I have a couple of quotes in this article on the difficulty of doing business in California.
On the same topic, Megan McArdle quoted extensively from my post on leaving Ventura County, and has some comments of her own.
Dispatches from District 48
Archive for the ‘Small Business’ Category.
I have a couple of quotes in this article on the difficulty of doing business in California.
On the same topic, Megan McArdle quoted extensively from my post on leaving Ventura County, and has some comments of her own.
One of my favorites writers Megan McArdle comments on my post about the regulatory excess in California. The same post was linked by Reason as well. The Reason post got the attention of Ron Paul, who will be interviewing me for his radio show next week.
I posted a few updates on the article today:
Wow, reading this again, I left out so much! An employee once sued us at this location for harassment and intimidation by her manager -- when the manager was her sister! It cost me over $20,000 in legal expenses to get the case dismissed. I had an older couple file a state complaint for age discrimination when they were terminated -- despite the fact that our entire business model is to hire retired people and the vast majority of our employees are 70 and older. And how could I have forgotten the process of getting a liquor license? I suppose I left it out because while tedious (my wife and I had to fly to California to get fingerprinted, for example), it is not really worse than in other places -- liquor license processes are universally bad, a feature and not a bug for the established businesses one is trying to compete with. We gave the license up pretty quickly, when we saw how crazy and irresponsible much of the customer base was. Trying to make the place safer and more family friendly, we banned alcohol from the lake area, and faced a series of lawsuit threats over that.
What are they thinking?
I mean, some employers are going to drop hours below 30 a week once the employer pay-or-play hits. But we won't see that until the February 2015 employment report, and there is no reason for employers to start that eighteen months in advance. It isn't there in the data. And nothing would lead anybody to expect that it would be visible in the data right now.
So why are they claiming that it is?
I am amazed at how even prominent pundits don't bother to educate themselves on even the most basic aspects of the policy issues they discuss.
Let's go back before the 1-year delay in the employer mandate, which was scheduled to take effect on Jan 1, 2014. In the implementation rules, employees would be classified as part-time or full-time on Jan 1, 2014 based on a 3-12 month look back at actual hours worked in 2013. That means that for many companies, such as ours, to have employees classified as part-time on day 1 of Obamacare, we had to have them working part time in January of 2013. By the time the Obamacare employee mandate was delayed, we had already made changes in our operations, so we are not going back and will just maintain them until 2015.
So for our company, and likely for many others, the change to part-time showed up in the first quarter of 2013.
So why is DeLong claiming otherwise?
We get literally (as they would say on the TV show Archer, literally literally and not figuratively literally) hundreds of paper bills to pay each month in our business. We can barely keep up just with paying them all, much less vetting every one. Which is what scam artist marketers count on when they craft fake bills they spam to businesses in hopes that some percentage, in their hustle and bustle, will pay the bills without knowing they are fraudulent.
These letters really, really tick me off. They are sent by people who apparently cannot sell a product or service on its own merits and so must trick harried business people into accidentally sending them money. I get these most frequently from companies that send me letters that look just like a government agency requiring yet another fee (the corporate minutes fraud).
So here is the most recent bill my accounts payable person questioned and put on my desk. It is from a company called US Telecom, and despite the remission address on the letter it is apparently based in California. You can click to enlarge the letter -- it is in very high resolution, which we will need to find the small print that they use to try to cover their butts.
Does this look like a regular bill to you for some service we have contracted for? It did to me. Note the "Due upon Receipt" at the top, the calculation below with previous balance and new balance and "pay this amount." No reasonable person in this country would say it looks like anything but an invoice for service received.
But this is not a bill. It is a solicitation for services. If you send the money, then you are committed. And by the way, per the terms below, once the agreement is in place, it cannot be terminated or amended (or likely refunded) without a signature from both parties, which means only if they approve it. If they don't, congrats, you are stuck in this contract. I have no idea if you actually paid, whether you would receive any services or not. Since they priced this service without even knowing what assets I have that would be serviced (note no equipment or equipment location is listed in the bill, the first "tell" to me this was a fraud) I am not sure how they would ever provide any service. (we were really saved by Quickbooks on this one, because my payables person flags any bill from a vendor not set up in our system).
