Tag Archives: great recession

4 Disasters That Never Should Have Occurred

It’s not easy trying to predict the unpredictable. Yet that’s what risk managers are responsible for doing every day. Sometimes, the plans to identify or protect against a particular disaster come up short. Read on for four of the biggest risk management disasters in history – and how the risk management industry has learned from them.

It’s become an iconic image in pop culture – Leonardo DiCaprio leans in close behind Kate Winslet as she raises her arms and exclaims “I’m flying!”

But what can Kate and Leo teach us about risk management?

Quite a lot, in fact. Thanks to several movies and countless other retellings, the tragedy of the Titanic is something everyone knows. But with a better understanding of some basic risk management principles, the Titanic never would have sunk at all.

Michael Angelina, executive director of the Academy of Risk Management and Insurance at Saint Joseph’s University, uses the Titanic and other notable risk management disasters to give his students a better idea of what exactly risk management is – and why they should care about it.

It turns out some of the most notable risk management disasters had specific causes that create pretty clear lessons for risk managers in a range of industries to learn. Let’s take a closer look at four of the biggest risk management disasters in history and what ARMs and risk managers took from them, starting with the event everyone’s favorite ’90s epic/romance/disaster movie is based on.

The sinking of the Titanic

The shortage of lifeboats on board the Titanic on April 15, 1912, has become a well-known fact representing the arrogance and naiveté of designers, crew members and passengers who were positive the massive vessel was unsinkable. To be sure, pretty much everyone was overconfident, from not giving lookouts binoculars to ignoring warnings from other ships about icebergs in the area.

And while the lack of lifeboats is held up as the primary example of that hubris, the 20 lifeboats actually complied with safety regulations at the time. In fact, only 16 rescue ships were required. Lifeboat capacity was determined by the weight of the ship, not the number of passengers on board. This rule was developed for much smaller ships and hadn’t been updated to adjust for the enormous ships that were built in the early years of the 20th century. What’s more, there hadn’t been a significant loss of life at sea for 40 years, and large ships usually stayed afloat long enough for individual lifeboats to make multiple trips to and from a rescue vessel. For all of those reasons, everyone tragically assumed there were an adequate number of lifeboats for passengers.

The risk management lesson learned: Complying with regulations and established best practices is no guarantee that a specific risk has been effectively mitigated. Risk managers need to consider these safeguards the same way they would any other risk prevention effort and take additional action when they don’t sufficiently guard against risk.

See also: A Revolution in Risk Management  

Deepwater Horizon explosion

When the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded on April 20, 2010, several executives from BP and Transocean were actually on the structure to celebrate seven years without a lost-time safety incident on the project. Company leaders were so focused on preventing – and measuring – lesser risks like slips, trips and falls that they failed to identify the more complicated process management risks that ultimately led to the explosion.

Risk management lesson learned: All risk analysis is essentially weighing how likely an event is to occur against what impact that event would have, then identifying effective ways to address those risks. Thanks to complacency, cutting corners, arrogance or some combination of those factors and others, BP and Transocean targeted risks with high probabilities and low impact. In the process, they neglected risks in the opposite quadrant of that matrix that were unlikely to occur but could have catastrophic results.

Sept. 11 attacks

Since the tragic events of Sept. 11, 2001, individuals, businesses and the U.S. government have put vast effort and resources into preparing for and defending our nation against further attacks. Professors of risk management at the University of Pennsylvania call 9/11 a “black swan” event – one that is very rare and difficult to prepare for.

Risk managers are extremely good at preventing what’s happened before from happening again. But unlikely events are extremely difficult to predict. Before Sept. 11, 2001, terrorism was listed as an unnamed peril in a majority of commercial insurance deals, according to Penn researchers. After the attacks, insurers paid $23 billion, and many states passed laws permitting insurers to exclude terrorism from corporate policies. Today, the semi-public Terrorism Risk Insurance Act covers as much as $100 billion in insured losses from terrorist attack.

