23 February 2026

Warren Buffett and the Interpretation of Financial Statements

Recommendation

Financial statements hold clues about the future performance of a company, and Warren Buffett’s quest to find such clues has put him among the ranks of the wealthiest people in the world, according to Buffett experts Mary Buffett (his former daughter-in-law) and David Clark. Seeing the interpretation of financial statements through Warren Buffett’s eyes is both instructive and insightful. He routinely calculates meaningful financial ratios from line items in financial statements to distinguish the most promising companies from the rest. Although financial novices may have the most to learn from this book, the authors include savvy bits of “Buffettology” for more seasoned investors’ benefit. BooksInShort recommends this book to readers who want a basic introduction to financial statement analysis and, perhaps more importantly, who want to learn how “the Oracle of Omaha” picks his winning investments.

Take-Aways

  • Warren Buffett invests in high-quality companies with “durable competitive advantages.”
  • He favors businesses that sell unique products or services, or sell at the lowest price.
  • Income statements, balance sheets and cash flow statements reveal a firm’s potential.
  • Companies with net incomes consistently at or more than 20% of revenues often are industry leaders.
  • Avoid investing in companies with high expenses for research, depreciation and interest.
  • Companies with strong liquidity and little external debt are likely to “sail on through the troubled times.”
  • Buffett prefers companies that build retained earnings to those that pay dividends.
  • He has amassed $64 billion in unrealized capital gains on stock he owns in his company, Berkshire Hathaway.
  • Buffett sees stocks as “equity bonds” with ever-rising “yields,” or earnings per share.
  • Consider selling any stock priced more than 40 times its earnings per share.

Summary

The Divergent Styles of Warren Buffett and His Mentor

In the 1950s, an economist and professional investor named Benjamin Graham served as a mentor to Warren Buffett, who went on to become one of the world’s wealthiest people. Graham pioneered the practice of value investing – that is, buying into companies with low stock prices. Buffett, Graham’s student at New York’s Columbia University, later worked as an analyst at Graham’s Wall Street investment firm.

“Warren [Buffett] has learned that time will make him superrich when he invests in a company that has a durable competitive advantage working in its favor.”

When he started his own investment business, Buffett altered the Graham method of value investing in several ways. For one, Buffett ignores the Graham rule of selling stocks after they appreciate by 50%, because sometimes their prices will rise much more. Graham would buy a stock based primarily on its cost – the lower, the better. Buffett favors high-quality companies with predictable cash flows, so he is inclined to pay a “fair price” for their shares, not necessarily the lowest amount possible. Graham espoused the importance of holding a diversified portfolio of stocks, increasing the odds that moneymaking stocks would offset losers. Buffett prefers a portfolio concentrated on a few stocks that he regards as excellent investments.

“The place that Warren goes to discover whether or not the company has a ‘durable’ competitive advantage is its financial statements.”

Buffett studies the financial statements of companies to distinguish the best from the rest. He believes that top firms share certain financial characteristics. He invests only in financially self-sustaining companies with such a strong “durable competitive advantage” over their rivals that it creates “monopoly-like economics, allowing them either to charge more or to sell more.”

Three Business Models That Buffett Likes Best

The companies that attract Buffett’s investment operate one of three business models: “They sell either a unique product or a unique service, or they are the low-cost buyer and seller of a product or service the public consistently needs.” Firms that sell unique products include, for instance, beer brewer Budweiser, soft drink producer Coca-Cola and candy maker Hershey. Many other companies sell beer, soda and chocolate, but they lack the singular brand power of Bud, Coke and Hershey’s. Examples of companies that sell uniquely branded services include credit rating agency Moody’s Corp., tax service provider H&R Block, Inc. and bank Wells Fargo & Co. Retail chains Walmart and Costco, and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, fit into the third type of business model: the lowest-cost provider of such staples as food and clothing or such fundamental services as transportation. Buffett favors these and other well-known companies with brands so powerful they command “a piece of the consumer’s mind.”

Hunting for Value in Financial Statements

Warren Buffett reads three types of financial statements to learn about a business: its income statement, its balance sheet and its cash flow statement. He analyzes these statements individually and collectively to discern the truth about a company’s prospects and the value of its stock.

“When Warren is looking at a company’s financial statement, he is looking for consistency.”

