Ownership is not a value in itself. It is tied-up capital that expects to be respected.
In many Swiss SMEs, the phrase “we own it” still stands for solidity. That is historically understandable and emotionally relatable. From a business perspective, however, it is becoming increasingly expensive.
Every franc tied up in a machine is a franc that is not available for inventory, sales or digitalisation, and cannot fund the pay rise that retains a skilled employee.
In an environment where banks assess applications more selectively, attach greater weight to collateral and take longer to make credit decisions, the role of liquidity changes fundamentally. [Evidence: current survey of lending to SMEs, for example by the SNB or the SME Barometer] It is no longer merely a comfort but a strategic buffer.
A company with liquidity can accept a major order at short notice, reconfigure a supply chain, absorb a supplier’s price increase or acquire a competitor. A company that has tied its liquidity up in fixed assets may have to decline, even though its balance sheet looks healthy.
That is the uncomfortable part of this debate: a solid balance sheet and the operational ability to act are not the same thing. We measure the former carefully and the latter hardly at all.
The objection is familiar and should be taken seriously: over the full term, use often costs more than ownership. True, if the calculation considers only the purchase. It changes once we include what happens to the capital released and what a missed order costs. And it changes again for assets that are needed for only one technology generation.
The decisive question is therefore operational, not ideological: for which assets does ownership pay us back, and for which are we paying only for a sense of comfort?
A trades business leases service vehicles and keeps funds available for spare parts, wages and short-notice customer projects. That is not ideology. It is capital allocation.
How much of your equity is currently standing on the factory floor and not working?