Insights

  • Stephen Kuhn | A Solution for the C-Suite Talent Crunch
    POSTED 5.14.19 M&A Masters Podcast

    It’s a tight talent market out there in the technology industry. And that’s especially for all C-suite positions right now, says Stephen Kuhn, partner at Advantary. Yet companies, especially startups, are facing pressure from their boards to hire senior executives.

    And that means they’re sometimes rushed into bad hiring decisions.

    Stephen talks about a short-term solution to this issue that can have long-term positive impact on companies facing these challenges, as well as…

    • A strategy for getting breathing room to recruit the right people, while still achieving important milestones in the company’s growth.
    • The incubator marketplace that brings together corporate M&A and startups
    • What companies doing cross border deals need in their back pocket
    • A little-known decision-making processes to work through tough issues
    • And more

    Listen now…

    Mentioned in This Episode: www.advantary.com

    Episode Transcript:

    Patrick Stroth: Hello there. I’m Patrick Stroth. Welcome to M&A Masters, where I speak with the leading experts in mergers and acquisitions. We’re all about one thing here. That’s a clean exit for owners, founders, and their investors. Today I’m joined by Stephen Kuhn, partner of Advantary. Advantary provides interim CXO services across the entire C-suite, including CEO, COO, CTO, CMO, CSO, and wait for it, CPO. That’s a lot of Cs. Advantary augments a company’s management team long-term or short-term, full-time or part-time. Stephen, thanks for joining me. Welcome to M&A Masters.

    Stephen Kuhn: Patrick, thanks very much for having me.

    Patrick Stroth: Now before we get into all things Advantary and C-Suite, tell us what led you to this point in your career?

    Stephen Kuhn: I’ve been in the technology industry in Silicon Valley for the last 40 years. I was born and raised in San Francisco. Started programming professionally when I was 16 in 1978, and got the entrepreneurial bug. Sold my first company while I was at UC Berkeley. Went onto study Managerial Finance at Harvard, and have in total started nine companies. I’ve been CEO at seven. Seven companies were pure tech. One was a boutique tech M&A Investment Bank, and I subsequently ran M&A Core Public Software Company. And the last company, the ninth company was a PE firm focused on the wine industry, so decidedly not tech.

    Patrick Stroth: Well I’ve got to ask you, and this isn’t something that you and I prepared for, but coming from one native San Franciscan to another native San Franciscan, we’ve got quite a few in our audience. There’s a question we always ask each other is where’d you go to high school?

    Stephen Kuhn: I went to San Francisco University High School.

    Patrick Stroth: How about that? Okay, congratulations for you. I went to SI. That’s for our listeners who probably don’t care about that. Tell me about Advantary.

    Stephen Kuhn: Advantary is a partnership of 11 and counting. We’re adding new partners. Highly experienced entrepreneurs who have started dozens of companies, raised hundreds of millions in debt and equity capital, and had many exits. We provide interim CXO services across the entire C-suite with the exception of CFO. We engage full-time or fractional, long-term or short-term, but it is an interim engagement. We’re not a placement agency. We help companies prepare for and go through transitions, including capital raises, the loss or hiring of key executives, technology issues, stagnation, accelerated growth, and international expansion, which is a major focus of our group this year.

    We relieve pressure on companies as they look for CXO’s in this very tight talent market. We serve the small to mid-sized technology market, including SASS, Syntax, AR, AI, IOT, Blockchain, Cyber Security, Digital Health, and with the addition of our newest partner, Consumer Package Goods and Supply Chain Management. There’s a lot going on on the technology side of that these days.

    In terms of size, there’s no company that’s too small. It’s frankly only an issue of budget. And there’s no company too large. We have a billion dollar plus revenue public client. But our sweet spot is clients with revenues between 5 and 75 million. But we go lower including pre-revenue companies of course, and obviously higher revenues as well.

    Patrick Stroth: Well that’s one thing that is striking is that when we were kids dreaming about going into business or being successful, the idea of success was build a company, sell it, and then at a young age in your 30s and then go buy an island somewhere. And one thing that’s just more and more common in Silicon Valley, it’s not just here, it’s just concentrated, is people like you who are extremely successful, could have bought several islands out there. But instead of shopping for hammocks and boats and stuff, you’re going out and finding more challenges, more companies to help. It’s striking how this is what you live for and just being able to provide great services and add value to other startups. Back when you were starting up you’d get them moving on, it’s really a fantastic resource that’s out there.

    What’s the type of value that Advantary brings because I can tell you right now, finding talent, if that’s tough, finding management is even more so. What do you bring to bear for owners and founders that is not otherwise out there?

    Stephen Kuhn: Unlike a traditional consulting firm, think of McKinsey or Bain or PWC, we actually provide hands on operational services. It’s the highest, best value we can provide to our clients, given the length of experience, the breath of our experience in the technology market.

    So you mentioned talent at such a premium, it’s hard to come by, that’s absolutely right. And a lot of companies are forced into a high pressure situation where they need to find, locate, recruit, and retain senior management. And in this market, it’s extremely difficult. And making a bad hire is sometimes existentially costly. I’ve certainly seen examples of firms that have made bad hires in C-suite, and I can think of some in particular in the chief revenue officer role that have been unqualified, culturally not a fit, and culture is a really important aspect here as well. You need people who can really fit in.

    And so if a company is compelled under pressure from the board, pressure from their performance in the KPI’s on their business plan, to get someone in, just anybody who’s breathing, to find a CXO who can fill the role, that can be very challenging. And so we can step in on an interim basis, provide some real support. During the time that they’re out recruiting, the company can make forward process. It can achieve its milestones while taking the time, having the breathing space to actually find the right person for that role.

