Build and Hold—the Difference between Getting Rich and Being Wealthy

(The Value Created by Long Term Control over a Sustainable Competitive Advantage or Factor of Production)

 

I read in October 2004 that Ottawa-base QNX Software Systems was sold to Harman International for $138 million USD. I know that some of my students and clients read it too and they will be thinking build something and sell it for A LOT OF MONEY. The only problem is that most of them might not read to page 2 of the Ottawa Citizen article (October 28, 2004) which says: “For Mr. Dodge, 50 and his partner Gordon bell, 49, the deal marks a vindication for their effort to build a profitable company without venture capital over 24 years.” (The emphasis is mine.)

 

I am not saying that you should never sell your business but what I am saying is that it takes time to build a great business.

 

People who build and sell quickly are known as flippers. Most of them flip ‘til they flop. If you have built a successful business, you have climbed Mount Everest twice. You have captured lightning in a bottle.

 

It is so hard to build a successful business, it takes so long to do it, you use up so much of your lifetime storehouse of luck doing it, that you should think very carefully before you sell it. Successful entrepreneurs often think: “Well, I did it once, I can do it again and again”. Bad news, people, often you can’t.

 

If you have built a great business, why sell it? What exactly will you do next? Start again? Why go through all the heartache and risk again when you already have a fine business you built yourself?

 

I didn’t feel that an essay on Building and holding onto your business (and helping to creditor proofing yourself at the same time) would be complete without mentioning this trap that so many of us fall into. It’s called hubris.

 

One of the best ways to get out of creditor hell is never to get into it in the first place. One of the ways to do that is to not sell your successful business. In almost all cases, a successful business will sustain you and your family and your employees and your suppliers and your other stakeholders far, far better than cash in the Bank.

 

Let me tell you another story, this one about Sean (not his real name). Sean was a by the bootstrap kind of guy and he had one great thing going for him—he had charm. He was a born salesperson and in the game of entrepreneurship, if you can’t sell, you’re out of the game before you can begin. (The three most important things in entrepreneurship are SALES, SALES, SALES.)

 

Well, one day about fifteen years ago, Sean found himself working in the fish department for a large supermarket chain; he was wearing one of those hair net things and he was developing arthritis in his hands from the cold and ice he was constantly exposed to. He and his spouse, Freda, had their first child (of what would eventually be a clan of three kids).

 

Sean thought to himself: “I can do better than this.”

 

The next day he went out and bought himself his first computer (never having even booted one up before) and started an advertising and promotion business in his basement with nothing other than guts, charm and a high school diploma. (I have changed his industry too to protect their identity. I apologize to my readers.)

 

I met Sean one day, about two years after he started working out of his basement, and he convinced me to move our entire advertising and promotion account over to his company. He was that good. I certainly asked him about his bona fides. Could he produce the volume we needed? How was his Quality Assurance program? Yadda, yadda, yadda.

 

I didn’t know until years later that this was his big break—it allowed him to finally move his business out of his basement, buy more equipment, hire more, better people, etc. But when he told me, we laughed about it together and I was doubly glad—glad that he was a success and glad that he didn’t let us down.

 

A few years later, Sean called me out of the blue. He had an offer to buy his business from a larger competitor for TWO MILLION DOLLARS IN CASH. I told him to slow down and think about it a bit more. I asked him a few questions. How much are you taking out of the business? About $200 to $250k a year. How much do you pay Freda to do your books? Oh, about another $50k. Do you have any company cars? Yeah, reckon so—two of them in fact.

 

In total, Sean and his family were getting about $300,000 a year from the Company, year in year out—it was a sustainable number.

 

I asked Sean, do you know what interest rates are on term deposits right now? No. Well, they are about 1.7% p.a., which means that even if this sale was tax free, your income from your two million dollars is going to be 34,000 bucks a year and every year inflation is going to eat away your principal. Now why would you give up $300,000 a year and a business you love and built yourself for that?

 

Let me quote actor and comedian Chris Rock:

 

“Shaq (Shaquille O'Neal who plays for the NBA’s Miami Heat) is rich but the man who signs Shaq’s pay check is wealthy.”

 

Chris Rock got it exactly right. You can get rich by winning the lottery, becoming a NBA Star, speculating, asset flipping, gambling, picking the right parents or prospecting for gold, diamonds, nickel, whatever, but you can’t become wealthy doing any of these things.