They attempt to cover themselves, in the same way the corporate minutes scamsters do, with the small print in the last two lines at the bottom. Can't read it? LOL, I could not read it myself, even full size, without my glasses. You can click through if you wish to see it on the high rez version. But it says that it is not a bill, it is a solicitation, and that I am under no obligation to pay unless I accept the offer, which I do by paying. But by the language, once paid, I have accepted the offer and cannot get out of it without a signature from an authorized officer of their company. I bet that would be easy to get.
That last fine print may keep them out of jail or even let them sleep at night, but no legitimate business with a valuable product sells its services this way.
Update: Apparently there is a legitimate US Telecom and they are understandably pissed. They have set up a page on this billing fraud, and apparently the Attorneys General in a number of states are investigating.
Update #2: Talk about waddling in late on a story! These guys' registered corporate name is UST Development, run by a guy named David Bell. Ken White of Popehat has been on these guys for years. LOL, I even linked Ken's post a while back. You sleazy folks out there can f*ck with me all you want but you do not want to mess with Ken White.
Update #3: Good God, Ken did 14 posts on these guys. Enjoy.
The original purpose of this blog nine (eek!) years ago was to share lessons learned in my foray into entrepreneurship. I still try to post some things on this topic, though we obviously have moved a bit away from this original concept. But to this end, I wanted to link Walt Lipski's new small business M&A web site. I think of Walt as a entrepreneur who happens now to do investment banking. He was the one who helped me ten years ago get into this business (the entire business acquisition and start-up process described here), and I still go to him from time to time for advice. He is as straight forward and as trustworthy as anyone I have met in the M&A business.
I got a crazy inquiry from the state of Alabama today. I can't reproduce it without redacting a lot of confidential numbers and such, but essentially they said that we had originally filed to pay unemployment taxes in Alabama in March of 2009, but our first payroll report was not until April of 2009. I said, sure, once we knew we were going to start business in Alabama, I applied for all my Alabama registrations at one time to make sure they were in place for the start of operations (this includes corporate registration with the secretary of state, request for a taxpayer ID number, eGov account, state sales tax, state lodging tax, state boat rental tax, County sales tax, county boat rental tax, unemployment tax, and employee tax withholding). I am sure I am forgetting a few, and to make things more fun, every state is different. Tennessee, for example, has an entirely different set of tax types for businesses that I still do not fully understand.
Anyway, apparently most of these registrations must be obtained in advance, before starting business. BUT, at least in Alabama, I was told today it is ILLEGAL (yes, they used that word) to register for the unemployment tax system before your first payroll in the state. Apparently, one must register in arrears. Because of this, I was told my account has to be shut down and I have to be issued a new account number (which of course means more paperwork for me making the switch at my payroll company). All of this over 4 years later because I did not have any payroll in one month and had the naive notion that it was better to have all my government wastepaper in place before I started operations. I got the strong impression that this was the results of bureaucrats searching hard for something to keep themselves busy.
I have zero desire to comment on Tawana Brawley, but this article raised an issue at the end that has always been interesting to me. After literally decades of court action, Brawley finally had a garnishment order enforced on her paycheck to start making good on a defamation suit by the man she victimized with her false rape allegations (Which in fact demonstrates another point I have made before -- you can win a judgement in court but that can often be less than half the battle. It can be harder to get the judgement actually paid).
Anyway, apparently as soon as the garnishment order was applied by her employer, she quit the job without a forwarding address (the headline says "loses her job" as if she was fired but the text seems to say she quit, presumably to dodge the garnishment). This happens in my business all the time. On our 400+ employees, we probably get 5-10 new garnishment orders a year, often tax liens or child support payments. These take a while to catch up with people, so while the orders may be years old, the employees might work for me 3-6 months before the order shows up in our office to enforce. (For those who don't know, each state typically requires some sort of new employee notification by our business to the state, so they can run the employee's name and social security number against various data bases to generate these orders).
Once the first garnishment hits their paycheck, at least 80% quit immediately, moving on like Brawley to get another 6 months of work somewhere else before the garnishment presumably catches up to them again. I have no idea how large this group of job vagrants is that are constantly moving to dodge garnishments, but from our sample it is pretty large.
