Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Continuing the mashup theme of reposting readings that are too good to lose track of:   I checked out some of the resources on the Northwest Cooperative Development Center site to study up on producer cooperatives.  Ideally, you start with a few producers to establish what it will be.  I started reading the USDA’s “Vital Steps: A cooperative feasibility study guide” from their website and it had a section requoted from another guide that is too good to not share.  Cut & Pasted below: my source: http://nwcdc.coop/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Vital-Steps-A-Co-op-Feas-Study-Guide1.pdf

“Creating ‘Co-op Fever’: A Rural Developer’s Guide to  Creating Cooperatives” (see references or http://www  .rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/pub/sr54/sr54.htm), author Bill Patrie mentions the following five characteristics of a  “project champion” who provides strong leadership:

  1. Credibility
  2. Financial stability
  3. Basic knowledge of the industry
  4. Willingness to accept the servant leadership  role
  5. A developer, not a promoter

Patrie defines these five characteristics (verbatim)  as follows:

1. Credibility  —Is the individual personally credible in his/her neighborhood? They need not be the  biggest farmer or the most active in commodity associations, but they must be respected for their judgment.  Avoid individuals who have tried every new idea that  has come around and are suckers for anything new. I look for people who finish what they start and can  take a long-term view.

2. Financial Stability  —Is the individual capable of  keeping his/her house in order? Producers who have failed before (especially if they have gone through personal bankruptcy) usually lack the credibility with  other producers and lenders to lead the project. They must be able to devote time away from their personal business to help develop the cooperative. This criterion is extremely limiting because many producers lack the time it takes to do the work without jeopardizing  their individual operations. I once worked with a cooperative whose interim board chair wanted to use  organizational funds to buy clothes. Her argument was that she would make a better impression on investors if she could afford to dress well.  [SM – sounds like Sarah Palin!]

3. Basic Knowledge of the Industry  —Is the individual familiar with the industry in a comprehensive way? Most value-added cooperatives are also vertically integrated. The project champion must have a basic understanding of the entire industry—from the first steps of production through processing to marketing to the final consumer. This is a tall order and can’t be  easily filled. The “Madison Principles”  are critical at  this stage of leadership selection.  Often, producers become enamored of a manufacturing technology or an available building and want  to quickly close the deal to own the facility or the  equipment. A true project champion must lead the  group through a market analysis prior to analyzing  processing facility and equipment needs. If an individual can’t be found who has this basic understanding of  the industry, then I look for a person who is willing to  learn.

4. Willingness To Accept the Servant Leadership Role  —The project champion is often uncompensated.  They will frequently be criticized, often unfairly, and sometimes insulted. Thin-skinned or quick-tempered  people often do not last in the pressure-cooker environment of creating a new cooperative enterprise. I  look for a project champion who has balance in her/his  life. They must have patience, people skills, a good  ense of humor, and a sense of what is ridiculous.

5. A Developer, Not a Promoter  —This is development work, not promotion. Promotion may get column inches in the local paper and a 30-second spot on the 6  o’clock news, but it won’t build a financially viable  company. While enthusiasm is important, it can’t replace critical common sense and solid business judgment.

These five attributes are important in a “project  champion” or leader of a cooperative development project

You can find a copy of The Madison Principles here. They seem to be what makes for a good cooperative. More commonly folks refer to the Rochdale principles, which are about what makes a cooperative.

Recently at Hub Seattle we hosted a showing of Shift Change, a documentary about worker cooperativism. Afterwards we had a panel discussion with folks from One Pacific Coast Bank, Equal Exchange, and the filmmakers themselves. A number of great resources came up during the discussion that I want to remember, so I will put them here for handy reference by all of us!

http://shiftchange.org/ – the movie website
The Northwest Cooperative Development Center - http://www.NWCDC.org
The US Federation of Worker Cooperatives http://www.usworker.coop/front
The Ohio Employee Ownership Center http://www.oeockent.org/
The Democracy at Work Network http://www.dawn.coop/ (Alison Booth of Equal Exchange is a peer advisor here)
SLICE (strengthening local independent cooperatives everywhere) http://www.slice.coop/
A local networking opportunity – Cooperative Seattle http://cooperativeseattle.org/
The National Cooperative Business Assocation http://www.ncba.coop/ncba/home

Special thanks to Alison Booth Gribas (recently married, congrats!) of Equal Exchange for adding the following:

Coop Development and Support Organizations:

Curricula

Browsing Edgar in search of a potential company filing I stumbled across tons of filings by “Lending Club Corp” (CIK – 1409970 /SIC – 6199) Curious as to why they were coming up in my search I clicked through to read a few. I was not able to resolve why I was seeing them, but I did find them quite unusual for an SEC filing – they looked like loan reports. They start off describing a note with an interest rate, service charge, initial maturity and final maturity. OK, a note is indeed a security. Then it describes a person: their home ownership status, current employer, gross income, debt-to-income ratio and location. Eh? The next section includes info about their credit: total credit balance, a credit score range, how much they have delinquent. This is not an SEC filing I’ve ever seen before!
Now really curious I searched on Lending Club Corp, and also found some references to Prosper, LLC. Aha, now that’s a name I recognize – the industry leader in Peer-to-Peer lending until they were shut down by the SEC who essentially declared the business illegal. I knew they had restarted and I had heard they were complying by essentially treating every peer-to-peer loan as a security on the bond market. And wow, so they are! I found their prospectus and in the first page it describes how they are a marketplace where investors can buy Notes which will correspond directly to borrower loans and represent the right to a pro-rata share of those loan repayments. Those Notes are paired with Management Rights which are a contract that Prosper Marketplace will perform their responsibilities of maintaining the investment platform, providing scoring, remitting borrower payments and collecting on delinquent accounts.

That’s very interesting because it sounds like perhaps instead of taking a % of the repayment like a traditional lender, they’re getting a fee-for-service for managing the loan. Yes, I can see that in the prospectus, Prosper passes on pro-rata share of principal and interest, less their service fee and any collections costs they incur. Further, they do not pass on NSF fees charged to the borrower. Nice! So if a loan goes bad, investors take the loss, investors pay the collection costs and Prosper still gets to charge the borrower fees. Since the borrower is broke, presumably they’re not paying the fees, does their write-off get to become collection costs as well?
From the prospectus, it sounds like the SEC filings on loans contain a subset of the information available on their platform – it’s missing their proprietary scoring at least. Prosper Marketplace Inc (PMI) is just providing the platform/marketplace. Loans are actually funded by a separate entity: WebBank, a Utah bank.

Borrower Loans. If at the end of the bidding period the listing has received bids equal to or exceeding the minimum amount required to fund, a loan will be made to the applicant in an amount equal to the total amount of all winning bids. All borrower loans are unsecured obligations of individual borrower members with a fixed interest rate set by PMI and a loan term currently set at one, three or five years, although Prosper Funding may expand the range of available loan terms in the future to between three months and seven years. The minimum and maximum principal amounts for borrower loans are currently $2,000 and $25,000, respectively, but in the future Prosper Funding may permit borrowers to request loans in principal amounts between $500 and $35,000. All borrower loans are funded by WebBank, a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) insured, Utah-chartered industrial bank. After funding a borrower loan, WebBank sells and assigns the loan to Prosper Funding, without recourse to WebBank, in exchange for the principal amount of the borrower loan. WebBank has no obligation to Note holders.

That’s all I have time for now, below are some links so you can enjoy the fun yourself!
Example LendingClub Corporation filing: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1409970/000140997013000130/postingsup_20130131-060000.htm
Prosper Funding LLC Prospectus:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1542574/000141626513000075/p424b3d01d31d2013.htm

I’m really excited by the idea of Open Book Management – popularized by Jack Stack as “The Great Game of Business”. The basic concept is that you can greatly improve performance by engaging employees in the business side of the business. But Jack’s books are mostly great stories and grasping what exactly *is* OBM is a bit elusive.  I think a key reason is that designing the process is really an art more than an easily check-list-able process.  A friend recently asked me for advice and here’s the best I have right now:

here’s a taste from the National Center for Employee Ownership:

http://www.nceo.org/articles/open-book-management

My assessment of the key components:
1) the most creative challenge, define business processes clearly, and figure out how every employee’s role can ultimately impact the bottom line.
2) design metrics and systems for collecting them so public reporting can be done WEEKLY (daunting, but if you want folks to get feedback, adapt, and see results, weekly makes sense to me)
3) design compensation related to those metrics so employees actually own their own rewards (and perhaps lack thereof) for performance. they must be directly and algorithmically connected, not just “do well and you’ll be rewarded”.

IMHO this sounds like it’s a multi-month, likely iterative process that could easily take up to a year.