    Patrick Stroth: One of the things I was thinking of, is you’re bringing somebody in to a CXO position while your client company is out doing the longer term search for the longer term solution. Largely what you’re doing is shorter term. You can do the long-term, but I get the sense that more of your stuff is targeted, your service is targeted towards short-term, is that right? Because if it is, I think it removes a lot of conflict because you can get somebody who can plug and play and they’re not worried about preserving their job or their role. They’re into add value with the knowledge that this is not going to be forever, so you’re not playing defense. You’re just working forward, and you don’t have to worry about legacies or things to kind of build in as you take a position. I think that’s a nice, un-conflicted approach.

    Stephen Kuhn: Yeah. That’s absolutely true. And we work with firms, I think our shortest engagement has been probably six weeks or a couple of months and we’ve had, have a client for well over a year now. But we typically work from a quarter to a few quarters in length of the engagement.

    So sure, we can come in and solve a particular problem, work with the company through a challenge or a transition and stay on for a bit longer to see through the onboarding of our replacement frankly.

    The value we can bring is yes, the experience, yes, the understanding, we’ve made lots of mistakes ourselves. We can load balance as well. A lot of firms don’t need a full-time CXO. A classic example that most people are familiar with is a CFO. A lot of early stage companies don’t need a CFO. Similarly, they may not need a full-time Chief Product Officer, Chief Technology Officer. You’ve got a small firm that’s got a founder who’s a great engineer, who perhaps hasn’t been an entrepreneur before. Hasn’t run a team of engineers, doesn’t mean they’re not smart, they’re usually brilliant. But they just lack some experience and we can provide that mentorship, that guidance, and actual hands on architecture, scaling issues, security issues, so on and so forth, on the technology side, experience on the product side, the marketing side or revenue or business development.

    So coming in on an interim basis to provide support when support is needed, to step back when it’s not. It actually, and because we’re consultants we’re not employees so there isn’t the tax issue there as well, we can be very cost effective for our clients.

    Patrick Stroth: What does it look like to work with Advantary? I mean, describe types of engagements that you have available.

    Stephen Kuhn: So we, in addition to the interim CXO positions that we’ve talked about, we actually have five package services if you will, that we provide and they are briefly, pre-transaction preparation and execution, getting ready for a debt or equity transaction, whether that’s a capital raise or M&A event. A lot of companies aren’t properly prepared, and so deals don’t get done, they get done more slowly, or on sub-optimal terms. And here’s the situation with the old adage, an ounce of prevention is worth lots of pounds of cure here. They can really drive a lot of value out of Pre-Transaction Preparation, proper preparation.

    Second is around growth, strategy, marketing, sales, business development and cross border expansion. Cross border is a particular process as I mentioned earlier, for us because those firms outside the U.S. looking to enter the U.S. Market, are effectively doing a startup within a startup. It’s very risky, it’s very time consuming. It’s a real distraction from the core business.

    As a team of entrepreneurs who’ve started lots of companies here in the states, we can provide a tremendous amount of value there.

    Third practice is around technology and patent management, best practices, and implementation.

    Fourth is around designed thinking. Designed thinking methodology is a terrific problem solving framework. And we help solve companies strategic issues leading them through a design thinking process. It’s extremely powerful. And the fourth is really focused at investors or buyers. So perhaps some of your clients for example, or your audience on the M&A side, we work with investment banks, but also the principles, PD firms, family offices, and corporate buyers on their pre-transaction diligence. So we can go in and look at a company’s team, the technology and their pipeline, their product market bid, their strategy and so on, to help the buyer if that fits with their objectives.

    Patrick Stroth: That’s pretty comprehensive. You mentioned with the cross border so I don’t want to sound redundant here, but the services for Advantary are available not just California but what’s your service territory range? Entire U.S.?

    Stephen Kuhn: It’s global in fact. We’ve got clients, certainly across the U.S., but also in Australia. We have a French client we acquired last month. And we are working in Mexico and Latin America as well. So really it’s global. We have a natural center of gravity if you will in the Bay Area. If you looked at a heat map of the globe, there would be a bright red spot around the Bay Area. But you’d see hotspots around the globe as well.

    Patrick Stroth: Gotcha. Well now the biggest questions people have when they hear about services like this, well is it a fit for me, yes or no? And they can make that decision based on what you said.

    The next thing, and this is just true of life, is timing is everything. At what point if there are people in our audience or there are questions, at what point should they start thinking about someone like an Advantary?

    Stephen Kuhn: That’s a great question and it really depends on the nature of their needs. For example, if they’re thinking, even contemplating an exit in the next year or two, that’s a great time to be thinking about us to help in that pre-transaction preparation. A lot of things can be fixed relatively quickly, but there are a lot of things that take time. It takes effort to steer the big tanker in the ocean, to move in a new direction or to find the right person to fill that role. So we can be very helpful long in advance of those types of transactions, but then there are other things that are much more immediate. You need to hit your numbers this quarter, right. So you’re going to need some strategy, marketing, sales, and business development efforts.

    You are looking to raise capital. And we can help prepare the company for that capital transaction. And those usually aren’t done a year or two in advance, that’s usually the next few months we need to get that done. So it really depends on the nature of the engagement.

    Ranges from today, oh we need your help today. In fact I met with a client, a prospect yesterday who is launching here in the U.S., they’re a Mexican firm. And they’re looking to get launched in May. And they’ve got a tremendous amount of work to do before they can do that. So they needed immediate. So you can see it really depends on the circumstance, the context, and the nature of the services that they require.

    Patrick Stroth: Yeah. Stephen, of the services and the types of engagements you talked about, the majority of them revolve around or have an aspect of the practice of M&A and we do try to focus on M&A. You’ve been around companies and helped companies that are both scaling and exiting. And so you’ve got a great perspective with regard to M&A. What do you see in the trends going forward here in 2019 going forward for M&A? Just at any level from what you have seen.

    Stephen Kuhn: On the M&A side, clearly, historically, M&A has been roughly 90% of the exits. When companies exit, M&A is the exit of choice verses IPO about 90% of the time. I don’t see any change in that. If anything, despite some very large, very successful IPOs, I think the trend is definitely continuing on the M&A track.