Last year I predicted that the biggest economic story of 2013 would be the end of full-time work (due to Obamacare) in the retail service industry. I seldom make predictions, but wrote that at the time because I was amazed that this shift to part time work was all we were talking about in the small business world, since for technical reasons in the law we had to have these changes in place in 2013, well before the 2014 start of the employer mandate.
The media world is finally catching up, particularly after recent jobs reports where the totality of net new job creation (and more) was in part time jobs. Here is yet another story from the media finally noticing a business conversation that has been going on for almost a year:
Employers around the country, from fast-food franchises to colleges, have told NBC News that they will be cutting workers’ hours below 30 a week because they can’t afford to offer the health insurance mandated by the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.
“To tell somebody that you’ve got to decrease their hours because of a law passed in Washington is very frustrating to me,” said Loren Goodridge, who owns 21 Subway franchises, including a restaurant in Kennebunk. “I know the impact I’m having on some of my employees.”
Goodridge said he’s cutting the hours of 50 workers to no more than 29 a week so he won’t trigger the provision in the new health care law that requires employers to offer coverage to employees who work 30 hours or more per week. The provision takes effect in 16 months....
The White House dismisses such examples as "anecdotal." Jason Furman, chairman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisors, said, “We are seeing no systematic evidence that the Affordable Care Act is having an adverse impact on job growth or the number of hours employees are working. … [S]ince the ACA became law, nearly 90 percent of the gain in employment has been in full-time positions.”
But the president of an influential union that supports Obamacare said the White House is wrong.
"It IS happening," insisted Joseph Hansen, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers union, which has 1.2 million members. "Wait a year. You'll see tremendous impact as workers have their hours reduced and their incomes reduced. The facts are already starting to show up. Their statistics, I think, are a little behind the time."
This has to be spin by the Obama Administration and not an honest belief. There is no way they could have missed this:
In June, the household survey reported that part-time jobs soared by 360,000 to 28,059,000 – an all time record high. Full time jobs? Down 240,000. And looking back at the entire year, so far in 2013, just 130K Full-Time Jobs have been added, offset by a whopping 557K Part-Time jobs.
I have written before that I think these changes are here to stay. In some cases it is actually easier for businesses to stitch together full service coverage from part-time workers, as I discussed in this article at Forbes.
Apparently Dennis Toeppen likes to sue the customers of his bus company Suburban Express (here, and previously here) with as many as 125 suits just this year in small claims court, many aimed at stifling customer criticism of the company.
This is just incredible to me. Last year we served about 2 million customers in the parks we operate (I am guessing that is a few more than Mr. Toeppen serves). Over the last 10 years we have served about 17 million customers. Do you know how many I have sued? Zero. Do you know how many I considered suing even for a microsecond? Zero. Unless a customer is 6 months late on a payment that equals a measurable percentage of annual revenues, you don't sue your customers.
I know online reviews can be a mixed bag, and some people's mental state or unreasonable expectations simply do not allow them to be fair. Get over it -- take your ego out of the equation. For God sakes, Casablanca has 39 1-star reviews (I always thought John Scalzi had a healthy way of dealing with this, publishing his one-star Amazon reviews on his blog from time to time.)
We get negative review from time to time. The vast majority, while perhaps overwrought from what some might feel was a small slight, have a core of truth. We treat all these reviews at face value, we try to track down the customers to find out more about their experience, we give out refunds and gift certificates, and then we fix things. Our biggest problem is that we hire what seem to be perfectly normal people who turn out to be arrogant and overly-officious when dealing with customers. This tends to come out in the form of an irritating predilection to over-enforce every trivial rule until customers' vacations are ruined. In other words, they seem to act like Mr. Toeppen and his employees. Negative customer comments are a treasure, as I can't be in every campground every minute of the day, and these comments are often the canary in the coal mine, letting me know we have an employee or process or training problem.
Yes, in a few circumstances we get flat out dishonest comments. One ex-employee was so upset at being terminated that he posed as a customer, posting fake reviews about how we employed a sexual predator in some campground. Several review sites we work with, knowing that I don't make a habit of trying to take down negative reviews, were willing to take this one down once explained. The other sites that by policy do not take down reviews allowed me to post a comment under the review, wherein I explained the situation, and gave my office phone number and email for anyone to call if they had any concerns about the campground either before or after the visit.
