Germany Makes a Business Decision

Germany just announced that it could accept an additional 500,000 refugees when other countries are jockeying to accommodate as few as possible. As much as the announcement was portrayed as a humanitarian effort, it is just as likely a simple business decision.

Few members of the European Union, or those outside of the EU for that matter, would accuse Germany of fuzzy-headed liberalism. Their insistence on economic reforms focused on austerity, curtailed government benefits and a balanced budget (or at least closer than most nations manage now), has earned them the enmity of most Greeks and  economic liberals throughout the continent.

While I can’t criticize the undeniable human benefits of Germany’s decision, it also reflects two key factors that are important for any business or economy; the size and talent of its workforce.

Like northern hemisphere nations from Canada to Japan, and including the United States, China and the entire European Union, Germany’s working population is ageing. Multiple studies by both their government and private think tanks predict a shortage of up to 1.5 million skilled workers in the next five years.

Any shrink in new and skilled workers (who are also consumers) will slow economic expansion. The EU countries with the lowest birth rate over the last 30 years are Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy. Japan is already feeling the impact. China will be hit worse, but a bit down the road ( from 2030 to 2050). In the US, the massive exiting of the Boomers from the workplace has begun, and will accelerate over the next ten years.

liberty and NY skylineThe key term is “skilled” workers. As technology whittles away at the middle class, few societies are say “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses” anymore. That’s where Germany’s offer is brilliant.

The Atlantic published a great look at the Islamic State in its March issue. Trained by ex-KGB agents, IS infiltrators enter a city in advance of their military force. They attend town meetings and other public events, noting the names of community activists, elected officials and business executives. When they attack in force, assassination squads equipped with the names and home addresses of these leaders go from house to house eliminating them. Their objective is to decapitate any local nucleus for organization.

The result has been to create a refugee population that is generally better educated and wealthier than their countrymen. Anecdotally, a friend who visited Greece a few weeks ago tells the story of a Syrian refugee’s frustration at the inability of Greek shopkeepers to make change for 500 Euro notes, the smallest denomination he carried. Many of these refugees are anything but destitute. Germany is seizing an opportunity to add much-needed skills (and possibly capital) to their worker population.

In the meantime, the run up to the U.S. Presidential nomination continues to generate waves of anti-immigration rhetoric, ranging from the racist to the silly. Mass deportations, amending the Constitution to limit citizenship and building a giant wall are populist sops that, unfortunately, play well with a frustrated population.

The problem isn’t immigration, it’s the right immigration. I understand that the egalitarian ideal expressed in “All men are created equal” is part of our national psyche, but does it mean that we have to run our economy into the ground in its observance? I’m certainly not racist, but no rational businessperson would argue that a Latin American subsidence farmer has the same economic potential as a Chinese PhD.

Germany has seized a business opportunity by reaching out to talent that can positively impact its economy. The United States can do the same by introducing a sensible immigration policy that includes some consideration of economic merit.

Posted in Top Blog Posts | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

7 Responses to Germany Makes a Business Decision

  1. Dan Bowser says:

    Thanks for putting a face on the other side of the immigration issue. Our country benefited greatly economically from immigration in the past. We can benefit now while helping many people at the same time.

    I wonder if we as a nation can get past the frustration of extreme political self-interest and see through the pandering on the part of some candidates.

    I’m hopeful but concerned.

  2. David Cunningham says:

    This observation is spot on. Japan will suffer worst because their racial intolerance is so bad that they cannot contemplate the an immigration program at any scale that would save them. On a visit to Yokohama I had repeated experiences in being denied access to jazz clubs, because they were “Japanese Only”. It was a trivial discrimination but it made me aware how bad it can make you feel.
    The least intelligent of the current US immigrant phobias are the proposals to repeal the 14th Amendment to the Constitution – “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” and to repeal the Dream Act that removes the threat of deportation for children of illegal immigrants. In most cases, we have already educated these young people and they are an economic benefit to their communities.
    I wish “Cost / Benefit” analysis could be applied to many of the challenges that face the USA.