    And I pause there only because several examples came to mind of firms that are providing, think of co-location spaces, and other accelerator programs that are creating essentially a marketplace of technology and entrepreneurs. On the one had they’ve got small entrepreneurial companies with brilliant technology. And those companies are really good at innovating, creating new technology, and getting from zero to one, from nothing to something.

    And on the other side of that market, you’ve got large firms, typically Fortune 500 firms, that are really good at scaling, but maybe not always so good at innovating. And so there are a number of incubators, an increasing number of incubators out there that are positioning themselves, as they say, a marketplace for large corporates to come in and get access and visibility to the startup world providing a key for them, which is innovation.

    And on the other side you’ve got these young firms that are really good at innovating, and are challenged with scaling and are looking for opportunities to partner, in the short-term, partner with the larger corporates, but really looking to those corporates as their exit path. And so with the lives of these incubators, these marketplaces if you will as I tend to think of them, there is I think increasing amount of M&A activity. And as I speak to my investment banking friends around the country, both boutique and larger firms, they are absolutely saying trends up and to the right on M&A.

    Patrick Stroth: This is a very good perspective to have. I appreciate that.

    Stephen, how can our listeners find you to learn more about Advantary for themselves, for their own entities, or for their clients?

    Stephen Kuhn: Yeah, thanks for asking. Of course there’s our website www.advantary.co. And you bring up a really important point which is that while we do work for the companies themselves, we’re often brought in and referred to those companies by, there’s other service providers. It could be one of our partners in the Fractional CFO space, it can be VC or PD or Family Offices as well. It could be an investment bank that needs help with one of their clients or prospective clients as they are going through or contemplating going through an M&A transaction.

    So encourage all of your listeners if they think they have a need, or suspect they might have a need for some of our services, just go to the website. Pick up your keyboard and send an email over to me or to info@advantary.co and we’ll certainly get right back to you.

    I’m also available of course on LinkedIn, easily findable there. Yeah, looking forward to hearing from your clients and seeing if we can be of help.

    Patrick Stroth: Well it was a pleasure speaking with you today Stephen. Thanks very much. And if anybody needs to find out other ways to get ahold of Stephen, go take a look at our show notes at www.rubiconins.com. Hit the insights tab and you’ll find our interview there as well and you’ll have the show notes as well.

    Patrick Stroth: Thanks for joining us today Stephen, and have a good day.

    Stephen Kuhn: Thank you very much Patrick.

     

  • Matthew Hanis | Practical Improvements to Healthcare
    POSTED 5.1.19 M&A, M&A Masters Podcast

    The politics of healthcare is a mess in this country, as you know.

    But Matthew Hanis, executive producer and host of the Business of Healthcare, is more interested in practical measures for incrementally improving a system that is the most expensive in the world and doesn’t offer a great quality of care in exchange.

    We also talk about the M&A landscape in healthcare, including the trend towards increasing vertical integration, as well as…

    • How to balance profits with patient care
    • The key difference between a single payer system and universal healthcare
    • The 3 biggest upcoming regulatory reforms to keep an eye on
    • The largest contributor of waste in healthcare
    • And more

    Listen now…

    Mentioned in This Episode: www.bohseries.com

    Episode Transcript:

    Patrick Stroth: Hello there, I’m Patrick Stroth. Welcome to M&A Masters, where I speak with the leading experts in mergers and acquisition. We’re all about one thing here, that’s a clean exit for owners, founders, and their investors. Healthcare is literally a force of nature in our economy. It’s been in the news quite a bit lately and like it or not, as time goes on, everyone will be consuming more, not less of it.

    Today we’ll discuss the future of healthcare from a business perspective, and how mergers and acquisitions will factor into the inevitable changes coming to healthcare. I’m pleased to be joined by Matthew Hanis, Executive Producer and host of Business of Healthcare. Now in his 13th season, BOH is an online platform where Matt interviews senior leaders in healthcare. BOH estimates that 118,000 decision-makers are responsible of 80% or more of the buy and sell sides of US healthcare. Just about 20,000 of these very decision-makers participate in BOH’s audience. That’s about one in six, which is a respectable share of any market. It is for this audience that BOH was purpose-built to identify and help propagate proven innovations, elevating mission and margin more rapidly. Wow, one in six, that’s nothing to sneeze at. Matt, thanks for joining me, and welcome to the program.

    Matthew Hanis: Patrick, thank you so much for inviting me on.

    Patrick Stroth: Now, we’ll get into Business of Health in a moment. First, tell us how’d you get to this point in your career?

    Matthew Hanis: Well, I tried to make as many mistakes as possible, and this is the culmination. I’d spent about 25 years in healthcare, most of that time I’ve either worked on the vendor side, selling data solutions to health systems, larger payers of health plans, or working within a health system, Mercy in St. Louis, to have the experience of actually doing the work of healthcare. Ultimately, all of those experiences culminated in a passion for entrepreneurship and for finding the innovations that I felt could really transform our healthcare delivery system in the United States.

    Patrick Stroth: When we see BOH’s core statement, which is mission and margin, with mission, we get that because healthcare and doing good and providing care to people, there’s a passion, the mission. It’s the margin that people start looking at real quick. Why don’t you explain what you mean by mission and margin in the Business of Healthcare.

    Matthew Hanis: Healthcare makes up about a fifth of the US economy, and every sector of the economy is important, but healthcare one of our challenges though is the cost of healthcare has continued to rise at a rate faster than pretty much any other aspect of our economy. But when you look at the quality of healthcare as measured by access, patient satisfaction, survival, life expectancy, all the broad measures of healthcare, we don’t do very well in this country. We have a major portion of our economy, which is getting progressively more expensive, and on most measures of quality, it’s not very good.