There is some chance this may be apocryphal (I don't see any evidence the reporters confirmed this with the FDA), but as someone who has had government inspectors show up on our property demanding to see our license to sell eggs, it wouldn't surprise me if true. I am bombarded with government insanity of this genre every day.
Apparently, a children's magician who was forced to obtain a government license for his stage rabbit is claiming
My USDA rabbit license requirement has taken another ridiculous twist. I just received an 8 page letter from the USDA, telling me that by July 29 I need to have in place a written disaster plan, detailing all the steps I would take to help get my rabbit through a disaster, such as a tornado, fire, flood, etc. They not only want to know how I will protect my rabbit during a disaster, but also what I will do after the disaster, to make sure my rabbit gets cared for properly. I am not kidding–before the end of July I need to have this written rabbit disaster plan in place, or I am breaking the law.
The bizarre government requests like this one at least give us a laugh around here. Less funny are the zillions of other pieces of waste paper that must be supplied to various agencies every month -- for example the 9 different permits which took 3 years to accumulate from Ventura County just to remove a dangerous and rotting deck (not coincidentally, we are closing all our business in Ventura County at the end of this year). Just in the last several days the Department of Labor asked for new, more onerous monthly reporting of headcounts and payroll by state (I declined) and the census bureau asked for quarterly rather than annual detailed reports of our lodging business (I declined).
One piece of advice I would give to harried small business people is to say "no" as often as possible to these data requests. Obviously, you will need to turn in your monthly sales tax reports or you will be going to jail, but do you really need to feed the census? The department of Commerce? The Department of Agriculture? The Labor Department? Much of this data they gather is used either 1) to craft regulations that will just make your life as a business owner harder in the future or 2) to subsidize academics and economists in the form of free data. As I told the Labor Department the other day, I am happy to fill out their survey if they want to pay me, say, $100 a month to compensate me for my time. Otherwise they are just stealing free labor and proprietary data from me to help some grad student write her PHD or help some Wall Street hedge fund manager better call the market.
Walter Olson has an article on three recent 5-4 decisions where we narrowly avoided Supreme Court rulings that would have further separated liability as a business owner from actual bad actions. This one in particular resonates with me:
Vance raised the question of who counts as a “supervisor” for purposes of harassment liability. Under existing Court precedent, employers are more or less automatically liable when a “supervisor” engages in harassment. When it’s a co-worker, they are still frequently liable – e.g., if they have received a complaint about it but not fixed things, or if they have negligently allowed the situation to develop – but liability isn’t as close to automatic. As all Justices recognized, however, the old model of a workplace with a military-like chain of command is fast giving way to newer models in which it is extremely hard to tell who is supervising whom, and in particular work orders (“Here, do this for me.”) can issue in multiple directions, not just from “up” to “down.” The four liberal justices were happy to blur the lines by saying that the more people are doing supervisor-like things, the more employees’ misconduct will be imputed automatically to the employer with no chance for it to raise counterarguments that it had acted properly. The majority led by Justice Alito more reasonably recognized that the ability to take tangible employment actions against a co-worker is a better test of “supervisor” than the ability to ask them to undertake some work responsibility.
Last year I got sucked into a lawsuit where an ex-employee, after her termination, sued our company for allegedly racist remarks another employee made about her husband. The lawsuit was the first we ever heard about the alleged incident -- it was never reported to me or any other manager or employee, it was behavior that was banned by our policies and training, and we never (obviously) had a chance to make any corrections. The litigant tried to argue that the person who made the alleged remarks was "supervisory" because she had sometimes been asked to draft a shift schedule for the manager.
We eventually had this dismissed, but it cost us $25,000 in legal fees to make it go away. It was particularly frustrating given that if this had ever been raised as an issue to me, it would have been investigated and heads would have rolled if necessary. This whole notion of having liability even when operating to the highest standards is just terrifying. And four Supreme Court justices tried to make all this irrelevant, essentially linking my liability to the standards and intelligence of whoever is my weakest employee.
Today I got three letters with a subject line and/or opening sentence accusing me of discrimination. Here are the three complaints:
- A camper did not get the $8 senior discount to which he was entitled, in large part because my new employee did not recognize his very old-style government recreation access card (I processed a refund immediately).