  3. Katrin Anger says:

    Good point!
    While there are many perspectives that can be taken on this topic, this is certainly one with a positive side effect. – Whilst I don’t think that this is the main motivation for the German government, it could indeed prove true and benefit Germany in a few years … if they succeed on integration.

  4. Several years ago I was traveling in Norway and was struck by the large population of Somali immigrants there. Norway also has a negative population problem and had been attracting immigrants from many countries including the US becuase they seem to be color blind according to several former American black people I met. they would rather raise their children there there away from gangs and low expectations. Norway only wants you to commit to raising your children there and will subsidize you to do so with parental leave, education and job training for the parents. I was surprised to see so many olive and dark skinned people in the land of the blond, blue eyed Norsemen even outside of the urban areas..

  5. Mike Wright says:

    On Point. One other factor in Germany’s favor is the effectiveness with which they assimilated a less skilled East Germany population back in so efficiently and effectively. We must make education and training of the new immigrants a priority so they can help our economy grow, and not just to perform low skilled low paying jobs.

  6. We all should be champions for open immigration and free movements cross the borders, as long it is based on the trader principle. If you have the right to your life, you should be able to live and work wherever you want, in a free world.

    Immigration as become a hot topic in Scandinavia. I hope people will learn from the melting pot and the land of opportunity: the United States of America.

  7. As with most European countries, meetings etiquette in Germany relies on professionalism, good business sense and formality. Bearing the above in mind, together with a positive attitude will ensure good results.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Companies Sell for a Multiple of…What?

Last week we discussed the difference between Main Street and Mid-market companies regarding their prospects for finding a buyer. You can read it here, but the short analysis is that the market is tightening for Main Street businesses, while the number of buyers and valuations for Mid-markets are at or near an all-time high.

The confusion between the two regarding valuation methodologies is even worse than that surrounding potential buyers. Owners and their professionals talk about earnings, add-backs and recasting financials as if they were universally accepted terms. They are not, and their usage differs dramatically between the two types of companies.

Despite this, I frequently (and I mean with something close to half the cases I work with) see professionals (who should know better) toss out valuation multiples like they were written in stone somewhere. CPAs seem to be the biggest offenders, but attorneys run a close second. They casually tell a business owner things like “All small businesses sell for about 5 times earnings,” or “You can expect your company to bring between 3 and 4 times its adjusted cash flow.”

They seem oblivious to the fact that an owner takes their uninformed and uneducated off-the-cuff statement very, very seriously.

level with coinsNo two companies are alike. Besides profitability, growth rate, customer concentration, management depth and geography, valuations can vary by as much as 40% with the swings in the financial markets. There is no “typical small business value,” but how companies are valued is pretty consistent in the two segments.

Let’s start with a high-level view. The buyers for Main Street (under $3 million valuation) businesses are typically purchasing a personal income stream. Those acquiring a Mid-market company are seeking return on investment, whether from profits or potential growth. Therefore, the two look at expenses and cash flow differently.

Main Street: When preparing a smaller business for sale, a broker will “recast” some expenses on the income statement. Recasting starts with profits before taxes, and adds interest expense, depreciation and amortization. The first add-back, interest, is assumed to be a cost of growing the business, and one which an owner could avoid if he or she chose to. (If you are borrowing to cover losses, you company probably isn’t saleable anyway.) Depreciation and amortization are non-cash methods of accounting for tax purposes, and are considered available cash flow.

The rest of the recasting involves those items that are “Sellers Discretionary Expenses” (SDE). Put politely, they are the type of expenses that the seller would probably not be able to take in someone else’s business. They can range from a personal vehicle to transporting the family “Board of Directors” to Orlando for an annual meeting.

These expenses are added to the owner’s salary and benefits to give buyers a better picture of all the financial benefits of ownership. Valuations are different for every company, but when a business is being sold to an individual owner-operator who will use third-party financing for the majority of the purchase, the ability to draw a salary and support the debt keeps valuations for such companies at an average of 2.2 to 2.8 times the SDE. (I repeat- your results may vary, but these are the averages.)