Risk management lesson learned: These black swan events are difficult to predict and even more difficult to prepare for. A portion of the risk management field will always be reacting to the specifics of previous significant events and incorporating them into their models forecasting future risk.

Financial Crisis of 2007-2008

Plenty of people were quick to blame risk managers for failing to protect the world’s largest financial institutions against the biggest economic disaster since the Great Depression. The Harvard Business Review identified six ways companies fail to manage risk, while the Risk and Insurance Management Society (RIMS) argues the financial crisis was not caused by the failure of risk management, but rather organizations’ failure to embrace appropriate enterprise risk management behaviors. Companies provided short-term incentives and did not communicate enterprise risk management principles to all levels of the organization.

Risk management lesson learned: Risk management cannot exist in a vacuum. Creating a robust enterprise risk management program also requires communicating it to all levels of the organization and creating a culture and incentive system that matches the level of risk.

See also: Can Risk Management Even Be Effective?  

Interested in learning more about risk management? Check out the Associate in Risk Management designation from The Institutes.

How to Manage ‘Model Risk’ (and Win)

One of the fastest-growing concerns on insurers’ enterprise risk agenda is managing model risk. From being a phrase that primarily actuaries and other modelers used, “model risk” has become a major focus of regulators and the subject of intense activity and debate at insurers. How model risk management has evolved from ad hoc efforts to its current stage is an interesting story. But more interesting still is what we believe could be its next stage – generating measurable business value.

Generating measurable business value is model risk management’s next developmental stage.

Ad Hoc

Organizing and using experience to predict future claims is core to the business of insurance. Recognizing the importance of models, insurers and industry professionals, particularly actuaries, have long incorporated model reviews into their work.

As new models were introduced or changes made to existing ones – especially if third-party systems were involved – insurers were careful to ensure consistency between old and new models. Additionally, internal and external auditors’ procedures recognized the risk that models entail and incorporated verification and testing in their processes.

See Also: Secret Sauce for New Business Models?

What distinguishes this earliest stage is not that model risk was ignored but rather that model risk management was dispersed and generally informal. Practices differed across the industry, across different types of professional organizations and across different parts and functions within an insurer. Standards for documentation, both of the models and the validation process, were largely absent. Typically, not all models were reviewed. Establishing a comprehensive inventory of all significant models was not the norm. Likewise, it was not common for insurers to follow consistent procedures to validate models across the enterprise.

Reactive

Although a comprehensive guide to help banks mitigate potential risks arising from reliance on models was available as early as 2000, concerted attention to the issue in insurance can be dated to the Great Recession and its aftermath. In reaction to the events of 2008/2009, regulators and insurers themselves revisited their risk management processes and governance.

The U.S. Federal Reserve Board took the lead in promulgating new requirements for the banking sector, including supervisory guidance on model risk management issued in 2011. Many insurers, especially those designated as systematically important financial institutions (SIFIs), have been working to adopt these guidelines. In 2012, the North American CRO Council released its model validation principles for risk and capital models, which included eight core validation principles. For insurers operating in Europe, Solvency II provided the potential to use an internal model to establish their capital requirements. To take advantage of this opportunity, insurers needed to adhere to model validation expectations prescribed by regulators. In the U.S., the ORSA Guidance Manual requires insurers to describe their validation process.

Reacting to the 2008/2009 crisis and regulators’ demands, insurers began to establish the key elements of an enterprisewide model risk management program:

  • Governance and independence policies;
  • An inventory and risk assessment of all significant models; and
  • Documentation and validation standards.

Only after these basic building blocks had been put in place did insurers developed the practical experience to begin their transition to the next, active stage.

Active

The reactive stage and the beginning of the active stage effectively started in 2014. In the early months of that year, PwC conducted a survey of 36 insurers operating in the U.S. The survey provided the opportunity for participants to assess their programs across 10 dimensions characterizing the key elements of a monitoring and reporting mechanism (MRM) process. Modal responses across these dimensions were typically “weak” or “developing.” Almost all insurers admitted they had work to do and indicated that they had plans in place to improve their processes.

