Latest News & Insights From The Ground

Why founders should look beyond salaries, taxes, and rent when choosing their next market

Founders rarely fail abroad because office rent was 15% higher than expected.

They fail because a key supplier disappears, a local manager underperforms, a regulatory issue remains unresolved for months, or headquarters gradually loses visibility over what is happening on the ground.

Yet these are precisely the costs that most expansion plans struggle to quantify.

For years, international expansion decisions were largely driven by a familiar set of metrics: labour costs, tax incentives, logistics costs, and market size. These factors remain important, particularly for SMEs where cash flow and resource allocation are constant concerns.

However, after supporting international businesses operating across China and Hong Kong for more than a decade, I have become increasingly sceptical of business cases built primarily around cost comparisons.

The reason is simple: the most significant costs are often invisible at the planning stage.

The Cost You See vs. The Cost You Experience

Most market-entry studies are built around financial assumptions.

What will salaries cost?

How much will incorporation require?

What is the tax rate?

How expensive is warehousing, office space, or local compliance?

These questions are legitimate. They are also relatively easy to answer.

The more difficult questions usually emerge only after operations begin.

How dependent will the business become on a single supplier?

How quickly can management respond when something goes wrong?

How reliable are local partners?

How predictable is the regulatory environment?

How easily can headquarters maintain oversight and accountability?

These factors rarely appear in financial models, despite often having a greater impact on long-term profitability than differences in labour costs or tax rates.

A supplier disruption can erase years of savings achieved through lower production costs.

A poorly managed local operation can destroy customer relationships that took years to build.

A delayed regulatory approval can postpone market entry long enough to undermine the entire business case.

Why This Matters More for SMEs

Large multinational corporations can absorb a certain level of inefficiency.

They often have regional teams, legal departments, procurement specialists, compliance resources, and the financial capacity to recover from mistakes.

Most SMEs do not.

For founders, every major disruption consumes management attention, cash, and momentum. A single operational issue can quickly become a strategic problem.

This is why resilience should not be viewed as a luxury reserved for large organisations.

For SMEs, resilience is often the difference between a temporary setback and a failed expansion.

A Practical Framework for Market Selection

When evaluating a new market, I encourage founders to complement traditional financial analysis with an operational assessment.

Alongside expected costs, evaluate:

1. Dependency Risk

How many critical activities depend on a single supplier, customer, advisor, or employee?

The fewer alternatives available, the higher the risk.

2. Regulatory Predictability

Not whether regulations are strict, but whether they are stable, transparent, and consistently applied.

Businesses can adapt to complexity. Unpredictability is much harder to manage.

3. Resolution Speed

How quickly can operational, legal, banking, HR, or compliance issues be resolved when they arise?

Time is often a hidden cost that never appears in budgets.

4. Partner Accountability

Can local advisors, distributors, suppliers, and service providers be held accountable for performance?

Relationships matter, but governance matters more.

5. Decision-Making Efficiency

How quickly can information move between headquarters and the local operation?

Delays in communication frequently translate into delays in execution.

Scoring markets against these dimensions often produces very different conclusions from a purely financial comparison.

The Cheapest Market Is Not Always the Lowest-Cost Market

One of the most common mistakes in international expansion is confusing low operating costs with low business costs.

They are not the same thing.

A jurisdiction with slightly higher salaries, stronger governance, and more reliable infrastructure may ultimately cost less than a lower-cost alternative plagued by operational friction, management challenges, and recurring disruptions.

Over a three-to-five-year horizon, execution quality frequently outweighs initial cost advantages.

This is particularly true in today's environment, where geopolitical tensions, supply chain volatility, and regulatory changes have become permanent features of the business landscape rather than exceptional events.

The Real Question for Founders

The question is no longer:

"Where can I operate at the lowest cost?"

The more useful question is:

"Where can I operate at a sustainable cost while maintaining control over execution?"

Cost remains a critical consideration for SMEs and founders.

What is changing is the understanding of what cost actually means.

The businesses that expand successfully are rarely those that optimise for the lowest number on a spreadsheet. They are the ones that understand which investments strengthen resilience, improve execution, and preserve management control.

In international expansion, the most expensive risks are often the ones that were never budgeted in the first place.

‍