 

Wealth derives from control over a factor of production, a license, a franchise, a territory, a concession*, some IP (Intellectual Property like the secret formula for Coca Cola or the 11 secret herbs and spices that the Colonel uses to make fried chicken), a competitive advantage, a comparative advantage, property ownership—anything that creates a sustainable, repeating and renewable income stream; it is your ‘pixie dust’—the magic that really makes your business work.

 

(* What was the grant by the Crown of exclusive fur trapping and trading rights to the Hudson Bay Company in Rupert’s Land (all the lands (all 3.9 million square kilometres of it) that drained into Hudson’s Bay) in 1670 worth to that firm? Well, they became one of the longest-lived corporations ever known—in continuous operation to this day. Their great wealth and economic and political reach was based not only on their fur trading rights concession but also on their control of real estate—they later came to control some of the most valuable sites in many Canadian cities.

 

Long term wealth is often based on these types of privileges gained through political maneuvering. The Fred Harvey Company controlled the Mule Train concession to the bottom of the Grand Canyon for many years and was an enduring source of monopoly profits for them. My wife and I had an opportunity to take a couple of mules down to Phantom Ranch and stay overnight there in one of the most memorable trips of a lifetime. The Canyon is a sacred place but the only company with the right to take visitors down to Shangri-la by mule was the Fred Harvey Company. Waiting times for a place on the mule train is over one year. Think about it—no competition by fiat (i.e., by dictat or edict of  the National Park Service), long waiting times, total price setting control, a seller’s market, what more could you want.

 

If you are the Emperor of Japan, head of the House of Windsor (aka, the Queen of England) or head of the Holy Roman Catholic Church (aka, the Pope), you have a different type of concession but ones that have proven to be hugely long lasting. But maybe they aren’t quite so different after all—their fortunes are based on real estate as well as hereditary or faith based positions of power. The Queen is a huge rentier (basically, a landlord with residential and commercial properties as well as broad acres for lease); the value of the Emperor’s estate in downtown Tokyo (the Imperial Palace) is incalculable and the Church has developed one of the greatest portfolios of property on the planet by colonizing some of the best sites in every city and town where the Church was represented. Astutely, they almost never sell their property, calculating, correctly, that land leases of 49 or even 99 years were the right way to produce income for an institution with a time horizon measured in millennia. They can enjoy income from their properties without having to give up long term control over their lands. After the completion of a land lease, the property reverts back to the Church and the process begins all over again—perfect inflation protection and, since they are tax exempt too (in most instances), the Church has one of the most stable financial platforms imaginable. In my view, the Queen seriously eroded the long term stability of the House of Windsor in the last decade of the 20th Century by voluntarily giving up the Crown’s tax-exempt status in an attempt to appease her critics. It was very democratic of her but certainly will have adverse consequences for the future of her heirs.

 

There is no better business to be in than the Government business—they keep all the best businesses for themselves. For example, there is no higher margin business than the Casino or lottery business and governments everywhere seem to either keep the business and operate it themselves (as they do in Canada) or regulate it and tax it heavily. The dole out other choice concessions to their friends or influential people who can help them get re-elected. If their costs go up, they simply increase their prices (aka, taxes) and, if you don’t pay the higher prices, a) you have no where else to go for service anyway (e.g., for your water and sewer connection) and b) they can force you to pay either by taking away your property or your liberty or both.

 

Governments love the liquor business too—again, either they control it and operate it themselves or they simply control it and hand out concessions to private operators and tax them to the max. Yesterday’s bootlegger is today’s protected oligopolist.

 

Just how important are these types of ‘concessions’? Well, look at what the professions do. Professional Associations (for Architects, Engineers, Lawyers, Accountants, even Real Estate Agents, etc.) are based on the tradition of guilds made up of artisans who band together to: a) raise prices and b) restrict or otherwise raise barriers to entry for newcomers. They always cover their tracks (it’s called political cover) by claiming that they are raising standards to protect the consumer and the public interest which no doubt they are doing at least in part. Not to be too facetious about it but self-interest is a top consideration for these organizations. Unions (like, say, the NHL Players’ Association) perform exactly the same function for their members BTW.

 

In Canada, the Canadian Radio, Television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC, was formed to dole out concessions to industry players in one of the most profitable sectors of the Canadian economy. Their so-called mission is to protect Can-Con (Canadian Content, aka Canadian Culture) but there is no doubt that the regulator of Canadian airwaves (i.e., the CRTC) has been captured by the major firms that are ‘regulated’ by the Commission. The proof is that when new licenses are issued, they invariably go to established players. New entrants need not apply. The final proof is just turn on any Canadian TV channel in prime time so you can watch Friends reruns, Everybody Loves Raymond and see WillFresh Prince’ Smith in his endless turn as a hip teenager in Belair.)