In the intervening two years, we have observed a significant investment in MRM capabilities. In the absence of detailed insurance-focused regulatory guidelines, most insurers have shaped their developments to best fit their own circumstances. For example, while there has been a near-uniform increase in resources allocated to MRM, how insurers deploy these resources has differed significantly. Some have formed large centralized model management functions, and others have allocated most of the validation responsibility to business units. How the responsibilities are dispersed across risk, actuarial, compliance and audit functions vary considerably. We expect that most of these differences are attempts to fit the task to the insurer’s existing structure and culture.

Likewise, we have seen insurers, both individually and as a group, more actively develop procedures that better fit the unique circumstances of the insurance sector instead of banking or financial services in general. Three areas in which the insurance sector is increasing its attention are:

  1. Incorporating the unique aspects of actuarial models and the development of standards by actuarial professional organizations;
  2. Emphasizing the process of assumption setting and the governance of this process; and
  3. Emphasizing monitoring and benchmarking necessitated by the long time frame and the lack of market data to measure the performance of many insurance models.

Productive

Recent discussions with forward-thinking insurance company executives and board members leads us to think a fourth stage may be next. The common theme is recognition that an insurer’s key asset is the information it possesses and the models it has developed to turn this information into support for profit-generating decisions. Seen in this light, models are not inconveniences substituting for “real” data. Rather, they are the machinery that insurers use to turn their raw materials (data) into salable, profitable costumer solutions.

See Also: How to Remove Fear in Risk Management

Model risk management then becomes the mechanism to ensure this machinery is performing at its best. This includes the normal activities that one would associate with maintenance, like finding and correcting inadequate performance. But, it also provides a way to determine how better machinery can be developed and brought online.

In many respects, the transition to this stage mirrors the transition that has occurred in risk management in general. Not too long ago, risk management was seen as a strictly defensive activity. It was more about saying “no” than finding the right opportunities to say “yes.” Now, risk management is seen as an important strategic activity that plays a central role in an insurer’s deployment of capital and its selection of growth opportunities.

Putting models and the data that feeds them at the center of an insurer’s value creation engine, instead of at its periphery, provides a new perspective. And, by moving model risk management to the productive stage, insurers can better use this new perspective to address customer expectations in an information-rich environment.

Implications

  • Model risk management is no longer an ad hoc or reactive activity. An active approach is now a necessity to meet internal and external stakeholder demands.
  • Insurers are attempting to develop model risk management practices that fit the needs of their industry. They will need to continually communicate to regulators, standards setters and other stakeholders how the business of insurance has unique characteristics compared with elsewhere in financial services.
  • Models are among insurers’ greatest assets, and the machinery that they use to turn data into salable, profitable costumer solutions. Putting models and the data that feeds them at the center of value creation can provide new perspectives that better address customer expectations. Model risk management becomes the tool to keep this machinery productive.

Restoring the Agent-Client Relationship

There has been a lot of frustration in the insurance industry from both those who sell it and those who need it. Both camps are suffering financially, and both can do better if they get together on vital insurance protection, but they just can’t seem to hook up without jumping through hoops. In an era of hyper-information and instant communication, this disconnect may seem crazy, but it’s real. In a time of chaotic change, an online meetup service would be valuable to agents and consumers alike to repair that agent/client relationship and put the personal touch back into insurance.

Financially challenged agents and consumers

Incomes have stagnated for insurance agents and the general public alike, and the route to better times seems unclear for both sides. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the mean annual salary for insurance sales agents inched up only 2% between 2010 and 2014. In 2010, it was $62,520.  In 2014, it was $63,730. Furthermore, the field has become overcrowded, with 18% more agents vying for the business in 2014 than in 2010.

The general public has fared no better. Following the Great Recession, which began in December 2007, the wealthiest Americans have done well. The “rest of us,” however, continue to struggle. The proportion of American households defined as “middle-income” remained stagnant from 2010 through 2014, at about 51%, according to a Pew Research Center study. Back in 1970, the “middle-income” percentage was 10 points higher.