Mid-Market: These buyers don’t really want to see a bunch of hidden benefits. It’s too hard to explain to their investors or corporate executives. They assume that the owner’s compensation package is in line with what they will have to pay a new president to run the company. Except for some GAAP adjustments, their add-backs to cash flow will include Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization (EBITDA).

Falling back on averages again, multiples of EBITDA paid by private equity groups from about 2003 to 2013 ranged year-to-year from 4.7 to 5.2 times “earnings.” Not a very big range, and not surprising considering that they have investment return targets for every deal.

Which one is better? Neither. Both. It doesn’t matter. I’ve seen plenty of companies where 2.8 times SDE was more than 4.7 times EBITDA. It’s just the way the two markets measure.

It is important, however, if you are preparing your company for a third party sale. Many advisors tell their clients to strip all personal benefits out of the company years before selling in order to raise historical EBITDA. That is far more important if you are selling a business worth over $3 million, but usually in such businesses the personal benefits aren’t really material. In a smaller business, most of those expenses will be recast anyway.

Just understand which methods apply to your business. If you are working on an assumption that  your buyer will “typically” pay 5 times SDE, you have mixed apples and oranges, and are likely heading for disappointment.

Posted in Entrepreneurship, Exit Planning | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

5 Responses to Companies Sell for a Multiple of…What?

  1. Jon Konchar says:

    Right on target. Thanks for the article. Thought: The experts who have never bought oe sold a business,,, are they experts?

    • John F. Dini says:

      Good point, Jon. Some believe that their technical expertise in analyzing financial statements or drafting contracts is sufficient to handle a transaction. Too bad so many owners find out too late that isn’t the case.

  2. David Cunningham says:

    Hi John.
    If I am representing a buyer, we would look at the discounted cash flow of four year projected earnings, plus a terminal value, particularly if the buyer is using some debt to make the acquisition.
    David.

    • John F. Dini says:

      David,
      NPV of future cash flows is a reasonable way of calculating ROI for a buyer, but it would still translate into a number that needs to be compared against the industry data calculated in the more standard way.

  3. Oswald Viva says:

    Good article. The truth is that a business, any business, is not worth what the owner think is worth, and is not worth what the buyer think is worth; it is somewhere in between, but how do you convince both parties of that?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Owners Live in Two Different Worlds

Business owners live in two different worlds. If you are a Baby Boomer, the title of this column might bring memories of any one of the many covers of the song by the same name. (Everyone from Nat King Cole to Roger Williams, and from Jerry Vale to Englebert Humperdinck recorded it.)

My application of it in business refers to the chasm between those owners who plan to sell a business valued at less than $3 million, and those who have companies valued at more than that. In M&A parlance; “main street” and “mid-market” businesses.

business presentationSome background is in order. I spent the week at two conferences. At the Business Enterprise Institute’s Exit Planners’ Conference we talk mostly about the complexities and structures of mid-market transfers. From there, I attended The Alternative Board’s International Conference for advisors who run peer advisory groups and provide coaching, principally for the owners of main street companies.

At the latter, I had the privilege of being on a panel with Bo Burlingham of Inc. Magazine, the author of Small Giants and Finish Big, and John Warrillow, the Founder ofBurlingham Warrilow Dini the Value Builder System and author of  Built to Sell. It would be challenging to find three people in the country who have spent more combined time studying how small businesses sell, and what determines their value to a buyer.

Even with two audiences of savvy professionals who are focused on the flood of business owners transitioning from their businesses, in many sessions the presenters had to explain the difference between the two markets. As an owner, it’s critical that you understand what the market is for your company. Using data from the other side of the fence is only destined to frustrate you.