 

Now let’s just look at some numbers; let’s say someone controlled the early Beatles catalogue (say, someone like Michael Jackson). Mr. Jackson is reputed to have bought the catalogue in 1985 for $47m (but he lost his friendship with Paul McCartney along the way). By 1993, MJ’s company was reportedly earning $30m from it (albeit, MJ had added other songs by other artists by that time but let’s ignore this for the moment) and it was estimated to be worth $300m at that time. This yields a cap rate (capitalization rate) of 10, which is pretty typical for this type of privately held asset. No one knows what kind of income stream he gets from this now but it has a rumored value of $1 billion today. MJ still owns 50% of it, the balance is owned by Sony.

 

With a cap rate of 10 and given that MJ owns half of the catalogue, we can guess that MJ gets $50m a year in income from his ownership. Plus the Beatles are making a huge comeback—just ask my 14 year old daughter, Jessica, who only wants Beatles CDs for her birthday and knows just about every word to every tune the Beatles ever recorded. So it wouldn’t surprise me if MJ’s income is going up every year from this source. This is called wealth. However, let’s say that MJ is in need of some quick cash and sells his interest to Sony for $500m. Now MJ would be rich (for a while) from selling his interest in the catalogue but he would no longer be wealthy because he has lost the ability to renew his wealth every year by producing an income stream from control over this particular factor of production.

 

But what’s that you say? He could invest the proceeds in T-Bills, Muni Bonds and GICs (Guaranteed Investment Certificates). Sure he could, but they produce puny 1.7% to 4% rates of return. If MJ paid $100m in taxes, he would be left with $400m, which would give him an income stream of $6.8m to $16m a year with no inflation protection. I mean if MJ were to continue to control the catalogue, he could always increase the price (aka royalty) paid for each tune if inflation takes off and starts to bite into his revenue stream. But even ignoring inflation, why would MJ trade an income stream of $50m a year that makes him wealthy to become a remittance man getting $6.8m to $16m a year? MJ has already turned down offers to sell; presumably he understands the Chris Rock difference between becoming rich and being wealthy*.

 

(* Somehow I doubt whether Lisa Marie Presley has read this piece. In December 2004, it was announced that Lisa had sold her father’s image and name as well as 85% of Elvis Presley Enterprises Inc. to Robert Sillerman-controlled SFX Entertainment for a reported $100 million, which included some stock in a new SFX controlled business. So not only does Lisa no longer own, control and direct a valuable franchise (her father’s estate, which brought in $45 million last year), she didn’t even get all her compensation in the form of CASH. As any entrepreneur knows, cash is KING. (Pardon the pun, Elvis). Now compare that with J.K. Rowling’s absolute and tight control over her creation (the Harry Potter series)—not only the publishing rights but also the film rights and other media rights as well. It has made her the richest woman in the U.K., worth more the Queen).

 

Did you know that many, maybe most, lottery winners blow their entire wad in less than five years? By that point, their spouses have left them, they are alienated from their old friends, they have got a whole new set of ‘friends’ who are only around while the money lasts and they don’t even have their old job to go back to. Many of them have picked up nasty habits along the way like taking drugs. It’s absolutely amazing how many of them end up in bankruptcy. They are much worse off for their ‘good fortune’.

 

People are meant to work. They are built for it. If you have built a good business, control a great concession, own a valuable franchise, possess a ‘secret’ formula, whatever, hang on to it, fight for it*—it is your security against creditor phone calls in the middle of the night asking you: “Mr. Jones, when can we expect payment?”

 

(* I was doing some work recently with a mega real estate agent. He is a salesperson for a large brokerage and is vying for one of the top national spots in terms of sales volume. He has developed a team approach to selling residential real estate and will sell more than 120 homes this year (2004).

 

I was surprised to learn (and it surprises me that after a great deal of experience with the real estate industry that I didn’t already know this) that he has developed a long term and sustainable competitive advantage. Remember, this is an industry that has no minimum educational requirements, not even a high school diploma is required to get your license. After successfully completing a three phase course in Ontario, virtually anyone can become a real estate agent. So the ‘barrier’ to entry is pretty low. (If you can’t be real estate agent, you can always be a homebuilder. If there is absolutely nothing else you know how to do—not even sell real estate or used cars, then just pick up a hammer and saw and become a builder.)