    I believe that this is unsustainable. Now, the laws of physics tell us that all systems come back into balance. There’s a couple of different ways that we can see the US healthcare system coming back into a healthy balance in terms of cost and quality. One of the ways though, which tends to be the primary focus right now is trying to cut payments to physicians, and try to manage healthcare by managing how consumers consume it and managing how it’s provided. Our belief is that these approaches are unsustainable and that there are at the same time, very, very sustainable ways to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of our healthcare system. That’s what we try to bring to bear.

    Mission is really about all the things you and I can agree on, quality, access, patient satisfaction, physician and other provider satisfaction. Margin is recognizing that like any other part of the economy, the providers who deliver healthcare must be able to make a profit in order to make it a sustainable business. We just need to figure out how to balance that with the cost to the consumer.

    Patrick Stroth: The problem that you mention out there which is making a challenge for us is that cost of healthcare continues to go up, quality continues to go down. I would think that a lot of people would think well, the more it’s intuitive almost that if you spend more you should get better quality. Are there any specific reasons why the cost goes up and yet we’re not getting the value, the benefit?

    Matthew Hanis: Yes. There’s a couple of different reasons. One issue which is very microeconomics, is pricing. We know that one of the biggest drivers of the cost of healthcare is the price that’s charged for healthcare. There’s an enormous set of problems around understanding price. God forbid you should have to go to the hospital for surgery. It’s extremely difficult to understand what that’s going to cost you, and what the costs would be for you to go get that exact same procedure in other settings.

    Why is it so complicated to understand price and the cost of healthcare? Well, I believe that a big part of that is we’ve got a lot of intermediaries in our delivery system. Too many intermediaries can cause such a separation between the consumer of healthcare, the provider of healthcare and the payer of healthcare, that we create a whole myriad of complexity. I think a big aspect that we can look at is, why do we have so many intermediaries, so many people that handle healthcare transactions multiple times? Why is it so hard to get that data to be meaningful to the consumer?

    I think another cause that we face in our system is regulatory constraints. I’m not suggesting that healthcare should become an unregulated industry. I think we can all agree that just about any industry in the US, we want to have good regulation over healthcare to protect the consumer and protect the providers of healthcare. The problem that we face today though is that the regulatory environment that healthcare providers face is so confusing and so complex that it’s almost impossible to comply. I’ll give you a concrete example. A typical health system reports somewhere in the order of 4,000 different quality metrics each year. Most of those quality metrics, most of those 4,000 are actually redundant metrics that are being reported to different organizations in slightly different ways.

    Another issue in the regulatory side are the constraints of the Stark Laws. The Stark Laws were created to prevent or to discourage physicians from referring patients to treatment from which the physician would profit. The problem with that is if we ask a physician to take accountability for a patient’s total spend, and for that patient’s quality of care and their overall quality of life, which is the concept of fee-for-value, if we were to ask physicians to do that, unlock their ability to make those decisions and to be able to refer patients to the providers that they most want to work with and potentially refer them to themselves, for things like imaging, and other services that are adjacent or ancillary to the primary purpose of care, these issues of so many intermediaries and the regulatory constraints that are so confusing, create an enormous part of the enormous waste of our delivery system. Today we spend about a third of our healthcare dollar on waste, things that do not provide value. A decent chunk of that waste is directly related to too many intermediaries and enormous regulatory constraints.

    Patrick Stroth: Wow. I think when people look at healthcare, the only way you address this is, either you have the universal care, care for all, unlimited, which a lot of people would say, well that means care for nobody because the system would be overrun. Or, the other extreme is fear there would be extreme rationing out there, where some arbitrary person will dole out allocation healthcare by some abstract basis. You’ve got fear on both sides, but it’s really a false choice. It’s not all of one, all this or nothing. There are models that are being set up and there are ways that are being tried to go forward. Why don’t you talk about those types of models.

    Matthew Hanis: One of the fundamental trends in healthcare is the shift from fee-for-service to fee-for-value. The basic idea is that today, when a physician bills for a service they provide, or a hospital bills for a surgery that was performed in one of their operating rooms, they essentially are billing for units of work performed. They’re not charging for a knee replacement, they’re charging for all of the components that go into a knee replacement. The concept of fee-for-value is that you charge, or pay provider for the outcome that they’re delivering. The knee was replaced, no infection occurred, the patient came out of the procedure with a responsible period of recovery. Those concepts around fee-for-value create far better aligned incentives between the providers of healthcare and the payers of healthcare.

    I just want to touch on your point about, I think you touched on the Medicare for all concept. It’s important to recognize three things about our current US delivery system. First, we cost per capita somewhere between 30% more and 200% more than the rest of the delivery systems in the world, like that in Britain, Canada, Sweden or Switzerland. Before we toss those systems out as being un-American, or undesirable, consider the fact that they generally provide much better access to care. More people can get to care faster. They cost on a per capita basis, far less than our system does, and in general their consumers of healthcare report being better satisfied with the care that they received.

    Now, I’m not arguing that those systems are perfect, and I’m certainly not arguing the idea that Medicare for all is a particularly good solution. But I would want to differentiate between the concept of a single payer system versus the concept of universal healthcare. A single payer system essential says, we’re all going to agree that one entity is going to pay for healthcare. Doesn’t say what the rules are about that. It’s just saying that each of us that pays money into healthcare is going to pay it to one place, and that entity is going to be the entity that pays the providers of healthcare. That’s how most of the delivery systems in the industrialized world operate.

    In the United States we kind of have that, because 70% of healthcare provided in the United States is paid for by the government. Most people forget that it’s a relatively small portion of healthcare that’s paid for by the consumer and large employers. A single payer system does not necessarily mean universal healthcare. Universal healthcare takes it a step further and says, everybody gets healthcare and the government’s going to pay for it. Two really different ideas, but related.

    Patrick Stroth: Well, let’s focus on M&A on the physician side of the industry, because we’ve got the large health systems, and we’ve got the large institutions and then you’ve got the pharmacy development, medical devices and everything like that. Let’s just look at the physician provider side of the industry. What do you see for the future of physicians in healthcare as we try to change into this fee-for-value emphasis?