The income statement, issued quarterly and annually, summarizes revenue, operating costs, overhead expenses and net results, which are either profits or losses. The cash flow statement accounts for cash provided or consumed by operations, investments and financing activities over a period of time. In contrast, the balance sheet captures the condition of a firm at one point; it summarizes the state of assets and liabilities on a particular date. Buffett compares different line items on financial statements to assess the strengths and weaknesses of companies. For example, he subtracts the cost of goods sold (materials and labor) from revenue to determine gross profit, and then divides gross profit by revenue to calculate the company’s gross profit margin. A firm that reliably achieves margins of 40% or more probably has a durable competitive advantage.

“Warren knows that one of the great secrets to making more money is spending less money.”

Companies’ operating activities generate their selling, general and administrative (SGA) expenses, such as executive compensation, advertising fees and legal costs. Like many line items in financial statements, SGA expenses alone convey limited information about an organization and its likely fate. Comparisons of line items are more instructive. For example, Buffett checks the percentage of gross profit these expenses devour. Companies with stable SGA expenses as a percentage of gross profit tend to have dominant positions in their industries. In general, “anything under 30% is considered fantastic.”

The Burden of Research, Depreciation and Interest Expenses

Buffett avoids investing in businesses burdened by huge commitments to research and development, preferring instead companies like Coca-Cola, an industry leader that has been selling the same secret-formula beverage for more than 100 years. In some industries, such as information technology, research and development is a critical source of competitive clout. But the pace of technological change is so fast that any competitive advantage from a research breakthrough could prove fleeting. Consider the relative R&D burdens of chewing gum maker Wrigley and automaker General Motors: GM constantly must invest in R&D to design new vehicles, or it risks losing market share. Wrigley has been selling essentially the same popular brand of chewing gum for decades. Which company has been a better investment? By 2008, an investor who bought $100,000 of stock in each company in 1990 would have GM shares worth $97,000 and Wrigley shares worth $547,000. Buffett is not fond of heavy depreciation and interest expenses, either. Depreciation reflects the non-cash cost of wear and tear on operating assets, such as buildings and equipment. Buffett likes to invest in companies with depreciation expenses that are low as a percentage of gross profits. Similarly, he routinely seeks businesses with annual interest payments that consume the smallest possible fraction of gross profit – the less interest expense, the less debt the firm is carrying.

Rating Companies by Their Returns on Revenue

Profitable companies divide their net income by the number of their outstanding common shares to determine earnings per share, a financial metric that securities analysts widely use. However, Buffett pays more attention to net income in his appraisal of companies. He divides net income by revenue to calculate a firm’s return on revenue and, in turn, to assess its competitive position. If its return on revenue is consistently greater than 20%, the company probably has a pivotal, ongoing advantage over the rest of its industry. If its return on revenue is steadily below 10%, the firm likely operates in an intensely competitive field. Many companies have returns from 10% to 20%, and some of them represent “long-term investment gold that no one has yet discovered.”

The Asset Side of the Balance Sheet

The balance sheet shows a firm’s assets, liabilities and shareholders’ equity at a certain date. Total assets minus total liabilities equal equity. These three balance sheet components convey important information about a firm’s probable future. Current assets include cash and liquid investments as well as inventory and accounts receivable that the firm can convert to cash within a year. These “working assets” and their amounts vary depending on the company’s day-to-day operations. Cash relative to accounts receivable may fluctuate, for instance, as business conditions change. Non-current assets include property, plant and equipment, and such intangibles as franchises, copyrights and patents.

“Warren has learned over the years that companies that are busy misleading the IRS are usually hard at work misleading their shareholders as well.”

Buffett likes to see a strong cash and liquid investments position paired with little external debt. Businesses with this profile are rather likely to “sail on through the troubled times.” Buffett also calculates the net amount of accounts receivable, or receivables minus bad debts, as a percentage of sales revenue; companies with a low percentage often are leaders in their industries.

The Liability Side of the Balance Sheet

Current liabilities are debts due within one year. These include accrued expenses, accounts payable and short-term loans. Other classes of liabilities include long-term debt maturing in more than one year. In general, companies with an enduring edge over their rivals are generating enough cash internally to preclude the need to accumulate large amounts of long-term debt.

“The rule here is simple: Little or No Long-Term Debt Often Means a Good Long-Term Bet.”

The ratio of current assets to current liabilities, or the “current ratio,” is a common measure of corporate liquidity. In conventional analysis, a current ratio of more than one indicates better liquidity than a ratio of less than one. But, according to Buffett, certain companies with a commanding advantage have current ratios below one because their reliably solid businesses negate the need for a big “liquidity cushion” against insolvency. Buffett applies the same argument to the ratio of long-term debt to shareholders’ equity: Some companies that lead their industries have higher debt-to-equity ratios because they use a big portion of their net income to repurchase stock or pay dividends. These two uses of earnings both affect the growth of shareholders’ equity, but neither indicates that a company is facing fierce competitive pressure.