- A 20-year-old accused me of age discrimination when we told her she was too young to work in a store, despite the fact our manager explained patiently several times that we are prevented by law from hiring minors to sell alcoholic beverages
- A camper accused me of discrimination because we would not let him occupy a site clearly marked as having been reserved by another camper (who had not yet arrived). This obviously is odd -- I am discriminating against people without reservations for reserved sites?
None of these folks appear to be a part of a legally protected group, nor did they site any treatment they received that was different from similarly situated people at the same location. They just didn't like a particular policy and wanted to complain, but have been taught by society that the best way to get attention is to claim DISCRIMINATION -- sort of like a witchcraft accusation in the 17th century.
All of this is to answer the question of why someone like myself who has vocally supported gays and gay marriage for decades would oppose legislation naming homosexuals as another government-protected class. I have defended openly gay employees of mine against ignorant accusations that their homosexuality somehow posed dangers to the kids camping at the park they helped to maintain. But discrimination law makes me crazy. Think of it this way -- bad things happen to everyone from time to time. I am a white male, but despite this status I have gotten turned down for jobs, have been laid off from jobs, and frequently have received bad, even rude customer service. Everybody does. Discrimination law often takes these typical day-to-day indignities we all face and converts them, literally, into a Federal case.
I frequently write here that almost never does a month go by, even in a state where I have operated for over 10 years, that I don't discover yet another tax I owe or license I must obtain.
Today, I got a note from the state of Arizona that we must license our two septic pumping trucks with the state. Already, these are licensed each year with the County in which they operate, a process that includes a fee (of course) and an inspection by the County. Now I have to fill out a bunch of forms to send the exact same information to the state, with yet another fee (of course) and the need for another inspection each year by the County. I asked if my current County license would suffice to cover the inspection, and I was told no. So, to operate this truck in Arizona I must
It is interesting to note that the state does nothing except file my form and bank the fee. This is just another money and power grab -- more cash for the bureaucracy and yet another useless task (filing these forms and sending out compliance letters, etc) to justify their headcount. Then the next time someone suggests "brutal cuts" to state budgets, everyone can scream that the rivers will run brown with sewage because the state won't have the people to collect all the paperwork that duplicates what the County already collects.
Just after wasting an hour or two of my time with this (and sending it to my managers to waste days of their time), I got a happy note from the US Census Bureau that I had been selected to file quarterly reports about my business (they have a special survey of the lodging business -- I presume they do this for other industries as well). I wrote back:
To Whom It May Concern:
I am not sure what we have done wrong to be punished with this extra workload, but unless I hear back from you that this report is required of us by law under threat of some sort of dire consequence, we will not be filling it out.
We are a small company and only I, the President, am equipped to fill out this form. We already fill out your annual survey and it is incredibly time-consuming for us, for it asks for data in ways we do not normally track it. Further, it asks for our P&L in a form that does not match GAAP accounting, which causes all sorts of difficulties in completing it. And we don’t normally compile results on a quarterly basis, only annual, so this report would be particularly onerous. We actually have to run a business here.
Finally, I might add, I am loathe to send the government yet more data since this data will likely just be used as a justification to raise my taxes or increase our regulatory burden.
So no thanks.
PS- let's just assume the "you have a crappy job" jokes have already been made and move forward from there in the comments.
I got a note from some advocacy group asking me to lend my voice to stopping some cut in SBA lending. This is what they linked to:
A federal program designed to help small businesses with commercial real estate mortgages is coming to an end this week.
The U.S. Small Business Administration’s 504 loan refinancing program, which expires Thursday, allowed companies to refinance real estate and equipment loans.
SBA 504 loans for new purchases are still available.
I had a couple of thoughts
I can't prove it, but I am convinced the SBA has killed innovation in the private lending market to small businesses.
Update: Another thought - the SBA is the barely-useful quid pro quo cited by statists from all the fantastically expensive and time-consuming regulation that gets dumped on small businesses. Well, I don't want it. I don't want to give statists any cover that this is somehow an equal bargain. It's a quarter flipped up on one side of the scale to balance ten tons of bullshit on the other side. It's like sending flowers to someone you raped.
This is a note for small businesses that deposit a lot of cash and small checks, perhaps from a retail operation. We have found that the fees of the large banks are simply awful for retail deposit accounts. Bank of America, Wells Fargo, US Bank, and Zions are all fairly large banks who have raised fees as high as $100+ a month just for a checking account into which we make a weekly deposit of cash and small checks. In particular, US Bank has taken over two of our small deposit banks recently, and raised our fee from $7 on one account to over $120 last month.