    Matthew Hanis: I think physician practices for the next 5 to 10 years are in a race for lives. What I mean by that is, if you take the concept of fee-for-value, which has generally pretty solid evidence to indicate that it produces better healthcare value for the consumer and the payer and the provider. If you agree with that premise, then that means that physicians are in a race to find ways to be in contractual arrangements where they have accountability. If I’m a primary care practice, it behooves me to try to enter into contracts where I take on the risk of a Medicaid population, a Medicare population, but I go directly to employers and contract with those employers to serve their employees and the employees families.

    Those sorts of arrangements, manage care contracting if you will, are the strongest position for a physician to be in to get a market. If I as a physician practice hold contracts, either for the bundles of healthcare, like I’m a surgical practice, and the bundle for doing orthopedic surgery for a large employer, or I’m in the primary care space and I’m going to contract for the quality of care for an entire population, I’m guaranteed to be sitting at the bird’s eye view of how the money moves in healthcare. If I don’t have the contract for lives, that means that I’m going be subcontracted to somebody else.

    I believe the essence of the M&A space for the physician world will be the race for lives. Those physician practices that have built the infrastructure and the capacity to take on population risk of various sorts, that can demonstrate their value in measurable ways, those organizations will continue to expand contractual relationships and exclusive network relationships with payers and ensure the flow of patients to their doors. That requires an enormous amount of work in infrastructure. Frankly, many physician practices are not spending those dollars. I think from an M&A perspective, I don’t think we’re going to see much more acquisition of physician practices by health systems. We’ve seen that market cool significantly. In fact, there’s signs of a number of physician practices unwinding their relationships with health systems.

    What I do think we’ll see is acquisition and merger between physician practices, specialty groups merging into multi-specialty. I would expect that when you look at the 4,000 largest physician practices in the country, those organizations will likely consolidate. In 10 years from now I would predict that we’ll have half of those practices that occupy the largest group of physicians.

    Patrick Stroth: You spoke awhile earlier about where we’ve got a big layer of intermediaries involved between provider and patient. If there was a way that if we had the physician practices moving toward this fee-for-value model than physician groups are going to be consolidating and one group will buy another, and so forth. Does that translate also to possibly them buying other facilities, imaging centers, surgery centers, physical therapy? Is there room for vertical integration and how would that look?

    Matthew Hanis: Yeah. I think you’re spot-on. I feel like the trend there is a combination for the race for lives. If I’m a physician practice, I can provide a much better Population Health solution if I’ve got pretty good control over lab, pharmacy, imagining, rehab, physical therapy, those sets of services that are ancillary to the work of a physician, but are critical to achieving a particular outcome for a patient. That vertical integration trend, I think is very likely. I think that trend comes in two different flavors. One flavor is the vertical integration of healthcare service, like I just described. But the other is vertical integration in a manner to dis-intermediate many of the non-value producing participants in the healthcare ecosystem.

    I’ll give you an example. If a physician practice had the ability to manage the total, all the healthcare transactions for one of their patients and they’re in a Population Health contractual arrangement, they probably are going have a much better understanding of the spend of that patient and be able to manage that spend more effectively. I can imagine, or I can see physician practices getting better at being able to do the data of Population Health and perhaps dis-intermediating stakeholders by directly contracting with employers, or contracting with employers in a manner that takes advantage of less brand name sorts of health plans, and more health plans that are designed to serve physician practice needs as much as they’re designed to serve large employer needs.

    Patrick Stroth: Is there going to be need for some regulatory reform in order to do this?

    Matthew Hanis: I think there is. We’ve already seen the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services signaling that they want to soften or weaken the Stark regulations that prevent self-referral. We’re seeing several rulings that have come out of the Federal Trade Commission that solidify the ability for independent physician to contract together with health plans and other payers, without getting into anti-trust problems. I feel like from a regulatory perspective the three big things to be watch are Stark Laws, anti-trust law, and then a third area which is CON, certificate of need. Certificate of need constrains in about 20 states of the 50 states in the Union, about 20 states use CON laws to constrain the ability to create new imaging centers or add new surgery suites. Those constraints on the surface, make enormous amount of sense because they prevent the addition of unnecessary healthcare services, which often lead to an increase in utilization.

    The problem with CON laws is they often get in the way of a physician practice being able to add imaging and other services to their capabilities of achieving that vertical integration. From an M&A perspective, the loosening of those laws would suggest an acceleration in the merger of physician practices and the expansion of practices to this vertical integration process.

    Patrick Stroth: Could you see owners of medical facilities, I don’t know if they’re exclusively physicians as opposed to medical groups and physician practices by law, have to be owned by and run by a physician. But when you’ve got things like kidney dialysis centers, or labs, those don’t have to be owned by physicians. Could there be a situation in M&A where you could see a multi-state network of labs buying physician groups? Could that happen?

    Matthew Hanis: I don’t know that I’m aware of that particular example occurring, but I’m 100% sure that there’s strange bedfellows in the outcome of these acquisitions. For example, United Healthcare acquiring DaVita, the largest dialysis business. Well, turns out United Healthcare is currently the largest employer of physicians in the United States. That’s kind of a surprising number because we all think of them as a health insurer, but in fact, they’re a provider of healthcare.

    We also see retail pharmacy businesses moving aggressively into the providing of healthcare services. Being able to walk into a clinic at a Walgreens, to get your care taken care of. In those cases it’s not actually in most cases the entity, like the pharmacy is not necessarily employing the physician, but they’re contractually enabling the physician to practice care, and there’s movement of money. I would argue that, if it isn’t a merger on in fact, in many cases, it’s a merger in reality.

    Patrick Stroth: The great interviews you have and they’re in HD quality videos and so forth, on Business of Healthcare. Matt, how can our listeners find you?