The Magic of Retained Earnings

Retained earnings represent net income that a company reinvests in its operations instead of spending it on stock repurchases or dividend payments. Retained earnings are a component of shareholders’ equity on the balance sheet; in fact, amassing retained earnings increases shareholders’ equity, or the firm’s net worth. Buffett believes companies with rapidly growing retained earnings are also likely to have a long-term advantage over their competitors.

“Finding what one is looking for is always a good thing, especially if one is looking to get rich.”

Buffett runs a publicly traded investment holding company called Berkshire Hathaway that does not pay dividends to its shareholders. This policy has helped Berkshire accumulate a mountain of retained earnings, contributing to a significant, long-term increase in the firm’s value: Its pretax earnings per share rose from $4 in 1965 to $13,023 in 2007. Buffett prefers stock repurchases to dividend payments as a means of rewarding shareholders. By buying back its own shares, a company can increase its earnings per share without actually earning more net income; as earnings per share increase, the price of the shares is likely to increase, too.

“Occasionally even a company with a durable competitive advantage can screw up and do something stupid...Think New Coke.”

Tax liability is a major consideration. If Buffett received dividends on his Berkshire stock, he would have to pay income tax on them. Instead, he will accumulate capital gains on his Berkshire stock tax-free as long as he holds the stock. He has already stockpiled $64 billion of unrealized capital gains on his Berkshire shares and had not yet paid any tax on these paper profits.

Buying, Holding and Selling “Equity Bonds”

Because Berkshire Hathaway makes long-term investments in companies with substantial, sustainable competitive advantages, it owns stocks that behave like bonds with yields that rise over time. Buffett calls these stocks “equity bonds.” Instead of a regular bond’s cash interest payments, the yield on an equity bond is the company’s earnings per share. And as earnings per share grow over time, so does yield on an equity bond. For instance, during the late 1980s, Buffett bought stock in Coca-Cola at prices averaging $6.50 per share at a time when the company had annual earnings of 46 cents per share, “which in Warren’s world equates to an initial rate of return of 7%. By 2007, Coca-Cola was earning $2.57 a share,” translating to a 39.9% return on his original investment.

“To get rich, we first have to make money, and it helps if we can make lots of money.”

Buffett is a long-term investor in the stocks of companies with durable competitive advantages because “the longer you hold on to them, the better you do.” Nevertheless, three types of circumstances make selling a great stock advisable: if proceeds from the sale could fund a better investment, if the company is ceding its competitive advantage or if the price of the firm’s shares soars in an overheated bull market. If the stock price of a company is 40 times more than its annual earnings per share, “it just might be time to sell.”

“Some men read Playboy. I read annual reports.” (Warren Buffett)

However, rather than buy another stock trading at 40 times earnings, Buffett prefers to hold on to his cash until the market settles down and great equity bonds once again become available at affordable prices.

Clearly, the Buffett style of investing requires patience, but the potential payoff is huge.

About the Authors

Mary Buffett and David Clark have written four other books on how Warren Buffett makes investment decisions. An author and speaker, she was Warren Buffett’s daughter-in-law from 1981 to 1993. Clark is the managing partner of a private investment group.


Read summary...
Warren Buffett and the Interpretation of Financial Statements

Book Warren Buffett and the Interpretation of Financial Statements

Scribner,


 



23 February 2026

Pension Dumping

Recommendation

Fran Hawthorne began writing about pension dumping in the 1980s and her expertise is evident. In this excellent book, she provides clear explanations about why pension dumping exists, why the practice will continue, and how the laws and organizations created to protect workers against pension dumping often abet it instead. You work all your life to put some retirement money together and should be able to count on the promises made to you. However, too many people are finding that those promises were written in disappearing ink. BooksInShort recommends reading this book to understand what you are up against, to know what distinguishes defined-benefit plans from defined-contribution plans, and to see why those differences matter. Hawthorne also teaches you why business executives, investors in distressed firms, bankruptcy judges and even union leaders are willing to throw retirees under the proverbial bus to keep companies running. Even if the book is a bit too technical in spots for the average employee who needs to grasp these matters, the subject’s importance should inspire you to embrace and understand the daunting technical terminology of pension legislation and regulation.