Mid-Market

These are companies with a value (not revenue!) of greater than $3,000,000. To garner the interests of financial buyers (private equity groups), they have to generate pre-tax earnings of at least a million dollars a year. To attract strategic buyers, they must have some real differentiation in their industry or market. Those who are truly scalable and have already grown to over 100 employees are the hottest commodity; but according to Doug Tatum, the author of No Man’s Land, they presently account for about 30,000 of the 6.5 million private employers (2-500 employees) in the marketplace.

The acquisition outlook for these companies is wonderful. The financial market is blazing hot, with 7,000 private equity players and publicly traded acquirers chasing those 30,000 businesses, or at least any among them who will still take a phone call. Valuations  are growing quickly, with multiples in the upper end of the market up over 20% in the last two years, and well over a trillion dollars of “dry powder” waiting to be spent on buying them.

Main Street

Clearly, the odds are pretty high that you are one of the 6,470,000 owners whose company does not fit the description above. Welcome to Main Street, where differentiation is difficult or impossible to quantify. (Sorry, but in all but the rarest cases,  “service” is not a competitive differentiation.) The business exists primarily for the purpose of providing financial security for the owner and the employees.  Likely acquirers include individuals seeking to purchase an income, small competitors, or if you are close to the million dollar pre-tax mark, perhaps a private equity group looking for a “tuck-in” or “bolt-on” to an existing similar acquisition.

The news for these owners could not be more starkly different than for the chosen few in the mid-market. According to Burlingham, somewhere between 1.3 and 2 million of these businesses will come up for sale in the coming decade. According to both IBBA (the business broker’s association) and the US Chamber of Commerce, only about 20% of them will successfully sell to a third party. With the much lower population of Generation X, who have little in the way of liquid savings and eschew 50 hour work weeks, the pre-tax multiples in Main Street values are contracting, and the shrinkage grows worse the farther down the food chain you are.

The message is clear. As John Warrillow said, if you are anywhere close to the magic numbers that attract mid-market buyers, the most important thing you can do is drive your company over the top. The difference can mean double, or even triple the proceeds you receive. Here’s an exercise. A company making $700,000 a year with a valuation of 3x earnings can sell for $2,100,000. If they grow to $1,100,000 in profits with a value of 5x earnings they’d get $5,500,000 at sale. That’s 57% growth in profits for 161% growth in price.

Any questions?

Even the measurement of earnings between the two types of business is different. We’ll discuss that next week.

 

 

Posted in Building Value, Entrepreneurship, Exit Options, Exit Planning, Exit Strategies, Top Blog Posts | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

One Response to Owners Live in Two Different Worlds

  1. David Basri says:

    There is no question about the difficulty in the Main Street market. Another strategy besides fading into the night is to find someone to pass it on to. That likely means finding someone years in advance, nurturing them and at some point starting to share equity. Having said that, I fully recognize that many small businesses are not in a market where a successor is easy to find. While I own a small software company, it is not so easy to find someone willing to start work at 3 AM so there are fresh bagels ready by 6 AM. Thank goodness there are such folks.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Toughest Part of Performance Reviews

There’s been some noise in the business press of late regarding large corporations’ decisions to eliminate performance reviews. Like those who have installed unlimited PTO (Paid Time Off) and other “new” management methods, review-less organizations are deemed to be more enlightened. Employees, especially Millennials, who work for enlightened organizations are presumed to be happier, and therefore more voluntarily productive.

To quote David Crosby in the song Deja Vu, “We have all been here before.” In the 70’s we had “Management by Walking Around” (MBWA). The idea was that managers would spend more time observing and interacting with their subordinates. This ongoing communication would eliminate the need for periodic formal reviews.

I was living in New Brunswick, NJ as I finished my undergraduate degree. Johnson and Johnson headquarters is in New Brunswick, and J&J dominates the local news as the biggest fish in a small pond. Their enlightened adoption went so far as letting employees decide their own goals for measuring effectiveness.

(A momentary aside. In the 70’s, as the Baby Boomers flooded into the workplace, there was substantial managerial discussion about how they were different from preceding generations. They were more educated, more concerned about the planet and social issues, and less inclined to follow command-and-control management systems. Sound familiar?)