    Matthew Hanis: Absolutely. They can find us on our website at BOHseries.com, or they can search for us on the web. Search on Business of Healthcare and our red logo, you’ll see us pop-up pretty high on the list, both our website, our podcast channels, or LinkedIn and our Twitter as well.

    Patrick Stroth: Matt, thank you again for joining us, and we’ll talk again soon.

    Matthew Hanis: Thanks so much Patrick. Thank you for having me.

     

     

  • [Best of the Podcast] Add Millions to Your Company’s Value Overnight
    POSTED 2.6.19 M&A Masters Podcast

    This episode was originally published on October 3, 2018.

    Many technology companies are sitting on an untapped resource that could add 5%, 10%, 20%, or more to their company’s value, says Dr. Elvir Causevic, managing director of Houlihan Lokey’s Tech and IP advisory department.

    Problem is that if you wait until you have an M&A deal… all that value is lost to you – it automatically goes to the buyer.

    Elvir and his colleagues have been innovating a new way to make sure companies, especially those in Silicon Valley, avoid that fate. And we go through that process, step-by-step. It’s actually pretty straightforward once you know the trick.

    Read More >

  • [Best of the Podcast] Why M&A Is Today’s Clear Exit Strategy
    POSTED 1.23.19 M&A Masters Podcast

    This episode was originally published on August 29, 2018.

    In an era when few companies go IPO and there are even fewer unicorns, M&A is more popular than ever, says Mihir Jobalia, a veteran of KPMG’s Silicon Valley operation.

    In fact, among VC-backed companies in the last 10 to 15 years, he estimates that more than 90% exit through M&A. And business in the last few years has been especially good.

    We dive deep into what makes the current environment so appealing to M&A, who the big players are, and best practices for companies hoping to exit with this strategy.

    Read More >

  • [Best of the Podcast] Specialized Insurance for Your Next Deal
    POSTED 12.19.18 M&A Masters Podcast

    This episode was originally published on April 20, 2018.

    With typical insurance covering your home or car, it can be like pulling teeth to get a claim paid. Unfortunately, that leads to skepticism about all types of insurance.

    Read More >

  • Bob Karr | Turning Cold Calls Into Warm Calls
    POSTED 12.5.18 M&A Masters Podcast

    Silicon Valley is obviously on the forefront of technology. What’s not as clear is how to keep track of trends, new companies, key players, and all the rest, especially since it’s always changing.

    That’s why Bob Karr created LinkSV, a Valley-centric, comprehensive, and constantly updated social network. We talk about how to get the most out of LinkSV, whether you’re a service provider, startup looking for an angel, an investor looking for an acquisition, and beyond.

    Read More >

  • How to Eliminate Post-Deal Indemnity Risk in M&A
    POSTED 11.14.18 M&A Masters Podcast

     

    In today’s episode we shake things up and put Patrick Stroth, the regular host and founder of Silicon Valley-based Rubicon Insurance Services, in the hot seat for an exclusive interview with business consultant Steve Gordon.

    Patrick is on a mission to tell investors, founders, corporate development teams, attorneys, and anyone else in the world of mergers and acquisitions about a unique insurance product that can save tens of millions of dollars in a transaction and speed deals to completion, while reducing risk for Buyer and Seller.

    If this insurance is in place deals are 8 times more likely to close.

    It’s been used in 1/3 of M&A deals over $25 million in value in recent years. Patrick says that once more people understand the benefits that number should jump.

    We get into the details on how this insurance works, including…

    • The alternative to “over buying”
    • The only 4 data points you need for a quote for this insurance
    • How to manage today’s seller’s market
    • What size deals are eligible
    • And much more

    Listen now…

    Mentioned in This Episode: www.rubiconins.com

    Episode Transcript:

    Steve Gordon: Welcome to the M & A Master’s podcast. I am your temporary host today. My name is Steve Gordon. Today we’re doing something a little bit unique on the podcast. We are putting your normal host Patrick Stroth on the hot seat today. I’m going to be interviewing him. I think you’re going to get just a tremendous amount of value out of this interview.

    Patrick is an absolute expert at some fairly new and unique approaches to handling risk in mergers and acquisition. Patrick, I’m excited about this. Before we jump in I want to give you a proper introduction though.

    For those of you who don’t know Patrick, he is the founder of Rubicon M & A Insurance Services. He’s a speaker on M & A topics and he’s the host of this very podcast, the M & A Master’s podcast where he interviews thought leaders and folks who’ve had real success in the M & A space. Patrick, welcome to your podcast.

    Patrick Stroth: Thanks for having me today, Steve.

    Steve Gordon: This is going to fun. I always like turning the tables on folks and doing these interviews. It’s going to be an absolute blast to do with you. To start us off, we’re going to talk a little bit about this insurance product called rep and warranty insurance, representations and warranty insurance. I want to start with, from your perspective, why is having this conversation important? Why would it be important for somebody who’s listening today?

    Patrick Stroth: Well, thanks again for having me Steve. The reason why rep and warranty is an issue is because it’s a tool in putting a deal together that has just gained significant traction over the last four or five years to the point where this item, rep and warranty, is being used in about one-third of all M & A deals over 25 million transaction sites. That’s a huge jump from the last couple of years.

    For people that are in and around an M & A transaction, whether you’re an investor, a founder, corporate development, everybody is looking to find a tool that’s going to give them an edge. It’s going to improve their deal, improve their terms. So, along comes this item that is, like I said, gaining higher profile status, it’s gaining traction because it’s become effective. The people that have used it are repeat users and they’re using it a great amount.

    However, there’s two-thirds of the market out there that may have heard about it. It’s new, they haven’t used it yet, so they’re trying to find out a little bit more to just get a little bit more comfort out there.

    The great thing about rep and warranty is it’s not mandatory for every deal. It may not be a fit, but where it’s a fit it saves parties tens of millions of dollars in some cases and it speeds deals to a successful completion. So, if you’re an advisor, legal, financial, compliance, whatever, it really behooves you be aware of this product on a global level, then see whether or not it’s a fit for your particular deal.