The potential for pocketbook improvements

Both insurance agents and their prospects could do better financially if they could somehow get together more quickly and smoothly – through a matchmaker or intermediary.

It’s easy to see how agents could profit. With, say, a 10% to 50% increase in qualified leads per month, a corresponding jump in income could be expected. And with other efficiencies through more nuanced matchmaking, even greater income increases might be forthcoming – through enhanced referrals, for example.

It’s a little more complicated to see how connecting more smoothly could financially benefit insurance buyers. It becomes clear, though, when one goes to the heart of what insurance is for.  It’s for mitigating risk, which can be expensive. It also means personal benefits such as improved health and well-being. For example, good guidance from an agent can:

  • Make the difference between paying and not having to pay for home repairs after a type of storm damage not covered by an “economy” policy the agent advised against.
  • Preserve a family’s estate by convincing the family, early on, of the prudence of securing long-term-care insurance. This could be a financial game changer for millions of families that are now exposed. According to industry estimates, about 90% of those who could benefit from LTC insurance do not own a policy. And one of the biggest causes of bankruptcy is uncovered health expenses, especially in the later years!
  • Help keep clients safe and whole through an auto policy with safe-driving incentives. The potential benefits range from lower premiums to higher lifetime incomes because of avoiding accidents that might interrupt the ability to work.

As technology and society evolve, good guidance from an insurance agent may affect people’s pocketbooks and lives in more significant ways than ever. More and more agents can:

  • Team with financial advisers to foster sound budgeting, savings, investments and money management.
  • Influence their clients’ health by recommending policies, now starting to appear, that come with fitness incentives. The financial win here is double: lower premiums for keeping up one’s wellness routine and greater lifetime earnings through enhanced vitality and work-span.

The matchmaker solution

A good matchmaking service brings insurance agents and buyers together in very efficient, human ways. It starts with search and ends with introductions and contact.  It includes:

  • A search function to locate agents for a particular type of insurance (auto, critical illness, health, homeowners, life, long-term care, Medicare supplement) in a particular geographic area.
  • A list of agents with their pictures and names visible, for the buyer to peruse and select from.
  • Details about each agent, including:
    • Insurance lines and carriers represented.
    • Agent’s biography or background description.
    • Reviews or testimonials with ratings (usually one to five stars).
    • Link to the agent’s personal or business website.
    • Other information ranging from a location map to social media links.

Limited matching has existed for a few years. Some generic consumer rating and matching services embrace insurance agents. They include Yelp and Angie’s List. General search services, such as Google and Bing, serve as de facto matching services, but in a very spotty way. Insurance associations develop leads that are sold to agents but do not typically provide free online access to individual agents.

Robust agent-buyer matching, with all the above elements, is ready for prime time. In 2015, Agent Review, the first complete rating and matching service designed specifically for insurance agents and insurance buyers, was introduced.

Smarter, Faster Trades — and Without Fraud

New York Times senior economic correspondent Neil Irwin did great public service in his Upshot column provocatively titled, “Why Can’t the Banking Industry Solve Its Ethics Problems?

While Irwin addressed the issue for investors in general, his column should hold particular interest for those in the insurance business because insurers are such large investors and generate such a high percentage of their operating profit from investments. In terms of commercial and multifamily real estate mortgages alone, insurers hold more than $900 billion of investments, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association’s Q4 2013 report. (That’s $343 billion in commercial and multifamily mortgage debt plus $567 billion in commercial mortgage-backed securities, collateralized debt obligations and asset-backed securities.) The Federal Reserve tallies life insurance companies’ holdings of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) at $365 billion as of the end of the first quarter, 2014. Insurers need the investment industry to clean up its problems if they are to get maximum value from these huge investments.

Why does fraud occur so repeatedly? Irwin ponders.

The answer: gamed markets.