Even if your main banking relationship is with someone else, look for a small local bank or credit union for deposit accounts. I have a number of such small banks around the country that charge us zero a month for our deposit account, and at worst up to $10. Anything more, and you can probably do better.
I already had this column at Forbes in the works, but I could not resist switching the protagonist from myself to Obama's Julia. Every tax, license, and story here are real ones I have experienced in my business. Here is just a small sample:
So twelve registration numbers and 12 monthly/quarterly/yearly reports later, surely Julia has fulfilled all her obligations to the government. Unfortunately, no, because she has not even begun to address licensing issues. To begin, the County will require that she get an occupancy permit for her campground, which must be renewed annually. This seemed surprisingly easy, until someone from the County noticed she had removed an old rotting wooden deck from the back of her store that had been a safety issue and an eyesore. It turns out she was in violation of County law because she did not get a removal permit first. She was required to get a permit retroactively, which eventually required payments to seven different County agencies and at one point required, for a reason she never understood, the collection and testing of a soil sample.
Because she will be selling packaged foods in her store (e.g. chips and pop-tarts), she also has to get a health department license and inspection. She had originally intended to keep some fresh-brewed coffee for customers in the store, but it turned out that required a higher-level health license and eight hours training in food handling. She might have been willing to pursue it, but the inspector told her that to make coffee, she would need to install a three-basin stainless steel wash-up sink plus a separate mop sink in her store, and she decided that coffee would have to wait.
Once through the general health licensing process, she then needed to obtain licenses for individual products. She wanted to sell aspirin, so she had to get a state over-the counter drug sale license. She knew that customers would want cigarettes, so she had to obtain a tobacco sales license. One day as she was setting up, a state inspector noticed she had a carton of eggs in her cooler, and notified her she needed a state license to sell eggs (as Dave Barry would say, I am not making this up). And then there was the problem of beer.
My Forbes article is up this week and uses my company's vendors to compare the power of markets vs. government regulation. A small excerpt:
I am assuming that many readers will have already spotted what these three vendors have in common: all are either highly-regulated government-enforced monopolies (in the case of liquor wholesaling and electric power) or government agencies themselves. As a consumer, I get the worst deal from my vendors in direct proportion to how heavily regulated they are.
My column this week in Forbes is about the declining rate of entrepreneurship and startups in the US.
A recent study by the Beauru of Labor Statistics confirmed a potentially disturbing trend — that the number of new startup businesses in the United States has declined since 2006, and the number of jobs created by those startups has been in decline for over a decade.
This is not just a result of the recent recession. These declines pre-date the current recession, and besides, startup activity has always held up well in past recessions as unemployed workers try entrepreneurship as a path back to prosperity.
There are likely a myriad of economic and demographic reasons for this decline, but certainly the growth of government power in the economy must be seen as a major contributor. Government intervention in commerce nearly always favors large companies over small, even if that was not its specific intent, for a couple of reasons:
- Increasingly complex and pervasive regulations on everything from labor practices to salt content tend to add a compliance cost burden that is more easily born by larger companies
- Large, entrenched competitors are becoming more facile at manipulating government to create barriers to competition from upstart companies with different business models.
The role of government in throttling entrepreneurship has been evident for years, in the enormous differentials between US and European business startup rates. Historically, the US has had entrepeneurship rates 3-4 times higher than in the large European industrial countries, due in large part to the barriers these latter countries place in the way of business creation. But the US, with its current bi-partisan drive towards a corporate state, may soon be engaged in a race to the bottom with these other countries.
I go on to discuss each of these two points in more depth.
I have to agree with Glen Reynolds that this is an awesome quote, from a member of the teacher's union in Denver:
That’s your problem. You’re an entrepreneur, so you don’t work. You don’t know what work is until you get into an educational area.
Yep, some day I will have to stop loafing around and take on a brutal assistant principal job somewhere. All I have to worry about is that every dollar I own (and more) is invested in my business and could disappear at any time if I make a mistake. Thank God I don't have to sit around all day worrying whether the doctor that hands out no-questions-asked disability rulings will still be practicing when I am 45 and ready to retire.
