ownership percentage: 14 percent<\/li>\n<\/ul>\nlet’s define performance-based partner compensation<\/h3>\n the firm\u2019s income allocation to partners is based on their relative performance. partners making the greatest contributions to the firm\u2019s profit and overall success are paid more. performance-based systems motivate partners to perform at high levels and reward them for their efforts and success. without these incentives, firms often stagnate and perform at lower levels.<\/p>\n
i often begin consulting projects by asking a simple question: is your partner compensation system performance-based? they often answer with pride, \u201cyes.\u201d then i look at the details of their system and find that 80 percent of the income is allocated based on ownership percentage and 20 percent is a performance bonus. the math doesn\u2019t work. if 80 percent is not<\/b> allocated based on performance, then the system is not performance-based.<\/p>\n
in my 20 years of consulting, the number of times i have seen partner ownership percentages with absolutely no correlation to relative partner performance is astounding. i often ask partners why they are a 20.7 percent partner or a 14.8 percent partner, etc. they haven\u2019t a clue. it\u2019s a meaningless figure.<\/p>\n
the proper way to look at partner buyouts<\/h3>\n cpa firms have a well-defined street value to buyers: commonly 60 percent to 120 percent of the firm\u2019s annual revenue. the percentage varies based on many factors, primarily the quality of the firm, its revenue size and the location of its market. many partners receive a buyout upon retirement (often referred to as deferred compensation \u2013 dc) that can exceed $1 million at big firms.<\/p>\n
one way to look at dc is that, just like partner compensation, it is performance-based. it\u2019s a portion of a partner\u2019s overall compensation that is deferred rather than paid out currently. the dc value increases as the partners perform at high levels; the impact of this performance is cumulative. when the partners bring in new clients, retain and expand services to existing clients, effectively manage the firm, develop a great staff and deliver world-class service to clients, this increases the revenue, profitability and overall success of the firm, all of which builds the goodwill or street value of the firm. ownership percentage has nothing to do with the tremendous increase in dc value that occurs over the years.<\/p>\n
just as compensation should be performance-based, so should deferred compensation. ownership percentage should have little or no place in determining the buyout of a retiring partner.<\/p>\n
new partner buy-in<\/h3>\n boy, do firms mess up on determining the buy-in for new partners. the old school method is to decide the ownership percentage of the new partner (virtually no science in this!), multiply it by the value of the firm (capital plus goodwill) and voila<\/strong>, the result is the buy-in, which in most cases, is many hundreds of thousands of dollars. for many years now, firms have gotten away from this method because new partners are unable and unwilling to pay this humongous buy-in. less than 5 percent of all firms over $3 million determine their buy-ins using this antiquated method.<\/p>\nthe new method for determining new partner buy-ins is to determine the buy-in amount on a discretionary basis \u2013 usually $100,000 to $150,000, lower for smaller firms \u2013 and to disassociate the buy-in from ownership percentage. this is the gold standard. if the importance of ownership percentage is unimportant or meaningless, then who cares what the ownership percentage is of a new partner? some firms opt to make all partners equal owners.<\/p>\n
voting<\/h3>\n of all the five partner issues potentially affected by ownership percentage, voting is the trickiest.<\/p>\n
the ultimate goal should be to get to the point where voting is one person, one vote, with certain critical issues (mergers, making a new partner, etc.) voted on by supermajority.<\/p>\n
but smaller firms (usually five or fewer partners) that have at least one dominant partner \u2013 usually a founder and\/or the firm\u2019s major producer \u2013 usually like to structure voting so that a minority of lower performing partners cannot throw out the dominant partner and control the firm. so, protective measures are often needed in this situation. using ownership percentages is one way to provide this protection.<\/p>\n
allocation of the proceeds of the firm’s sale<\/h3>\n real simple. this should be determined with the same method used for calculating partner buyouts.<\/p>\n
conclusion: if ownership percentage is put to pasture, what systems should be used?<\/h3>\n partner compensation: <\/strong>performance-based systems such as compensation committee, managing partner decides or a formula.<\/p>\nnew partner buy-in: <\/strong>the firm decides on a discretionary buy-in amount that is disassociated from ownership percentage.<\/p>\npartner buyout: <\/strong>performance-based systems such as multiple of compensation or aav.<\/p>\nvoting: s<\/strong>trive for one person, one vote, but at some firms, it\u2019s important to prevent a dominant partner from being outvoted. ownership percentage is one way to address this.<\/p>\nallocating the proceeds of a firm sale: <\/strong>same as partner buyout.<\/p>\nso please, embrace the new school thinking and minimize the role of ownership percentage at your firm!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
5 major issues that firm agreements must address.<\/strong> \nby marc rosenberg<\/em> \nthe rosenberg practice management library<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1339,"featured_media":52068,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_relevanssi_hide_post":"","_relevanssi_hide_content":"","_relevanssi_pin_for_all":"","_relevanssi_pin_keywords":"","_relevanssi_unpin_keywords":"","_relevanssi_related_keywords":"","_relevanssi_related_include_ids":"","_relevanssi_related_exclude_ids":"","_relevanssi_related_no_append":"","_relevanssi_related_not_related":"","_relevanssi_related_posts":"","_relevanssi_noindex_reason":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1363,3120,3002,2266],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-61437","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-featured","category-pro-member-exclusive","category-special","category-partner"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nwhy governing by partner ownership is bound to fail - 卡塔尔世界杯常规比赛时间<\/title>\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n \n \n \n \n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n