    Steve Gordon: Patrick, let’s start at the beginning for people who, maybe they’ve heard of it but they don’t understand how it works. What exactly is rep and warranty insurance?

    Patrick Stroth: Yeah, rep and warranty is short for representations and warranties. Reps and warranties are the disclosures that sellers make to the buyer giving them details about their company. The ownership structure, legal issues that may or may not be out there, sales, financial aspects … all the facts about a company that the seller needs to disclose to the buyer and the buyer then will perform due diligence to look at those disclosures to see how accurate they are. Based on the quality of those disclosures the buyer makes the decision whether or not they’re going to pay a certain price to go ahead and purchase a company.

    Now, because these transactions happen is such a tight timeframe it’s impossible to find out every little nook and cranny detail about a company. A lot of times you’re going on faith that the disclosures that you’re being told are accurate, are truthful, and that post-deal there won’t be any surprises.

    Well, in the real world there are surprises that happen, and they often happen after the fact. Now within the purchase sale agreement and contracts right now there’s what’s called an indemnification clause, wherein the seller must indemnify the buyer for any losses the buyer suffers as a result of those reps and warranties, those disclosures being inaccurate and those inaccuracies lead to the buyer suffering a financial loss.

    A great example of that would be you’re buying a chain of restaurants. Unbeknownst to you, the chain of restaurants had given out over two million dollars in free entrée vouchers to beef up business and beef up sales. Well, you’ve purchased the chain of restaurants and now all of a sudden you didn’t know about two million dollars of free food you’re going to have to give out, but you’re obligated to honor that.

    That would be an example of one of those types of surprises. You want to be able to have some kind of recourse to come after the seller. That’s done with this indemnification clause.

    What has happened though is it gets pretty contentious because sellers want to sell their business and they want to pay their investors. They just want to move on to their next venture. They want to take their money and move on. Buyers don’t want to get stuck holding the bag if there is some surprise out there that costs some money that they just missed in diligence. They’re trying to keep the seller on the hook as long as possible. Seller wants a clean exit. So, there’s this natural tension.

    The insurance industry came along and developed a product where they would insure those disclosures, those reps and warranties, by stating that they will review what those disclosures are. They look at what the buyer did in terms of due diligence making sure that they double checked the financials, they looked at the inventories, they did a cap table, they did what they could to make sure that they held the seller to task as much as possible.

    If the underwriters are satisfied they simply say, “I’ll tell you what, we don’t think anything bad is going to happen. Give us a couple of dollars and we’ll insure the deal so that should there be a breach of the reps and warranties we’re going to take that indemnity obligation away from the seller and we’re going to take it. Buyer, in the event there’s a breach and you suffer financial loss, come to us with that financial loss and we will pay you up to whatever the policy amount is.”

    What it’s done is rather than have this natural tension between buyer and seller, you’ve got this independent third party that looks at everything, has deeper pockets than both the buyer and seller combined that can go ahead and pay the buyer their loss. The great thing is buyer goes ahead and they’ve got certainty that if something bad happens they’re not going to be left holding the bag.

    And, the seller gets a clean exit. A lot of times they end up collecting a lot more money at closing because an insurance policy, the rep and warranty policy, begins at an attachment point that’s far below what the seller normally would have to be locked up in escrow.

    The difference between an uninsured deal with an escrow versus an insured deal with a deductible could be, in some cases, tens of millions of dollars. That’s the product that’s out there. It was initially used for very contentious transactions where there were big disagreements and only an insurance policy could come at.

    Then, there was also a usage for the product where you had buyers or sellers that just were very, very risk adverse and wanted any way possible that they could mitigate the risk as much as possible. But, what happened is that it’s become more of a financial tool.

    That’s why private equity has really embraced this product because they’re constantly buying and selling portfolio companies, usually to other private equity firms. Having this product eliminates post-closing losses in terms of financial commitments, accelerates profits and realizing proceeds at closing, and they move on to the next deal.

    The private equity buyer knows that should there be a breach or some other loss, those losses are mitigated because there’s a product there. It’s been something that has actually accelerated M & A transactions rather than being some pure risk mitigation thing that a bunch of worry warts wanted to have.

    Steve Gordon: Patrick, it’s pretty clear that there are benefits for a seller in this situation. It accelerates the speed with which they’re able to get their cash out of the deal. What are the benefits to a buyer, particularly a strategic buyer? Why would a buyer say, “I really want that as a part of the deal?”

    Patrick Stroth: Great question, happens a lot because the buyer in many cases is in a position where they say, “Well, we don’t want to take the risk,” or, “We don’t see the risk. Why should we involve ourselves in this? Let’s keep the seller on the hook.”

    The fact of the matter is right now in this environment, this is a seller’s market, so sellers are pressing the terms because they have a lot more leverage these days. What a buyer needs to do is they to make as seller-favorable a term sheet as possible. Now, how can you do that without having to do the obvious thing is well, just pay way more money than anybody else can and then we’ll buy it.

    Well, this is an alternative to having to over-buy. If you can go ahead and provide something that mitigates the seller’s risk, accelerates their profitability or their returns without having to raise your offer, that’s a big help.

    Another thing is that there is certainty of recovery. If there is a breach and it does impact the buyer financially, they are not worried about sellers scattering out all over the place, particularly if you’ve got situations where you’ve got multiple shareholders in a company and you’re going to exert a lot of expense and time trying to track them down to recover.

    So, you’ve got one party. You will go to them and they will partner with you. The fact that using rep and warranty can accelerate the process, the timetable for getting the deal done because if a rep or warranty is insured there’s no need to negotiate it any further. You move on to the next rep and warranty, and the next one, and so forth. It saves time and money with the attorneys on having to go back and forth.