I call this the "Dallas / Dynasty" perception of business, that businessmen just grab a phone call or two, go to a power lunch, and then head home to the mansion.
Update: Apparently this is a common misconception about entrepeneurs
The average number of working hours per week of a successful starting entrepreneur is seventy. This catches the typical American dreamer by surprise.
Nor do teachers spend all of their time at school in the classroom. In fact, teachers spend fewer hours actually instructing students than many recognize. Stanford's Terry Moe worked with data straight from the nation's largest teacher union's own data - and found that the average teacher in a department setting (that is, where students have different teachers for different subjects) was in the classroom for fewer than 3.9 hours out of the 7.3 hours at school each day.
With several hours set aside at school for course-planning and grading, it strains plausibility that on average teachers must spend more hours working at home than do other professionals.
Not to mention, of course, summer vacation, Christmas break, spring break, fall break.... Oh, and the fact that they have lifetime job security because in public schools they can't be fired for even the most egregious incompetance
Anyone use Paycom for payroll? Considering switching there from ADP, both for cost and what I think is a better IT platform.
One issue I discussed in my article on buying your own business was business valuation. This article from Inc magazine talks about business valuations during this recession, and includes an interview with Walt Lipski, a terrific investment banker in the small business sector who represented me in my purchase.
A while back another entrepreneur/blogger wrote and asked me about investment choices for retirement. My philosophy on retirement seems to be a lot different than that of others, and I think owning one's own company changes some of the dynamics of retirement investing. Note that this advice is not right for everyone, and maybe no one, so read at your own risk. I publish it because the person I wrote suggested I do so, and after weeks of crazy intense work schedules I finally have the time.
A blogger wrote me about his despair at finding appropriate investment vehicles for his retirement savings. With relatively equal chances of 1) a long period of Japan-like slow growth or 2) a high inflationary period triggered by trying to avoid #1, both bonds and equities looked bad, and while real estate may have some value plays when things finally bottom out, neither of us has the time to pursue that. [since our emails, International equities are something I have moved money into, both as a diversification play as well as a way to short the dollar].
As I wrote him in one email
There is still a good chance of returning to normal growth in the middle somewhere, but both those bookends [inflation and stagnation] loom much larger than they might have, say, in my calculations five years ago. I have trouble figuring out what to invest in when both are possibilities. Equities? Great for hedging inflation but suck if there is a lost decade. Bonds would make sense in that case, but their interest will be low and they will be awful if inflation ramps up. If I really knew we would get inflation and devaluation, I would be leveraging like crazy because inflation transfers wealth from creditors to debtors.
As a result, I said that my main investment for my free capital was debt reduction and de-leveraging of my own business. Paying down debt has the advantage of having an absolutely predictable return and it reduces risk. This makes double sense for me as I have put new expansion investments in my business on hold until a variety of government issues from health care to tax rates become clearer. (For example, in health care, because my company is an oddity, with seasonal part time workers mostly on Medicare already, no one can yet tell me what my future costs will be. Estimates range from +0 to +20% of revenues!)
The key to my business, which may be very different from others, is that I make big investments to gain long-term contracts, but once captured, these contracts give my business a fair amount of stability and predictability. Further, in the latest recession, my business has proved to be either counter-cyclical or at least recession-proof to some extent, as 2009 was actually a blow-out record year for us. Given these facts, I am able to put a higher percentage of my net worth into my own business as an investment, without having to diversify as much in case of business trauma. And I prefer this. Given the choice of investing in a company I barely know on the NYSE or mine, which I understand and control, I prefer the latter. Also, returns on capital from buying or investing in private small businesses can be much higher (with higher risk of course) than in traditional equities -- see my whole series on buying a small business.
But here is where I really differ from most people: I take a very different view of retirement. When I worked in grinding corporate jobs (e.g. up until I was about 40) I was very focused on retirement. Now that I am doing something that is not brutally stressful, I hardly think about retirement. The whole concept of retirement now seems weird. I have, after a lot of hard work, gotten my business to the point where I can generally work as hard as I want to -- if I don't work hard, the business does not grow but I have good people such that it doesn't fall apart either. I compete with people who are running businesses in their late 70's who are still having a good time. I can take nice trips when I want to, take the day off if I need to, or whatever. My business actually has an off-season so I can be more relaxed part of the year.