 

There are more than 40,000 real estate agents (more properly called ‘sales representatives’; technically, ‘agency’ is a term reserved for the relationship between the broker and the client.) in Canada. Many of them are very hard working and smart people. How in the world would anyone ever develop a sustainable, competitive advantage in such an industry?

 

Well, first of all, John (not his real name) treats his position as a salesperson as if it were a stand alone business. It is my personal belief that every salesperson in every industry should consider himself or herself as a quasi-independent entrepreneur.

 

John has a business model for himself and his team of sales assistants. He views his broker as one of his suppliers—the broker supplies John and his team with office space, holds his license, manages the trust accounts, pays the phone bill and keeps the lights on. He doesn’t really expect much more from his broker although he counts on the firm (which is a nationally known company) to burnish its reputation so at a minimum his association with the firm is not a net negative. Trust in this business is hard earned, important to his success and easily lost. But what freedom—you don’t have to worry about keeping the lights on, paying the phone bill or what have you—you just get to concentrate on your own core competency (i.e., selling) and there is no upper limit on what you can make. If more people thought this way and they treated their sales as a personal business for life (PB4L), then we would have a lot more high performance and happier sales reps.

 

As a supplier, the Broker represents John’s major COGS (Cost of Goods Sold), taking a 30% bite out of his commissions. John is responsible for his own marketing and sales, personnel selection and HR policies as these relate to his own team.

 

By thinking strategically about himself as a separate business unit, John and his team have experienced tremendous sales growth. But all of this would not have been possible without a bit more ‘pixie dust’—John has spent the last 15 years ‘farming’ a specific geographic area—he now controls more than 20% of all listings and sales in ‘his’ area.

 

Now I realize this is an old real estate trick—i.e., concentrating your marketing effort in one target area. In the real estate business, listings are everything. If you control a listing, then buyers or buyers’ agents have to come to you. Eventually, if you control enough listings within a designated area (probably around 20%), you become the market maker—sellers have to come to you to get their properties listed and sold because you have so many buyers coming to your (already) listed properties that if one isn’t just right for Harriet and Albert Smith, you probably have another one that is just perfect for them…

 

John has so many of his signs in his designated area that: a) it discourages other agents from trying to set up (poach) in that neighborhood and b) people who want to list and sell would be think twice before listing with anyone else. The awful thought in the minds of potential buyers if it wasn’t listed with John’s team might be: “What’s wrong with this house?” And that is the kiss of death in residential real estate. Perception is everything.

 

It turns out that farming a neighborhood and becoming its market maker are sustainable competitive advantages in an industry that really shouldn’t have one given its fundamentals. So think about it—it took John 15 years of incredibly hard work to get to this position. He sells over $30 million worth of homes a year. He does this with an average house price still in the $200,000s as compared with other agents in larger, wealthier markets where average home prices are in the $700,000s or higher and he still manages to make it into the top 1% of agents in his firm. Now if decides to cash in his chips and sell his PB4L, what would he get for it? Well, nada, nothing. That’s why it’s called a Personal Business for Life.

 

Postscript: John could, of course, explore a way to perhaps pass on the value he has created. He could take his broker exams and set up his own shop. In that way, his clients’ loyalty would be to the Brokerage (his Brokerage) and not necessarily to John. So when it comes time to sell, John has (maybe) something to actually sell—the Brokerage’s client list and existing listings.. But there are obvious problems with this approach—a) the clients may not port over to a new, unknown and untested Brokerage and b) maybe after John retires, the clients that have followed him to the new enterprise might drift away because they followed John and like and prefer working with him. I am not sure that there is any simple solution to this problem because surely one of the objectives of entrepreneurship is to create something that has a life beyond your own; in that way, you would have created something that can make money for you ‘while you are lying on a beach’.

 

For real estate salespersons and entrepreneurs, this remains a challenge that requires more thought. What John has created, so far, is a PB4L that remunerates him richly. This is only half the equation in entrepreneurship. He and I haven’t (yet) solved the other half and, unless we do, what he has done is basically create a J.O.B. for himself, albeit, a highly paid one.) Whatever John does though, he should clearly and doggedly keep what he has so dearly created—Build and Hold, Friend.

 

Copyright. Dr. Bruce M. Firestone, Ottawa, Canada. December 2004

 

http://www.dramatispersonae.org/CreditorProofing.htm

 

http://www.dramatispersonae.org/PersonalBusinessesThoughtExperiment.htm

 

www.DramatisPersonae.org

 

www.Exploriem.org