John Case is a prominent author that has written a few books. “Managing by the Numbers” is one I’ve liked enough to hand out copies of. The most useful tool for #1 I’ve seen is spreadsheet called the Mobley Matrix, another thing hard to come by because everybody is proprietary (frickin’ capitalists!) but looks like it’s covered on page 82 of “Driving Your Company’s Value” by Mard, Dunne, Osborne, & Rigby, which Google has as an e-book. It might be in that John Case book as well.

One tidbit I’ve picked up and retained – getting employees to buy into this process isn’t easy, most people don’t crave data the way I do and measurement feels threatening to many employees. One consultant suggested starting out by posting information so people can start to see some numbers and develop a feel for how they vary over time. Then have prediction games: who can predict how we’ll do on xxx number this month/quarter? (because that’s what you’re probably already able to generate as part of the standard accounting cycle). Get folks into the prediction part of it and see who gets hooked.

Another tidbit I’d add: I got to tour the Mondragon Cooperatives in Spain – a very professionally run business whose shareholders are the employees. They broke variable compensation over base (which is based on skill & position) into 3 components: you got compensation on your own performance against your metrics, you got compensation on the performance of your immediate team, and part of your compensation was based on the performance of the company as a whole. It find that a helpful lens.

Who is fundraising now?

A company I talked to recently was using the excuse that they were fundraising quickly because they wanted to have a good showing in their SEC filing before the tech press spots their Reg D filing and outs them.   I hadn’t realized that Reg D filings had become so visible but indeed they have (if you know what to look for).  It took a few minutes of hacking the completely obtuse search protocol, but I ended up with something that seems worth sharing. There’s a good bit of fundraising going on.

I figured out I could go to the SEC Edgar database boolean search page and use this search string:  State=WA and type=D.  There were also a few under State=WA and type=D/A.  (form D amended)

http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/srch-edgar?text=State%3DWA+and+type%3DD&first=2012&last=2012

You can click through each company, and click their document and you’ll find out who the officers are, what their contact info is, how much they are raising and how much they have raised.  Neat stuff if you didn’t already know it.

After a little more digging on EDGAR, I found a page with more help on formulating searches.  It gives the tip that you can narrow by industry using SIC codes, but since those codes are ancient it’s of limited utility. I tried to guesstimate what kind of search I might set up as a member of the Northwest Energy Angels, but after some head scratching I found a study on renewable energy companies by the Wa State Department of Commerce where the researchers concluded “Based on discussion with several energy researchers, we determined that using SIC codes for most sectors was not a feasible analytic approach, given their lack of specificity regarding many energy efficient and renewable energy technologies. Additionally, the two state agency databases we used to obtain employment and revenue data classified companies by four-digit, rather than six-digit, SIC codes, which are insufficient to distinguish most categories of energy efficiency and renewable energy companies. “  So so much for that.

For a scraped and formatted version you can check out FormDs   http://www.formds.com/locales/seattle

The Value of Wall Street

A girlfriend sent me an article from last November’s New Yorker (Thanks jonathan for pointing out I mislabeled this as NYT initially) by John Cassidy that I’ve finally gotten around to reading, and as I ctrl+N my fourth email to tell someone about this article I realize it’s time to just blog.  It’s one of those articles that reinvigorates my desire to have a meaningful portion of my portfolio dis-intermediated – IE invested as directly as possible in entrepreneurs and enterprises that generate value and not in the markets.

The article is about capital market dysfunction and how the financial services industry has expanded to absorb more than a quarter of all U.S. profits.  Yeah, that’s pops my eyeballs a bit too.  The article then goes on a tour of how much of that is “rent-seeking” – the official economics term for capturing value rather than generating it.

One longtime financial industry insider is sufficiently concerned about the problem that he endowed the Paul Woolley Center for the Study of Capital Market Dysfunctionality at the London School of Economics in 2007.  The center publishes research like “Trading Frenzies and their Impact on Real Investment”.    The New Yorker article mentions a 10-point manifesto that Dr Woolley released in May of 2010. It is advice to giant pension funds designed to restore efficiency to the public markets and shift investment emphasis away from rent seeking.  Cassidy mentioned Wolley’s recommended cap on annual turnover, but my attention is drawn by his demands for total transparency of underlying investments and a commitment to only investing in publicly trading securities and refusing to make alternative investments.  To ask large funds to do this is essentially trying to drive the private capital markets public.  I think that would be a great thing and it seems likely to me that it would greatly improve market efficiency, but it’s hard to see how it can be a voluntary drive – it only works if a big enough segment of the market does it so it’s hard to be led by a few.   Like the accusation oft made of “socially responsible investing” its goals seem realistically implementable only by regulation.