Since the Great Depression, investments systems have relied on enforcement after the fact. If companies were investigated, prosecuted and found to have done something wrong, they were punished. Typically, this is now done through fines and stricter monitoring, meaning that current and future staff – not those in place at the time of the fraud – and shareholders bear the costs. Sometimes, individual perpetrators are forced to retire (with pensions). Only in the past few years have the Department of Justice, Federal Housing Finance Administration and Securities and Exchange Commission begun extracting hefty fines and settlements with the largest banks, such as: Citigroup’s $7 billion, JPMorgan Chase’s $13 billion and Bank of America’s $6.3 billion with FHFA and the reported $17 billion with DOJ in connection with residential mortgage-backed securities.

As Irwin notes, fraud continues to occur despite extensive efforts to address the problems that led to the near-collapse of the financial system that spawned the Great Recession.

Gaming the system through high-speed trading remains legal. As long as there is no insider trading, traders can greatly increase the speed of their transactions with network equipment, software and advantageous location of their computers.

Insider trading is illegal but hard to root out. Successful prosecution almost always entails a whistleblower coming forward to provide regulators with precise information. And coming forward as a whistleblower entails consequential career risks.

Two innovations address these systemic challenges by providing better information for the market in real time and creating a feedback loop that improves that information – rather than waiting until after the fact to police bad guys. The innovations are interactive finance and confidence accounting.

First, Interactive finance rewards institutions and individuals with financial or strategic advantage for revealing information that details risk. That information could be, for instance, about the changing value of a house, about the payment history of the mortgagee, other financial information about the borrower, etc. That information would stay with the mortgage even if it became part of a pool that was sliced and diced into mortgage-backed securities, so that a potential buyer could probe and could track changes in real time, rather than rely on a single-point-in-time evaluation by a ratings agency. Interactive finance – not enforcement – would keep agencies from giving their highest ratings to securities whose underlying assets were suspect, as happened with sub-prime mortgages in the buildup to the Great Recession.

Marketcore, an intellectual property firm I advise, offers such interactive finance technology. It supports the determination of risk for financial products, continuous revaluation and analysis of components of pooled securities, among other capabilities that make markets and clear them.

Its technology diminishes incentives for fraud by making opacity and concealment anachronistic and replacing them with transparency. The IP also charts effective pathways to employ crowd data and meta data for timely detection of risk, building on the growing availability of information in a “big data” world and allowing for a generational improvement in detecting risk and rating credit.

Second, confidence accounting yields greater transparency and accuracy than traditional, prudential valuation. In confidence accounting, you don’t just set a value for an asset. You say there is an xx% chance that the valuation will fall within a certain range. You then roll up all the assessments and have a probability-based understanding of the likely range of total value. You can also use the estimations as a feedback loop and identify people or institutions that consistently overstate value – if someone says asset values will fall within a certain range 95% of the time, do those values, in fact, fall within that range 95% of the time?

As risk expert David M. Rowe explains in a current Risk blog (citing work by Ian Harris, Michael Mainelli and Jan-Peter Onstwedder) confidence accounting can illuminate “the degree of uncertainty around valuation estimates…including how to partition uncertainty surrounding current valuation from the more familiar concept of risk from uncertain future events, and the messy issue of how to aggregate valuation uncertainty for specific positions into the implied uncertainty of net worth.”

Through these two innovations, interactive finance and confidence accounting, banks would have much easier times detecting rogues and suppressing rascals. In the process, banks would not only increase their own wellbeing but that of their shareholders, employees and the investing public, including insurance companies.

Going forward is now a simple business decision for us all. We must pick up the pieces of what we have learned and refashion and rebuild data-refreshing business models in which everyone can participate as an information merchant. We must deliver a common architecture in which data is consistently revalued, in a system that continually rewards disclosures about risks and values.

Interactive finance and confidence accounting are emergent technologies poised to  play key roles shaping and defining smarter, faster, ethical trades in 21st century finance.