Take-Aways

  • U.S. firms may drop many of the 29,000 remaining private-sector pension plans.
  • Investors in distressed firms want pensions dumped to fatten their return on investment or to help rebalance the bottom line.
  • Bankruptcy courts allow some firms to drastically reorganize to try and keep the firm viable.
  • Pension obligations rarely cause bankruptcy; dumping them won’t save a sick firm.
  • Companies created pensions in the 19th century as a mechanism for replacing older workers with younger, stronger ones.
  • Traditional, defined-benefit pensions create more employee loyalty than 401(k)s.
  • Congress responded to pension failures by passing the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (Erisa) in 1974.
  • The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), created under Erisa, got its first notice of a pension failure two days after its formation.
  • The PBGC has successfully reassigned pension obligations to some reorganized companies that emerged from bankruptcy.
  • Not all reforms that strengthen the PBGC improve pension security.

Summary

Why Pensions Are Being Dumped

Until the last 20 years of the 20th century, people who worked at major American companies often had the promise of lifetime pensions after decades of loyal work. However, as the U.S. economy changed and some very large companies went through bankruptcy, Americans were shocked to learn that their pensions were not as certain as they had hoped. Major companies, such as Bethlehem Steel, LTV Steel, Polaroid, Kaiser Aluminum and others, could not afford to pay the millions and billions of dollars they had promised to their retirees, so they threw their pension plans overboard. The public outcry about this during the early 1970s spurred Congress to pass the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (Erisa) and to create the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). The intention, of course, was to protect workers. But a heavy volume of plan terminations in the 1980s, 1990s and the early 21st century burdened the PGBC. Little relief is in sight: The PBGC created a pension watch list and discovered that the potential future volume of pension dumping could dwarf anything that has already happened.

“With nearly 29,000 private-sector defined-benefit plans still in operation as of 2007, logic and history alone dictate that some percentage will fail in coming years.”

Wrenching change has come to the automobile industry. Decades ago, the Big Three carmakers were synonymous with U.S. manufacturing might, union power, lavish executive perks and gold-plated retirement programs. Relentless competition, rising regulatory-compliance costs, skyrocketing health costs and longer retiree life spans have combined to necessitate a drastic restructuring of the auto industry. The United Auto Workers (UAW) has renegotiated worker pay and retiree benefits with General Motors and Ford, and more concessions may be coming. As painful as these changes were, workers and retirees in other industries have experienced worse. Defined-benefit pension plans became a business burden. While these pensions were neither the source of the problem nor the biggest financial problem these companies faced, they became an obligation that could be jettisoned in bankruptcy. Companies increasingly made the cold business decision that their pension promises were too costly to keep.

“The bankruptcy process holds no special protections for the pension plan.”

After a company enters bankruptcy, creditors with secured claims against its assets may get court-ordered payments. Retirees claiming pension benefits may not be so lucky. They hold a promise, not a legal claim secured by the company’s assets. The PBGC usually steps in, commonly granting requests for it to take over the pension obligations of companies in bankruptcy. A collective belief that keeping a viable company alive is better than letting too many obligations kill it drives this process. Unions often go along with pension dumping because they get their dues from active workers and, so, give them higher priority than retirees. Considering the concessions active workers have made, many of them believe retirees who get a PBGC pension and Medicare are getting enough. Everyone has to take a hit when the company is fighting for survival.

“If things are so shaky that they have to file for bankruptcy, the pension plan is probably a dead man walking.”

When trying to emerge from bankruptcy, a company usually seeks exit financing. So-called “vulture investors” specialize in such high-risk funding. They commonly reduce their risks and maximize their returns by requiring a wholesale transformation of the bankrupt company and its liabilities. Pensions are among the vulture investors’ first targets. The main question the bankruptcy judge and potential new investors must face is whether the debtor firm can compete profitably after reorganization. Some companies are doomed no matter how many cuts they make. A convincing business reorganization plan is critical to any company’s effort to emerge from bankruptcy.

“Bankruptcy has simply gotten a lot cheaper, easier, and more socially acceptable than it used to be.”

Competition can change a retirement plan, too. If all your competitors have defined-benefit plans, and you switch to a lower cost 401(k) or some other type of defined-contribution plan, you have an advantage until they all match what you have done. If your firm is the last in its industry with a traditional pension plan, it almost certainly will have to switch to a defined-contribution plan. However, companies must carefully calculate any potential costs in shifting from defined-benefit to defined-contribution plans.

How the Laws Enable Pension Dumping

Pension plans are not a product of corporate charity. Industrial companies created them in the late 19th century to encourage aging, less efficient workers to retire and to create job openings for younger, stronger workers. The promise of a pensioned retirement also encouraged employee loyalty and discouraged requests for pay raises. However, in the 1920s, some pension funds failed to meet their obligations, a problem that would persist for decades. As late as 1974, the typical pension fund had only half of the funding it needed to meet its obligations.