Two parts of his “manifesto” leapt out at me because they’re points I’ve heard friends locally make:

  1. (Larina) that there’s a fundamental principal/agent problem where agents (the banks & investment agents) have better information than their customers and their interests are not sufficiently aligned.
  2. (Leslie – check this guy out!) “Understand that all tools now used to manage risk and return are based on the discredited theory of efficient markets”.

There are lots of great quotes in Cassidy’s New Yorker article about the scourge of financial innovation: “’But these types of things don’t add to the pie. They redistribute it—often from taxpayers to banks and other financial institutions.’” attributed to Gerald Epstein at the University of Massachusetts.   Citigroup is described as making a shift from trading significantly on their own account to emphasizing relationships with their clients.  The fact that putting their client’s interest ahead of their own is a novel business strategy is a great illustration of how the financial industry has become a product industry instead of a service industry.  And yet, what exactly is the added value of what they make?

It also touches on the shocking quick return to profitability of the Wall Street Banks -something that resonates particularly today with the recent headlines about GM.  I almost need physical therapy for whiplash I feel on the short ride between the WSJ grousings about  oppressive government interference and the triumphant crowing over profits.  There’s also reinforcement for the argument that short-termism is a root problem – in this case because traders get compensated on short-term results despite the risk that the long-term results can destroy their employers. Heck, if the bonuses are big enough, even that’s not the trader’s problem.

Definitely a compelling read, too bad it seems to be cultural news more than policy. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/11/29/101129fa_fact_cassidy?currentPage=all

Rent-Seeking defined by Wikipedia: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Rent-seeking

The Woolley Center for the Study of Capital Market Dysfunctionality: http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/paulWoolleyCentre/Paul%20Woolley%20Centre%20in%20the%20News/Default.htm

Paul Woolley’s Manifesto: http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/paulWoolleyCentre/word/giantfunds.doc

Inventory Stories

I’m working with a small coffee shop on profitability and I’ve been working on managing inventory.  At MBA school we learn standard inventory management methods and how important it is to track, but it’s not so easy to implement where the dollar meets the register.   For starters, perpetual inventory with food is really challenging – we’d need a super detailed POS system which is expensive.  I’m starting to see why my banking school instructors said they think 50K is a minimum for starting a successful business.  Without technology your business can’t be very efficient, and you’re competing against businesses that do have technology.  It seems the only other option is to be such a small business that one person can track most of it in their own head and have really good intuition.

That leaves me with periodic inventory, which I don’t mind except that Quickbooks seems to handle it poorly.  So I’m currently in a bit of a chasm between what I’m able to do with Excel pivot tables and what we know how to do in Quickbooks.

I do see a purpose for the oft taught “reorder point” setting even in our small-inventory setting.  It would help us generate the weekly shopping list.  I’m also discovering an inventory challenge I didn’t learn about in business school – how to construct a minimum order.  As a very small business we are challenged to meet vendors minimum orders – in some cases to order at all, in other cases to get at least a first level price break.  For example:  as a coffee shop we order all our flavored syrups and some other products from a single vendor.  We’re running out of our most-used syrup so we need to make an order. Just ordering a case or two of that syrup doesn’t meet their minimum order, so what else should we order, and in what relative quantity?  I’d like to analyze the relative consumption of goods that we order from that vendor and construct an order to the minimum amount that matches our needs.  Anyone know of a quickbooks plugin (or other inventory package) that can do that?

Another challenge – like any good business we work to keep our inventory thin. Well, we don’t have to work too hard at it, we have neither the physical space nor budget to get too fat.  However it seems to be a fairly common occurrence (every other week maybe?) that some item we use is not in stock when we go to purchase it.  I’m learning that Cash & Carry seems to be a sort of discount supplier that will always have some variant of a product available, but it will vary: IE sometimes the napkins will be bleached and sometimes they’ll be recycled.  Ditto for the paper bags of the size we like.  That is a problem I’m sure larger businesses deal with as well, perhaps by padding inventory, or by getting big enough to have better relationships with their suppliers.

Another suffering of the very small business – data entry.  To track all this requires hours of typing in numbers from paper receipts.  Where’s the EDI interface for Cash & Carry or Costco?  No wonder so few business owners do it, but without it you’re missing a key advantage.  I’m beginning to think that broad support for data and analysis for small business owners would be a huge support for economic development.  It amazes me what a lock QuickBooks seems to have on the market.  Small suppliers don’t seem to offer much in the way of Electronic Data Interchange,  but I’m just beginning to look.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.