The Great Recession And My Business

For many closely-held and family business owners, 2008 and 2009 was a stressful period. The volatile market followed by the Great Recession often produced

  • a contraction of business revenue;
  • the loss of profitability;
  • the reduction in value of their companies;
  • the aggressive and often not rapid enough implementation of business and personal cost-cutting measures;
  • the layoffs of far more employees than these companies imagined might be necessary;
  • the reduction of personal asset values;
  • the reduction of owner pay and employee pay levels;
  • the liquidating of owner personal assets to capitalize the business;
  • the development of tenuous relations with their banks;
  • a need to reinvent their business offerings in the marketplace; and,
  • the concern about being able to meet their future financial goals.

Plus, the stress of all the previous mentioned events produced the most burdensome time of our business and personal lives. I, in fact, can say there were several occasions in 2009 when I called to reach a business owner client mid-workday to find that I reached them at home while they were nursing a stiff drink. To compound all this, while most baby boomers do not own businesses, most of our clients who own businesses are baby boomers, and the age in relation to retirement, personal savings, and lifestyle spend factors that make retirement a challenge for most baby boomers are often compounded for our business owners.

I had many a conversation with an owner who confided in me that they built their company, and would build its value again, but they were tired. Because the recession induced exhaustion, they felt that they only had the energy to build it one more time. As a result, they wanted to be very proactive and intentional about planning to maximize the business' value and minimize taxes upon their transition out of the business. It is in this regard that the development of a Business Transition Plan is of paramount importance. The development of a Business Transition Plan involves multiple steps:

  1. Identifying the owner's financial and timing objective for the transition out of the business.
  2. Assessing the business and personal resources available to help contribute to the owner's objectives.
  3. Developing and implementing strategies that will contribute to maximizing and protecting the value of the business.
  4. Evaluating the opportunities for ownership transition of the business to third parties.
  5. Evaluating the opportunities for ownership transition of the business to inside parties.
  6. Developing business continuity measures to protect the business and the owner's family from the loss of a key owner or employee.
  7. Developing a post-transition plan for the owner that aligns with their Legacy objectives, including lifestyle objectives, estate planning, philanthropy and family relationship enjoyment.

Let's look at each of these in greater detail.

Identifying the owner's financial and timing objectives for the transition out of the business: For most business owners, the transition out of their business will be the single, most significant, financial event of their life. Identifying when and how much the owner desires is the first step in the planning process.

Assessing the business and personal resources available to help contribute to the owner's objectives: In order to evaluate if the owner will be able to meet his or her financial objectives, we believe we must start by developing a personal financial plan for the owner(s). This plan takes into account the reality that both business value upon transition and personal wealth accumulated during the operation of the business, combined, will together finance the lifestyle of the retiring owner. The more efficiently a person manages their non-business wealth prior to exiting the business, the less pressure it places on the value obtained from the business upon exiting.

Developing and implementing strategies that will contribute to maximizing and protecting the value of the business: In my many discussions with business owners, I often conclude that the owner believes their business is worth more than it really is. One of the most beneficial things a business owner can do to maximize and protect business value is operate in a constant state of planning and operations as if their business is “For Sale.” By evaluating all of your company's planning and operations in alignment with this premise, an owner can proactively manage the investment in their business. These planning and operational strategies often include:

  • Development of non-owner management.
  • Implementation of Buy-Sell Arrangements between owners helps protect owners, and their heirs, from the termination of employment, death, disability, or divorce of an owner. Though not every risk in a business can be insured for, death and disability can and often should have insurance policies implemented to finance the buy-sell.
  • Business Dashboard Metrics of sales and profitability.
  • Task functionality planning within the business.
  • Maintaining sufficient capitalization within the company for growth and banking purposes.
  • Maintaining appropriate amounts of key-person insurance on valuable company personnel to protect the company from the loss of an owner, or key-employee, and the financial burden that can result. Examples of this burden can include loss of revenue, reduction in profitability, cost of hiring a replacement, or default of or risk to credit facilities. In the midst of a crisis, I don't believe it's possible to have too much cash.
  • Formalizing appropriate compensation agreements with executive management, including golden-handcuff incentive compensation plans.
  • Maintaining a certain level of outside audits of the company's financials.
  • Recognizing when family should not be running the business and hiring professional outside management.
  • Consistently reviewing customer contracts to maintain the most favorable terms for your company.
  • Maximizing tax reduction planning opportunities on corporate profit, and at the time of a business ownership transition.