My advice to this particular entrepreneur was to maybe reconsider the paradigm of "retirement." After all, the the long history of the world, retirement is a new concept that is barely 100 years old.
Are you the shuffleboard and golf type? What do you imagine yourself doing after retirement? I think you need some protection against becoming infirm or senile, but if you are healthy and vigorous, are you the type to get bored fast? As an example, nearly all of my 400 employees are retired, but they all got bored and wanted something to do.
Here is an alternative, entrepreneur's way to think about planning for retirement: How do I work really hard building a business that in 10 years will have a position such that it spits out some level of cash without effort on my part and can still grow if I want to spend time on it. I am surrounded in Scottsdale by people who have done exactly this after giving up a corporate job. At some point they took their savings from their 30s and 40s and dumped it into a business where they could still have the lifestyle they wanted. Buying or building the right company is sort of like buying a bond with an attached warrant whose value is related to how hard you want to work.
As I implied earlier, this is not an appropriate approach for every small business. The problem with technology businesses, for example, is that they never seem to mature into that latter predictable-cash-flow-stable-market-share phase. One is always running in place. One lesson I never forgot from my corporate years: In the industrial sector, I often saw people making loads of money selling bushings or some such whose design hadn't changed since 1920. It led me to this strategy: Find a market with barriers to entry, which may well not be very sexy, and spend ten years battering you way in, and then relax behind those walls. (As to sexy, the very first two classes of the first year Harvard Business School strategy course were a sexy cool software business and a boring stable industrial product business. Of course,the boring stable water meters made a fortune, while the software business never made a good return on capital. Beware of sexy businesses -- see: Airlines).
One other paradigm I would challenge is the notion everything you do as an entrepeneur has to be started from scratch. Many entrepreneurs have fun doing this but the prospect of doing a bootstrap startup when you are 70 years old is exhausting. Such entrepreneurs who have had a life of serial startups might consider a new phase in their business career as they get older, when they have saved enough assets to perhaps buy into an existing business rather than starting from scratch. I cannot tell you how many interesting small businesses there are that come up for sale with a guy who has an interesting product and has made some progress but can't manage his way out of a paper bag and thus hits some growth ceiling. I bought just such a core to my current business 8 years ago. These businesses require a lot of due diligence, because they are a real mixed bag, but I bought mine in an asset sale for 3.5 times EBITDA (which is an entirely typical price). Try buying Wall Street equities for 3.5 times EBITDA! If you pick the right business, and you are a good manager, there is not a better investment out there. Again, see my whole series on buying a small business.
Of course this investing-for-retirement is higher risk, because one bets a substantial portion of his net worth on his own business. But for those with confidence in their own ability, I find it a lot more compelling to bet my capital on myself rather than on guys I don't know running the Fortune 500.
I often have to try to put together a staffing plan and pro forma for new business opportunities in states or utilizing professions with which I am unfamiliar. I have no idea how accurate it is overall, but so far this site has been a useful site for figuring out what market wages for certain positions may be.
As a small business, there is just about no way to get a bank loan based on cash flow -- not just on future projections of cash flow, but even just based on a history of strong cash flows in the company. This is not particularly new post-financial-crash... I wrote about this issue years ago.
In contrast, it is fairly easy to get equipment financing. I get 10 calls a week from folks trying to finance my equipment purchases. If they can slap a lien against a moveable asset, people will lend money. The only change I have noticed of late is that fewer of these folks will do titled assets (like road vehicles). This is kind of ironic, since they can perfect their lien on titled assets more strongly, but apparently the government paperwork hassles with titles makes lending expensive for these assets.
The one exception to this is for boats. We would like to buy a bunch of new pontoon boats for rental service at some of our lakeside marinas. Pontoon boats are great assets - they have fast payback, they are tanks so they last forever, and they don't go very fast so they don't usually get in accidents. But no one will touch boat lending. Apparently there is too much liability for lenders. Which is just crazy, when you think about it. How in the world have we created a tort structure where Bank X is somehow liable for the actions of a boat user that gets hurt, just because Bank X lent the money for our company to buy the boat and then rent the boat to the user?\
Anyway, if anyone knows someone who finances such commercial boat purchases, drop me an email.