Johnson and Johnson won multiple national awards as a great place to work. Employee surveys ranked it highly for its culture and atmosphere. Unfortunately, J&J began regularly missing Wall Street’s quarterly expectations.

Eventually there was a change at the top. As I recall the newspaper interview with the new CEO, he described J&J as “A great place to work. Unfortunately, we had a bunch of really happy employees who weren’t actually accomplishing anything.”

Now Amazon is taking a media pounding for its “rank and yank” review systems. Wait a minute; isn’t this roughly the same as Jack Welch’s famous (and very popular) “Topgrading” at GE? The book, by Brad Smart, is now in its third edition. Is striving to hire and promote the best workers good business, or just nasty capitalism run amok? Is Amazon really a sweatshop, or merely constrained by its business model from practicing the type of enlightenment that companies with 90% incremental margins (like Netflix) can afford?

performance review formI teach an annual program for first-level supervisors. In eight years, I’ve never had a participant volunteer that he or she likes doing performance reviews. In most small businesses they are avoided, delayed, and rushed when they finally happen. They are as painful for the reviewer as for the reviewee.

The solution is simple, although its not easy. Like so many other business processes, the work has to come up front to make execution simple. The secret is in setting goals. Real goals, not cotton-candy. What employee can measure their progress against “Sally should focus on becoming more proficient at her job,” or “Bob is almost ready to be a supervisor. He needs to develop his ability to delegate?”

I know it’s old hat, but Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Resourced, and Time-Sensitive (SMART) works, and its use in performance evaluation is a powerful tool. On Bob’s expected progress to supervisor, here are the possible goal parameters.

  • Specific: Bob needs to develop the skills and experience to supervise others effectively (This would be the whole goal setting portion of most performance reviews.)
  • Measureable: This will be rated on Bob’s completion of training as outlined, and his proven ability to understand the quality and productivity metrics in his department by preparing all reports for a complete project.
  • Attainable: Bob agrees that the objectives and timeframes outlined in these goals are achievable, and the company commits to making the necessary adjustments to support these goals.
  • Resourced. Approval is hereby given for Bob to enroll in Supervision I and II as delivered by Online Training International, followed by assignment as assistant supervisor on a project of not less that $5 million.
  • Time sensitive: Bob will be responsible for arranging his schedule to permit his completion of Supervision I by the end of the first quarter, and Supervision II by the end of the second quarter. Assignment to a large (>$5MM) project will take place following the training, but no later than the first month of the fourth quarter.

Now Bob has a road map of what he needs to do, and how to do it if he wants to advance. A ten minute check at the end of each quarter can tell if he’s on track. When the next annual review comes, there is plenty of advance notice as to what the likely result will be.

Not every job is as easily broken down. In fact, most are much more difficult, but the payoff is substantial. After all, if you as a business owner can’t define what you expect from your employees, how can you hold them accountable for delivering it?

Posted in Entrepreneurship, Leadership, Management | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

7 Responses to The Toughest Part of Performance Reviews

  1. Annual reviews are a horrible idea. Can imagine getting feedback 12 months later after a positive or negative event – how does it help? It only slightly recognizes what occurred. We are now moving to quarterly reviews and one day to monthly reviews. In the book The Game of Work, by Charles Coonradt, teaches an excellent method of measuring the success of the employee and how to harness that success to mutual benefit both employer and team members.

  2. Jon K. says:

    John,

    Thanks for the walk down memory lane, great reminders… As I recall, the things in life that are worth amything are often difficult and a lot of work, not fun and easy.

    jk

  3. Oswald Viva says:

    I fully agree with the negative feelings about performance reviews and that’s why I wrote my book “Performance Reviews; The Bad, The Ugly, … The Alternative” (Amazon).