“Unloading a pension commitment was often easier than trying to wriggle out of a trade debt or an unsecured loan.”

On September 2, 1974, President Gerald Ford signed the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (Erisa) into law to protect pensions. It created the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) to monitor pension funds and to relieve troubled companies of their pension obligations. Just two days after Erisa was enacted, the PBGC got its first notice of a company terminating its pension plan. Erisa was designed to make it hard for companies to transfer their pension obligations to the PGBC. For a while, such bailouts carried a social stigma. However, as entire industries collapsed, the process was streamlined, inviting bigger bailouts and softening the stigma.

“If a financially weak company hopes to have a second chance at survival, it will require new capital. Most likely, that capital will have to come from large investors. And those investors usually expect to see the pension plan dumped.”

LTV Steel made one of the largest transfers of pension obligations to the PBGC. The company’s bankruptcy filing in 1986 involved two dozen bankers and attorneys, created several new legal precedents and even spawned a couple of new laws. It carved a clear legal path wide enough for many other companies to follow. Congress based Erisa on the idea that business vagaries can prevent firms from predicting their futures accurately, so workers need the government to protect pensions. However, the legislators who crafted Erisa also had trouble predicting the future.

“The ultimate test of whether a company is a good investment is whether it survives and makes money. Shedding the pension plan, in itself, doesn’t guarantee a passing grade.”

Today, if a company wants to end its pension plan and rescind its obligations, the tools are available. Consider how a company works through Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The process permits the debtor company to file a petition to transfer its pension obligations to PBGC. The company must convince the PBGC that it cannot survive under the burden of its pension commitments. The bankruptcy judge also must weigh the purported merits of dumping a pension plan. This complex and expensive process is a well-choreographed dance that usually involves creditors, investors and management, and generally excludes retirees with pension claims. Their claims usually sit at the bottom of the stack; only equity stockholders are lower in priority as bankruptcy judges decide how to divvy up corporate remains. In some cases, bankruptcy judges who want to keep a troubled company alive will approve changes in its union contracts.

Why Investors Want Pensions Dumped

Companies in the throes of bankruptcy are not attractive investments to most institutions or people with money. Successfully investing in distressed companies is hard. The investor must understand the company’s position in its industry, know how to make the company more competitive and pick the best time to invest. If the company is likely to remain uncompetitive despite restructuring, even a vulture can’t justify the investment. Poorly considered investments can leave a company inefficient or inert. For example, a restructuring plan that drains talent from a company by encouraging employee turnover is likely to fail. To minimize such risks, successful investors in distressed businesses carefully study possible targets and their industries, and drive hard bargains, paying not one dollar more for any company than they must.

“Whenever a company says it will go out of business if it can’t terminate the pension plan, most unions will settle.”

Dumping a pension plan will not save a sick company. The key is the size of the pension fund deficit relative to corporate assets or market capitalization. A company’s debt load and credit rating may point to an increased risk of pension underfunding. An aging work force and limited young hires are signs that a company feels pension pressures. Key factors to evaluate include a pension plan’s investment strategy, the plan’s return on investment, and its benefit payment obligations now and in the future.

“Skeptics say that the reason unions often sign on to this sort of bargain with the devil is that unions generally represent active employees, not retirees.”

Many troubled companies recover in Chapter 11 and return to profitability. Academic studies of companies entering Chapter 11 for the first time show that about 65% emerge, but then face another challenge. Studies indicate that between 33% and 60% of these companies will file for bankruptcy a second time. Dumping its pension plan did not guarantee a re-emerging company’s success or failure, but the choice had implications for employee satisfaction. The managers of companies that filed Chapter 11 petitions and yet maintained their pension plans clearly had decided that keeping employee morale high would be part of their reorganizations. Switching to a new 401(k) plan, on the other hand, can hurt morale. Indeed, some companies have dumped defined-contribution plans and reinstated traditional defined-benefit plans to demonstrate their commitment to their workers and, perhaps, garner some positive publicity.

“Better to have a job and a shrunken pension than no job at all.”

Retirement plan risk is especially high in destructively competitive industries, such as the airline business. Consider the unfortunate legacy of US Airways. When the airline was headed for its second bankruptcy in the spring of 2005, its pension plan needed a $2.5 billion injection to become fully funded. The PBGC took over the pension plan but was legally prevented from paying full pension benefits to its highly compensated retirees, including former pilots. Later, when US Airways demonstrated renewed financial health by bidding to acquire a rival carrier, Delta Air Lines, the PBGC tried to transfer pension obligations back to US Airways but it failed to do so after the Delta bid fizzled.

What Does the Future Hold for Pensions?

Is the crisis of pension dumping ending? It probably is not, given the 29,000 defined-benefit plans in place in the private sector. Some are short millions of dollars, so you can safely predict that several will fail. Venture capitalists and hedge funds are also becoming more aggressive in going after distressed firms. You will see more vulture capitalists circling over these firms looking for the right targets. Some of these companies are barely hanging on and the least dip in the economy will push them into the vultures’ talons. Congress has put up a shield. It passed the Pension Protection Act (PPA) in August 2006 to improve pension safety at distressed firms. But while some analysts believe the law will limit pension dumping, others fear it will encourage more.

“Which other industries might be candidates for bankruptcy and pension dumping? Some interesting speculation swirls around electric utilities.”

Which industry will spawn the next round of failures? Some say the auto industry. General Motors and Ford face terrible pressures, though they also have shareholders, such as the Ford family, who want to avoid the loss of control that bankruptcy entails. The auto parts industry is squeezed by high-cost overhead, including pension and healthcare benefits, and foreign competition. Not all auto parts companies are struggling, but the industry’s pension liabilities deserve careful attention. The PBGC has electric utilities on its watch list, and while no utility declared bankruptcy from 1930 to 1988, several have done so in the past two decades. Increased deregulation of utilities will heighten competition among them and reduce pension safety.

“Pension terminations don’t happen out of the clear blue sky. They are part of a much bigger set of trends – some of them contradictory.”

Pensions are a hot topic among working people who are thinking about and worrying about the future. Elected leaders have joined the pension debate, not only to protect workers but also to serve their own political needs. Greedy executives who gain from dumping pension plans have offended public sensibilities. The issue extends to other fronts as well. Even healthy companies are finding ways to gradually kill their defined-benefit plans. They cover new hires with cheaper 401(k) plans, for example, and as retirees die, old defined-benefit plans expire with them.

“Companies could avoid a lot of these problems by putting more into the pension trust than they needed in flush times, as a kind of rainy day fund.”

Carefully distinguish steps to “save” pensions from actions taken to support the PBGC. They are not necessarily the same thing. The federal government, for example, could encourage companies to keep their pension plans fully funded by rewarding them with lower PBGC premiums. But because these premiums are immaterial expenses for many companies, lowering them probably would enrich the PBGC without reducing the incidence of pension dumping. Still, economic volatility can make pension promises hard to keep, and government must play a supportive role. What the government and the governed cannot do is merely ignore the problem and hope it will go away. It won’t.

About the Author

Fran Hawthorne is the author of three previous books and writes on financial issues for The New York Times, Crain’s New York Business and other publications. She first wrote on pension dumping for the publication Institutional Investor in 1983.


Read summary...
Pension Dumping

Book Pension Dumping

The Reasons, the Wreckage, the Stakes for Wall Street

Bloomberg Press,


 



23 February 2026

The McKinsey Engagement

Recommendation

Businesses and other organizations usually solve their problems through team efforts. The business consulting firm McKinsey has developed special expertise in team-based problem solving and change management. In this book, former McKinsey associate consultant Paul Friga describes TEAM FOCUS, an acronym he had invented to describe McKinsey’s method of problem solving. He integrates this McKinsey-based method with other approaches. BooksInShort recommends this hands-on book to executives, managers, team leaders and business consultants who want to improve their business operations and are looking for systematic approaches to problem solving.

Take-Aways

  • McKinsey consultants are like special-forces units in the military – they have unique abilities and a record of success.
  • The best way to solve most business problems is in a team.
  • The “TEAM FOCUS” approach synthesizes the problem solving methodology of McKinsey with that of other top business-consulting firms.
  • Team problem solving requires strong execution and effective storytelling.
  • How you frame a business problem determines how you resolve it.
  • Use “information trees” to organize data and “decision trees” to develop recommendations.
  • To determine relevance, subject all data and findings to the question, “So what?”
  • Review the data you collect to develop the insights on which you will base your final recommendations.
  • Before your final presentation, run your story by implementers to increase buy-in.
  • In your presentation, discuss the recommendations first, then the supporting data.