Evaluating the opportunities for ownership transition of the business to third parties: Many businesses are good candidates for a sale to a third party. These third parties often come in the form of a Strategic or Financial Buyer. The Strategic Buyer is often a competitor, or non-competitor that desires to enter your geographic market or industry, and sees your company as a lower cost or more rapid pathway to entry. The Financial Buyer typically comes in the form of a private equity group that owns another company that, when combined with some aspect of your company's offering or value, can acquire or joint venture with your company's offering to multiply the value of both companies within the private equity group's portfolio.

Either of these alternatives can produce an excellent financial transition windfall to a selling business owner, assuming the selling owner's company is clean. When an acquirer performs its due diligence, if it finds that the company hasn't been operationally managing itself in a professional manner as mentioned, hasn't applied consistent accounting principles, doesn't have a deep management bench, or depends upon the owners for ongoing revenue or profitability, the value it will pay in a transaction plummets.

Evaluating the opportunities for ownership transition of the business to inside parties: Whether your transition intentions are to transfer ownership to heirs, key employees, or the employees as a whole through an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP), assessing the skills and leadership capabilities of your successors is as important as the development of your ownership transition plan.

A successful transition plan requires the implementation of both Leadership Succession Planning and Ownership Transition Planning. One without the other greatly increases the potential for a failed transition. Once both have been designed, it is then important to evaluate what ongoing role the current owners will maintain through the transition, and the timetable of the transition.

Unlike a 3rd party sale, with an internal transition, the owner's gradual departure often helps facilitate the smoothest transition of Leadership Succession, while the owner can ease into retirement with the benefit of continuing to receive compensation during the transition, distributions of profits, implement gifting strategies, receive seller-financed note payments, or benefit from other strategies, thus lightening the burden on the owner's personal financial assets post departure.

Developing business continuity measures to protect the business and the owner's family from the loss of a key owner or employee: Despite the implementation of intentional planning, life can bring surprises. The premature death of an owner or key-employee, a disability or incapacity, the recruitment of a key employee by a competitor, can all derail the good planning, revenue stability, or corporate profitability.

Every good transition plan should address the need for Buy-Sell Agreements to protect owner personal finances, cash out the family of key-employee minority owners, permit the next generation to purchase the company from the previous owner at its current value before it grows further, reap the benefit of any Step-Up in Basis deceased owner's estates receive at the time of death, and benefit from the income and estate tax-free liquidity that properly designed and owned life insurance policies can provide the business and its family owners.

This planning can also present an excellent opportunity to utilize life insurance liquidity to fund the buyout of next generation family heirs who may not desire to stay in the family business, but otherwise the business might not have the funds to initiate these realignments of ownership.

Developing a post-transition plan for the owner that provides for their post exit Income and Wealth Management needs, and aligns with their Legacy objectives, including lifestyle objectives, estate planning, philanthropy and family relationship enjoyment: For many owners, their lifestyle, hobbies, net worth, and self-esteem is wrapped up in the business. The transition out of the business can be a stressful one.

Many of our clients find this transition to be an opportunity to develop a new personal life mission statement, having experienced great success in life, now focusing on what they desire their Legacy to be. This Legacy planning may involve an increased participation in philanthropy, spending more time with family, possibly even stepping into a new “missional” career. This change in life focus is only possible if post retirement Wealth Management provides for ongoing stable income, which we believe is more important in creating financial independence than a client's net worth.

However, the long-term potential threat of inflation, current low interest rates, increasing U.S. Federal debt, deficit spending and stimulus spending can present major obstacles for the retiree to generate sufficient income when developing a “traditional” post-retirement wealth portfolio. It is for this reason that we approach personal financial planning from a “non-traditional” perspective as we evaluate and recommend investment options beyond stocks, bonds, mutual funds and ETFs and also focus on the tax-efficiency of Wealth Management as it is not “how much you make,” as much as it is “how much you keep.”