL5KEPV10rjDGvAJRDvsOf_ctkbuh

Current Funding Environment

Wednesday’s inflation print showed a March increase of 0.1% versus February and a year-over-year increase of 5.0%, both of which were better than expected. Markets rallied following the news, at least until the specter of recession caused a reversal of equity gains. The game remains the same: markets want easy money and inflation plus unemployment plus recession equals Fed policy and interest rate levels. Memories of the long 1970s slog through declining and then accelerating inflation levels suggest that it’s too early to declare victory (5.00% is still a long way from the Fed’s 2.00% target range). Nevertheless, hopes increased that the Fed may truly be at or very near the end of its tightening cycle.

Unsustainable Trends

The web version of The Wall Street Journal got rid of its special section on the “2023 Bank Turmoil,” which is a sign that we’re past the worst of this chapter in the Dickensian saga in which our financial system hero navigates all sorts of unfortunate characters and events in search of a new “normal.” Banking distrust ripples continue, with various clients sharing the work they are doing to peel back layers of counterparty risk to understand whether threats loom in downstream financial dependencies. Our regulatory infrastructure has shown itself to be a mile wide and an inch deep, which fuels the kind of skepticism about the reliability of designated watchdogs that leads to self-directed risk assessments.

At one level, this is a helpful and important exercise. The credit and financing structure of any complex healthcare organization is just another supply chain, and it is good to understand how yours works and whether there are vulnerabilities that should be investigated. But it is equally important to assess whether the progression of COVID to inflation to Silicon Valley Bank has caused your organization to drift from risk management into retrenchment. Organizations naturally migrate along a risk continuum as they shift between prioritizing returns or resiliency. The important question isn’t which of these bookends is right, but rather what shapes the migration; the defining event is the journey, and

the critical Board and C-suite conversation is whether your risk management program is enabling or constraining future growth.

We continue to monitor the extraordinary decline in not-for-profit healthcare debt issuance. Sources we rely on show healthcare public debt issuance through Q1 2023 down almost 70% versus Q1 2022. Similar data sources aren’t available, but anecdotal input from our team suggests a comparable drop-off in healthcare real estate as well as alternative funding channels. At the same time, although margins have recently improved, operating cash flow across the sector has been weak over the past 12-18 months. If capital formation from internal and external sources is a sign of vibrancy, healthcare is listless.

The primary culprit isn’t rates; the sector has raised capital in much higher rate environments with fewer financing channels (including most of the pre-2008 era). Instead, the rationale most frequently advanced is concern about the reaction from key credit market constituents during this time of unprecedented operating disruption. Of course, this makes sense, but sitting underneath this basic rationale is the question of what might be called “capital deployment conviction.” Long experience confirms that organizations armed with a growth thesis they believe in aren’t shy about “selling” their story to rating agencies and investors and are willing to suffer adverse outcomes on rates, ratings, or covenants, if that is the price of growth. This isn’t happening right now, which introduces the troubling idea that issuance trends are about much more than credit management.

No matter the root cause, recent capital formation is not sustainable.

Good risk management leads to caution in challenging times, but being too careful elevates the probability that temporary problems become permanent. $2.8 billion in quarterly external capital formation ($11.2 billion annualized—pause and let that annualized amount sink in) is not sufficient to maintain the not-for-profit healthcare sector’s care delivery infrastructure, especially when internal capital generation is equally anemic. But introduce any competitive paradigm and the underinvestment that accompanies this level of capital formation becomes a harbinger of hard times to come. To riff on Aristotle, capitalism abhors a vacuum, and organizations looking to avoid rating pressure today may be elevating the risk of competitive pressure tomorrow; and it is easier to cope with and eventually recover from rating pressure than it is to confront the long-term consequences of well-capitalized and aggressive competitors. Retrenchment might be the right risk management choice in times of crisis, but once that crisis moderates that same strategy can quickly become a risk driver.

Machiavelli, Sun-Tzu, Napoleon, George Washington, and other great tacticians all advanced some variation of the idea that “the best defense is a good offense.” In the world of risk response, this means that the better choice isn’t to de-risk and hibernate but rather to continuously reposition available risk capacity so that you keep the organization moving forward. Star Trek’s philosopher-king Captain James Tiberius Kirk captured the sentiment best when he said, “the best defense is a good offense, and I intend to start offending right now.”

While getting back on the capital horse is important, clearing rates, relative value ratios, risk premia, and flexibility drivers have all reset over the past 12-18 months, so recalibrating a good capital formation program requires reassessment and may lead to very different tactics.

This means that a critical step is to get organized around funding parameters:

debt versus real estate versus other channels; MTI versus non-MTI; tax-exempt versus taxable; public versus private; fixed versus floating. The other important part of this is gaining conviction about capital structure risk versus flexibility: do you want to retain flexibility at the “cost” of incurring the market risk embedded in short-tenor or floating rate structures or do you want to sell flexibility in exchange for capital structure risk reduction?