Summary

The McKinsey Approach

Business leaders often try to emulate the military. Business literature’s greatest hits include The Art of War by Sun Tzu and Leadership Secrets of Attila the Hun by Wess Roberts. Military-related terms such as “mission, vision, hierarchy and strategic communication” abound in the business world. Both the military and businesses extol the virtues of such concepts as “standard operating procedures, excellence in execution and cross-training.”

“Almost all major business decisions are the result of team problem solving.”

McKinsey consultants are the special forces of the business world. Their specialty is “team problem solving.” They do their problem solving during what they call “engagements,” which are like military missions. Their method is not magic; it’s quite teachable, although it requires discipline and the ability to tell a good story. Team problem solving is all about communication, and one of the best ways to communicate is with narratives.

“McKinsey is consistently ranked as the top position for M.B.A. graduates in annual surveys, and is highly regarded for problem-solving methodologies.”

Although McKinsey itself does not use this term, the acronym “TEAM FOCUS” helps remember the elements of the McKinsey method:

  • “Talk” – A team that cannot communicate cannot solve any problem.
  • “Evaluate” – Teams must be able to assess their performance and make course corrections as necessary.
  • “Assist” – Team members help each other.
  • “Motivate” – To persuade all the members of the team to pull together, learn what drives each individual.
  • “Frame” – Define the basic issue or problem that your team must solve. What are its “issue trees?” What hypotheses will you use to test your assumptions? Framing is the most vital step in the TEAM FOCUS model.
  • “Organize” – Frame the issues using “content hypotheses,” or primary questions.
  • “Collect” – Gather meaningful data.
  • “Understand” – Figure out how the data relate to “proving or disproving the hypotheses.” Ask, “So what?”
  • “Synthesize” – Mold the data into a believable, compelling narrative.
“The benefits of the model are best realized when the entire team is aware of and on board with the concepts.”

These three “rules of engagement” for each element will help you understand the concept and provide guidelines for implementation.

Talk

Team problem solving is an interpersonal process. Its most important element is simply talking. If team members cannot speak openly to one another, they’ll never get anywhere. Improve your team’s communication by following these three rules of engagement:

  1. “Communicate constantly” – Overcommunication is better than undercommunication. Discuss everything related to the problem at hand. Interact by e-mail, telephone and in person. Establish agendas and schedules. Document everything.
  2. “Listen attentively” – Put aside your personal agendas while others speak. Give all speakers the respectful attention they deserve.
  3. “Separate issues from people” – Ideas are good or bad on their own merits. Keep personality out of the equation – especially your own.

Evaluate

To evaluate progress, establish goals. Team members must commit themselves to giving and receiving feedback, and must agree on the team’s objectives and the metrics they will use. To evaluate the work of the team, look at each member’s work style, areas of responsibility and achievements. These rules of engagement govern team interactions:

  1. “Discuss team dynamics” – Do this at the beginning of the project, at the midpoint and at the end, in the form of an “after-action review.” Discuss personality styles, conflict resolution and progress reporting.
  2. “Set expectations and monitor results” – List all tasks and determine the order in which the team must do them. Assign tasks and ensure that each member takes ownership of his or her activities. Discuss timing. Track and document everything.
  3. “Develop and re-evaluate a personal plan” – A team is only as strong as its members, who must learn to assess their individual strengths and weaknesses realistically. Even more important, members must share their self-assessments with one another. Team members should commit to improve in their personal areas of weakness, for example, regarding listening skills, ability to be nonconfrontational and follow-through.

Assist

In addition to understanding who does what and to giving and receiving feedback, team members must be willing to step out of their usual roles to help others when necessary. These rules of engagement apply:

  1. “Leverage expertise” – Inventory the skills of individual team members, then assign tasks accordingly. Make sure the team has members who possess the skills it will need to do its work.
  2. “Keep teammates accountable” – Team members must accept responsibility for their own parts of the project. Everyone should carry equal weight. Use status reports to inform members about their progress.
  3. “Provide timely feedback” – Make sure it is balanced and constructive.

Motivate

Each team member has a different motivation: Money may motivate one; ambition, another; pride yet another. To optimize team performance, find out what drives team members. These rules of engagement can help you:

  1. “Identify unique motivators” – Personality often determines motivation. Use “personality profiling tools,” such as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, DISC (dominance, influence, steadiness and compliance), Big Five (openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness and neuroticism) and Strengths Finder, to evaluate the personalities on your team.
  2. “Positively reinforce teammates” – Be observant. Put team members ahead of yourself. Be sincere in your praise. Don’t pressure team members. Stay in touch with the team even after the project is over.
  3. “Celebrate achievements” – This is the best way to build positive energy. Acknowledge every important milestone.