  4. John Lind says:

    An employee is responsible to offer three areas to his/her employer; 1. Performance, 2. (Mutual Respect to organization, fellow employees and customers) , and the, 3. Ability to “Think” as to how they can assist and help achieve the organizations charge. That is it!

    A performance review, on a quarterly “update” basis, keeps the individual attuned and allows an avenue to resolve any issues that may be getting in the way of the best performance possible.

    It works.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Never Fire a Salesperson

The majority of business owners prefer linking pay to employee performance. The sales role in most businesses is the easiest and most obvious place to begin. Yet owners struggle with compensating salespeople in a manner that is affordable while still driving sustained performance.

Building a sales commission plan requires a balance between security (some form of base compensation) and incentives for performance. In addition, there are three factors that are considerations in the structure; Service levels, price flexibility and the length of the company’s sales cycle.

  1. Service Levels: These are (or should be) described in the salesperson’s job description. How many tasks are required that aren’t, strictly speaking, sales? Duties may require in-servicing or training clients on new products, straightening customer inventory, troubleshooting shipping and production issues, or other ongoing responsibilities that  fall more under the category of customer service than new business development. Base pay should reflect the percentage of working time that is expected for these tasks. Ignore the cost to the salesperson of these requirements, and they are likely to be neglected.
  2. Price Flexibility: This is a pretty straightforward part of compensation structuring. If prices are fixed, and the salesperson has no control over them, then commissions can be tied to gross sales. If the salesperson can offer customers different percentages off a book price, estimates, volume discounts or has any other control over the selling price, commissions should be based on gross margins.
  3. Sales Cycle: Simply put, how long does it usually take to land a customer? I worked with a CPA firm that wanted to hire a salesperson on commission only. When asked about the typical time between introduction to a prospect, and a decision to move compliance business to the firm, they answered “Two or three years.” They had no idea how the salesperson was supposed to survive long enough to see the fruits of his or her efforts. Pure commission structures are more appropriate in one-stop sales situations.

Base compensation covers two scenarios. One is the non-sales work as described above. The other is to provide a level of security while the employee is learning the business or building a customer base. There are three types of base pay.

  • Draw is an advance on commissions not yet earned. If the salesperson is starting with no customer base, draw arrangements frequently fall into the trap of a disincentive. Negative balances that have to be made up before the employee can earn more are discouraging. If there is a draw arrangement, it should logically be accompanied by a starting active customer base or recurring revenue that at least comes close to covering it.
  • Guarantees are similar to draw, but with no downside or deficit balance for falling short of goal. They function like salary, except that they are directly tied to sales production from the first dollar.
  • Salary is appropriate for new people starting out, or for positions that have a high service requirement. If the salary is to be permanent, then it should be about half the eventual expected income.

salesmanSalaries don’t have to be permanent. I knew one very successful organization that started all new sales employees on straight salary. Commissions were tracked, but none were paid while the employee was getting a salary. It lasted for six months, after which the employee automatically converted to straight commission.

If commissions were running at a rate less than the salary after six months, the salesperson was welcome to continue working for less compensation. The company also offered an interesting feature. The salesperson could elect at any time prior to the six month cutoff to move to straight commission. Of course, there was no going back.

This type of plan illustrates the final critical factor in any sales incentive plan. The salesperson should know, from the first day of employment, the level at which he or she is expected to perform, and the time allowed to reach that goal. Except for service compensation, any guaranteed base ceases at that point. A chart of this concept, dubbed “The Francis Curve” after the friend who first drew it for me, is on page 66 of my book Hunting in a Farmer’s World.

In the straight-salary-to straight-commission model above, salespeople knew from the first day when their commissions were expected to exceed their guaranty. Of course, many pleaded for an extension, claiming to be “real close” to making it. They were  invited to invest in their own success by toughing it out until they succeeded.

In reality, most who were underperforming chose self-termination well in advance of the deadline. A properly structured compensation plan means that you never have to fire a salesperson. They either leave voluntarily, or lower their cost to match their performance.

Posted in Entrepreneurship, Management, Marketing and Sales | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *