The operating system outlasts the operator.
The best student
Addtech was the “Industry” business area of Bergman & Beving, spun off in September 2001 alongside Lagercrantz. Both companies inherited the same operating system: EBITA/WC as the governing metric, 45% as the hurdle, decentralised management, permanent ownership.
Twenty-three years later, Addtech is a 130-bagger. Lagercrantz, starting from the same point, is roughly a 70-bagger. The parent company trails both.
Same metric, same philosophy — different results. What separated them?
Four CEOs, one system
Most serial acquirer narratives centre on a founding genius. Mark Leonard at Constellation. Brian Jellison at Roper. Nick Howley at TransDigm. The risk is obvious: when the visionary leaves, what remains?
Addtech offers a different model. Four CEOs in twenty-three years, each building on what came before:
Anders Börjesson shaped the Industry division within B&B before the split, establishing the culture that would transfer. He remained the largest shareholder, providing continuity without operational involvement.
Roger Bergqvist led through the early post-split years, proving the operating system could function independently of the mother company.
Johan Sjö (2008-2017) accelerated the acquisition pace and initiated the AddLife spinoff in 2016 — applying B&B’s lesson that focus through separation creates value.
Niklas Stenberg (2017-present) has pushed EBITA/WC to 77%, the highest in the B&B family. Under his leadership, Addtech became the clear outperformer.
No cult of personality. No indispensable founder. Each transition strengthened rather than disrupted. The system proved more durable than any individual running it.
The inheritance, evolved
Addtech didn’t just preserve B&B’s operating system — each generation refined it.
The EBITA/WC metric remained constant, but its application sharpened. Addtech doesn’t impose arbitrary margin targets on subsidiaries. They understand that businesses can reach the 45% hurdle through different combinations of margins and asset turns. The metric sets the bar; subsidiaries navigate there themselves.
Decentralisation deepened too. Today Addtech runs 150+ operating companies with minimal central overhead. Subsidiaries implement their own supplementary acquisitions. The centre allocates capital and sets standards; everything else stays local.
And the acquisition philosophy evolved. Where B&B built through opportunistic deal flow, Addtech cultivated patience as strategy.
The ten-year courtship
Most acquirers work on months-long timelines. Find a target, negotiate, close, integrate, repeat. The pressure is always to do more deals faster.
Addtech inverts this. They reportedly cultivated a relationship with Fey Elektronik for a decade before acquiring them. Ten years of building trust, understanding the business, ensuring cultural fit — before any transaction.
This patience creates advantages that compound. Founders who sell to Addtech know what they’re getting. The reputation for long-term commitment generates deal flow that short-term buyers never see. In a market where most acquirers flip within five years, permanence becomes differentiation.
The approach requires institutional patience that survives leadership transitions. A ten-year courtship can’t depend on one CEO’s tenure. It requires a system that outlasts individuals.
The spinoff logic
In 2016, Addtech spun off AddLife — its life science business covering diagnostics, medical devices, and laboratory equipment. The move directly echoed B&B’s 2001 split.
The logic was the same: focus through separation creates value. A diversified portfolio attracts a conglomerate discount. Separate entities, each with clear focus, compound faster than one entity trying to do everything.
Post-spinoff results validated the thesis. Addtech’s CAGR accelerated to 34%. AddLife became a standalone compounder with its own trajectory.
The willingness to shrink in pursuit of focus — to make the parent smaller than its children — requires confidence in the operating system. If the system works, multiplication through separation beats growth through consolidation.
What the outperformance teaches
Why did Addtech beat its siblings? The metric and philosophy were identical. Three factors stand out:
Sector positioning. Addtech focused on high-tech industrial components — products with technical complexity, strong supplier relationships, and embedded switching costs. The businesses naturally generated higher EBITA/WC than workwear or basic tools.
Leadership continuity without dependency. Each CEO transition was smooth. Börjesson’s continued ownership provided stability. The operating system transferred cleanly because it was genuinely simple — not dependent on one person’s judgment calls.
Compounding discipline. Addtech reinvested consistently at high returns. The 45% EBITA/WC threshold meant businesses were self-funding. Earnings compounded into acquisitions which compounded into more earnings.
The system, not the operator
Serial acquirers face a succession problem most companies don’t. The model depends on capital allocation judgment, which often lives in one person’s head. When that person leaves, the judgment leaves too.
Addtech suggests a different path: make the system so simple that it transfers across generations. EBITA/WC above 45%. Decentralised operations. Permanent ownership. Cultural fit as acquisition criterion. Patience as strategy.
Any competent leader can apply these rules. No genius required. The outperformance comes from consistent application over decades, not brilliant individual decisions.
Börjesson built the system. Four CEOs later, it runs better than ever. That’s the test of an operating model: not how it performs under its creator, but whether it survives them.
Connects to Library: Process Power · Optionality
See also: The Bergman & Beving Legacy — The mother company and the operating system Addtech inherited. The Lifco Way — Same Swedish tradition, but with a more prominent CEO narrative. The Constellation Model — Similar bet on decentralised capital allocation and system over individual.