Frame

You can’t solve a problem you haven’t identified. This is where framing comes into play. Let these rules of engagement guide you:

  1. “Identify the key question” – Use precise language such as, “How can we improve profitability?” Discuss the issue fully with those who know about it and whom it affects. Get their input about possible solutions.
  2. “Develop the issue tree” – “Information trees” ask, “What is going on?” To make an information tree, list every aspect of the issue – all the “topics for consideration.” For example, if profits are the issue, the information tree will include these branches of information: revenue, which again breaks down into price and quantity; costs, which you can split into information, such as variable cost per unit and quantity, and fixed costs. Document all information. Outline the time frame. Avoid “scope creep” – stick to the primary issue. “Frameworks,” or issue trees for past business problems, exist in abundance. Find and use them. Once you’ve outlined the topics, prioritize them. Do not allocate resources such as research time and money equally; instead, budget according to each topic’s relative importance.
  3. “Formulate hypotheses” – “Decision trees” ask, “What can we do?” To build a decision tree, begin with a hypothesis. Every “hypothesis must be falsifiable,” that is, using data you can prove it true or false. “The company should improve its operations” is a weak hypothesis, while “the company should double its capacity, increase employee annual bonus programs and cut its product line by 33%” is a strong one. In addition to the main hypotheses, develop supporting or subhypotheses. (“If this hypothesis is true, what else needs to be true?”)

Organize

Develop a strategic approach for your analysis. Follow these rules of engagement:

  1. “Develop a high-level process map” – It will answer such important questions as “Who will do what?” and “What will the end result look like?”
  2. “Create a content map to test hypotheses” – Test the subhypotheses first.
  3. “Design the story line” – Develop an initial story line early in the process, then amend it as you learn more. As data accumulates, the story line becomes a “storyboard.” The important players must be able to follow the final story line easily.

Collect

You cannot prove or disprove your hypotheses without relevant data. Therefore, collect what you need. Follow these rules of engagement:

  1. “Design ‘ghost charts’ to exhibit necessary data” – These are “draft slides” that illustrate your problem-solving ideas. They consist of titles that address the “so what?” questions; “data labels,” or educated guesses regarding the data; and the data itself, presented visually with illustrations such as bar graphs, pie charts or flow charts. Do not be reluctant to develop such initial slides: The problem solving process is iterative.
  2. “Conduct meaningful interviews” – These are even more important to problem solving than “secondary data.” Talk to the appropriate people. Be smart during the interviews. Don’t steamroll interviewees to get the data you want. Write up interviews as soon as you finish them.
  3. “Gather relevant secondary data” – Keep the primary issues and hypotheses in mind. Worthwhile business data research tools include Factiva, Mergent Online, Market Research Monitor, S&P Net Advantage, InvestTextPlus and Reuters Business Insight. Cite all data sources on charts and slides.

Understand

Data without insights are meaningless. By the time you reach this stage, you should be able to support your hypotheses. Understand the information and formulate conclusions that can help you come up with recommendations. Follow these rules of engagement:

  1. “Identify the ‘so what(s)’” – Ask yourself how your insights will affect further analyses and the operations under review.
  2. “Think through the implications for all constituents” – Figure out how the insight will affect the “consulting team,” the “client project team” and the “client implementation team”?
  3. “Document the key insights on all charts” – Put these ideas at the top of your slides. Express them in complete sentences.

Synthesize

Develop a sound, convincing argument for your recommendations. Follow these rules of engagement:

  1. “Obtain input and ensure ‘buy-in’ from the client” – If your client doesn’t follow your recommendations, your work is pointless. Keep the client (which may be your own company or division) fully involved. Include all implementers. Discuss your story with the client before your presentation.
  2. “Offer specific recommendations for improvement” – Tie each of your recommendations to “governing points” such as a “change in strategic positioning” or “operational improvements.”
  3. “Tell a good story” – Your story is your business argument, and involves three components: “situation, complication and resolution.” Start with the recommendations and then follow up with the data. Use a deductive structure. Group ideas logically. Focus on the people who will listen to your presentation. Use terminology that they understand. Be flexible. Different audiences may require different levels of data and detail.

About the Author

Paul Friga, Ph.D., is an associate professor at the Kenan-Flagler Business School at the University of North Carolina and previously worked for McKinsey and PriceWaterhouseCoopers.


Read summary...
The McKinsey Engagement

Book The McKinsey Engagement

Insider Secrets to the Tools and Techniques Used by the World’s Top Consulting

McGraw-Hill,


 




All Articles
Load More