Who's the boss

The following is based on one of The Covenant Group’s clients. All of the names and telling details have been changed.

The reception area had all the markings of stature and success. The purposely-worn leather wingback chairs, appropriate artwork, almost indiscernible classical music and subtle lighting gave it the air of a third-generation law firm serving only the well-heeled and the well-connected. In fact, however, I was in the offices of Associated Family Wealth Management, a financial advisory firm focused on serving the affluent and ultra-affluent with “family office” services. Instead of being decades old, AFWM had existed for less than two years and, as I soon discovered, the permanence suggested by the external trappings belied the instability beyond the reception area.

The concept was sound. Four successful financial professionals, with complementary expertise, each feeling they had reached a plateau in their individual business, would join forces to offer fully integrated wealth management to no more than 50 high-net-worth families. From grandparent to grandchild, they would manage assets, cover risks, coordinate income, create legacies and handle the philanthropy desires of their clients.

John Myers, CFA was the investment specialist. Twenty years in the business, he had perfected an asset management approach for HNW clients employing a comprehensive Investment Policy Statement, based on objectives and proven risk profiling methodology.

Steve Wentworth, CLU, Ch FC handled risk management. His twelve years as a captive agent had taught him a systematic approach for addressing clients’ personal and business insurance needs. Creatively using life insurance to equalize treatment of children in situations of inheritance or business succession was his real joy.

Franco Vito, CA, CFP sold his private accounting practice to join AFWM so he could focus on his passion for financial planning. A self-confessed “computer nerd”, he loved using comprehensive planning software to develop strategies for income generation, capital preservation and distribution.

Kevin McGready, LLB worked for eight years at a prominent law firm as an estate-planning counsel before joining AFWM. He wanted greater scope to utilize his expertise in the use of personal and family trusts and holding companies to minimize taxes.

On the surface, it would be difficult to find a more qualified team to form a new family office practice. But the call I had received from John made it clear that something was amiss. “Don’t get me wrong” he’d said, “the business is doing OK. We are developing some good clients of the type we want and, although we spent more money in the start-up than we planned and are behind our target revenues, we’re still confident we’re on the right track. It’s just taking us longer than expected and that’s causing some friction among the partners.”
"Are there any other issues, John?”

“Well, actually, there is. There is a general feeling that the contributions of the partners aren’t equal, yet we share equally in the revenue. Some guys seem to be putting in more time and effort than others. Funny thing is, it’s reciprocal – the guys who are complaining that others aren’t pulling their weight are being criticized for exactly the same thing themselves.”

With this as a background, I now found myself at the head of AFWM’s boardroom table, flanked by two partners on each side. To break the ice and to test a theory I had, I said, somewhat jokingly “Just so that I know where to send the bill,”, “who’s the boss here?”

The downward glances reminded me of students when the teacher asks a question to which no one knows the answer.

“No, really,” I said, “who’s in charge? Who makes all the tough decisions?”

“We all do,” was the reply. “We are equal partners.”

“Do you ever disagree?”

“Yes, of course, we do but we always come to some sort of consensus.” 

“Consensus is good but it often also means compromise and concession. Have any of you ever felt that you conceded on something even when you really didn’t want to?”

“I have”, volunteered Franco. “I thought we spent way too much on our office. As an accountant, I can’t see the payback. We should have started in a less ostentatious way and upgraded over time as the revenues increased.”

“I don’t agree,” John countered. “The clientele we are trying to attract expect us to have prestigious premises. If we spent too much money on anything, it was that high-powered software you have. In the beginning, we had lots of time to manually devote to each client file. We didn’t need $20,000 worth of software right away.”

Steve jumped in. “I’m OK with both the office and the technology we have in place. We each brought an existing client base with us and if we wanted to gain leverage from that, we had to signal to them that we were a highly capable firm. My concern is the money we allocated to marketing and public relations. We all had good connections and if we each had a few meetings with key people, the word would spread soon enough.”

“Kevin, what’s your position on all this?” I asked.

“Actually”, he replied, “I’m OK with everything we have done. We developed a good business plan with which we all agreed. We have faltered but we are getting there. My concern is recognizing the value of the individual contributions. On our most recent case, I did about 75% of the work because the issues fell mostly into my area of expertise. In another situation, that could happen to John or Franco or Steve. Do we just hope it will all balance out more or less equally in the end and everyone will feel fairly treated?”

“Does your partnership agreement cover any of these questions?” I asked, “or just the standard death, disability and retirement issues?”

“No, it doesn’t – just the basics, plus agreement on an equal split of revenue and expenses.”

“OK”, I said, “let’s ask another question. Who holds you accountable?”

“Our clients do!”

“Your clients hold you accountable for the work you do for them, but who holds you accountable for the contribution you make to the firm?”

“We hold each other accountable for that.”

“That doesn’t seem to be working very well so far, does it? That shouldn’t be too surprising. It is extremely difficult to have equal partners accountable to each other because, by definition, that would mean, they aren’t equal. Someone would have to act as a higher authority, particularly, in times of disagreement.”

“Our experience is that partnerships that work best have several things in common. First, they have a well-designed business plan that sets out expectations at two levels – for the firm as a whole and for each partner’s specific contribution. The compensation typically includes an equal minimum income that allows each partner to maintain their basic lifestyle, some sort of ‘contribution enhancement’ that recognizes the business development results, actual hours spent, revenue generated, etc. for each partner as well as an agreed-upon ‘pooled bonus’ if net profit exceeds the plan.

The best firms have a methodology for ‘keeping score’ of hours spent, resources used and any other variables that impact the bottom line. Franco and Kevin, wasn’t that was standard operating procedure in your legal and accounting practices?

Accountability is dealt with internally and externally. Internally, there always has to be a ‘final authority’ who manages disputes and if need be, casts the deciding vote in the event of a deadlock. In some partnerships, it is obvious who that person should be, based on their value to the firm, an initial commitment of time and money or simply because no one else is interested in the job. If no one really wants the role, some partners rotate it among themselves on a periodic basis. In any event, the remaining partners must agree to respect any decisions made by the final authority.

Externally, successful firms establish an advisory board, made up of a combination of key clients, outside professionals, mentors and others interested in the success of the firm. Family members, by the way, do not typically make good advisory board candidates. They have difficulty holding other family members truly accountable.”

From this discussion, the balance of the day was spent reviewing the partnership agreement to ensure it addressed the key issues of revenue and expense recognition, compensation and dispute resolution. The partners concluded that they would rotate the role of ‘manager’ among themselves every 18 months. A method for tracking time and expenses was fashioned after the legal and accounting models. A list of potential candidates for an advisory board was created and the terms of their engagement determined, including responsibilities, meeting frequency, information sharing, communication and reward (none, other than a social event after each quarterly meeting). 

By the end of our session, the partners felt re-invigorated by what had been accomplished. We agreed to meet again in six months to see how the new plan was working and make any necessary adjustments. I was confident there wouldn’t be much to change.

________________________________

The Covenant Group is referred to by many as the place entrepreneurs go to become Business Builders. They are considered to be thought leaders and have authored the best-selling books, The 8 Best Practices of High-Performing Salespeople, The Entrepreneurial Journey, and The Business Builder.