    For strategics, it can remove a real uncomfortable situation. When you purchase a target company, you’re usually bringing that management team on board with you. It gets very uncomfortable in the event there’s a breach post-deal. The company now has to go to those rock star new members of their team and say, “You know what, I know it’s not your fault, but something bad happened, it cost us money. We’re going to have to claw back a significant amount of your escrow or a significant amount of money that we had promised to pay you.” This removes that.

    The other issue about this is that it can provide a little bit of a backup on your due diligence. If you’re performing a bunch of diligence and you’re not insured, you’re going to be moving forward in to the great unknown hoping that diligence worked and hoping that you got that escrow or that seller on the hook if something goes wrong.

    Well, if you’ve got insurance there and they’re looking at it and they say, “Yes, these reps are covered,” now you’re not as worried about your diligence issue because it’s insurable should the event happen. Then, you’re taken care of.

    The bottom line, the biggest thing that’s a benefit for the buyer is … We get this information from multiple investment bankers, is that at the end of the day you want to get the deal done. Okay, deals with rep and warranty are eight times more likely to successfully close than deals that are not insured. If you’re a buyer and you’re going into this, think about it, why are you even going into this exercise unless you want to get it done? Okay, this is a way that’s going to make it much more likely for the deal to be successfully consummated. You know the great thing? You don’t have to overpay to get it.

    Steve Gordon: Patrick, you’ve touched on a number of the benefits of using this tool in a deal. What do you see as the most important one or two advantages of rep and warranty compared to a standard escrow arrangement?

    Patrick Stroth: Honestly, the deal is going to get done. When you go in to a venture, I mean, if it’s meant to happen it’s going to happen, but the issue is if you’re going to go forward with the expense and the time to perform diligence on a target company, and go through all the work to get it, you want this thing to happen successfully. The great thing about rep and warranty is that it removes the tension between buyer and seller.

    Now, there’s this theory out there with regard to parties that really insist on having a good sized escrow there, so you have cash on hand. If both sides go ahead, they’re in good faith, they tell everything, they do all the due diligence, and everything is on the table let’s say. The fact that we’ve got a little cash on hand, off to the side, that if something does blow up, “Hey we’ve got the cash. We just go pay it.” Money on hand is going to remove any tension between the two sides. That’s just not necessarily true.

    I think that when you’ve got this situation whereas you’re going forward with of the deal, particularly as you get to the reps and warranties and the disclosures and the indemnification clause … Indemnification clause, I mean, is almost like negotiating a pre-nup agreement between a loving couple before marriage. Suddenly, all these bad thoughts, bad ideas come up because the nature of it is you’re thinking worst case scenario, both sides are.

    The advantage on having rep and warranty is that you’ve got a tool that brings a third party in. So, it’s not you versus the other party. Well we’re going to make sure that you’re honest, so if you have skin in the game in the presence of a big escrow amount, hey that will make you more honest.

    Then, you’ve got that subliminally, the seller may be saying well, “You don’t trust me?” I mean, there are a lot of dynamics out there that you can completely bypass and transfer a lot of these things out to a third party.

    The other really nice thing about this is if you can lower the temperature in the room, remove a lot of the contentiousness in the negotiations, why not look at it? Because what’s going to happen is you’re going to have a buyer that’s in a position of possibly fear that they missed something. You’re going to have a seller that’s very defensive, “Why are they asking me these questions? I told them. Why don’t they trust me?”

    It’s just that element, there’s enough stress in these deals to begin with, particularly the money involved. If there’s a way that a tool can be used to lower the temperature in the room and successfully get the deal done, that’s not just win-win, that’s win-win-win for everybody.

    Steve Gordon: Patrick, let’s talk about the elephant in the room for a minute. We’re now going to involve a third party insurance company. I know the thing that is probably in the back of some people’s mind is well, when it comes time to actually make a claim … If worst case scenario that something does go wrong in the deal post-close and we’ve got this insurance policy in place, is the insurance company going to pay the claim or am I now going to have to go fight them?

    Patrick Stroth: Probably the most common question I field with this … This is just unfortunately the rap that people get with insurance, on any insurance product is that, “Well, that’s great. We’re going to pay all this money, but what happens when the claim happens? I’m not going to collect what I wanted to do.”

    What happens with rep and warranty is unfortunately it’s called an insurance policy. It is an insurance policy. However, it is different from another other policy that’s written for a couple of reasons.

    First of all, the scope of the insurance policy for rep and warranty is very narrow. It is only covering the stated reps and warranties that are in a purchase sale agreement. That’s the only scope. It’s doesn’t go beyond that, so if there are any other side agreements or whatever, those are not part of this. Anything that is known by either party prior to closing of the deal is not covered.

    All that is out there are these reps and warranties where both sides are warranting that they don’t know of anything else. You’ve got a real narrow scope of the coverage that needs to be applied. Unlike other policies such as directors and officers, which are so broad that they have to respond to everything, which ends up meaning that they’re going to decline 90 percent of the claims that come in initially just because they’re so broad and they want to get a little narrow.

    The second area where these policies are different is the amount of diligence that is performed on placing a rep and warranty policy is so much more thorough than any other insurance policy that’s issued. The underwriters have a very good, wide-open-eyed view on what they’re getting into. They’re essentially sitting there in the room virtually with the buyer’s diligence team.

    So, when they go through the underwriting process keep in mind the underwriters for rep and warranty are all M & A attorneys, they are not actuaries, they are not insurance people, they are attorneys. So, you have attorneys that are reviewing M & A legal documents. They are attorneys that are looking at the due diligence materials, and so forth. It’s really hard for an insurance company to say, “You know what, you didn’t tell us about this when we were putting a policy together. We’re a little reluctant right now because you didn’t tell us about this.” They can’t do that. They’re tied in with this because they were in the room when the deal was done.

    You’ve got the narrow specific coverage. You’ve got the fact that they’ve seen everything, so if something comes up as a surprise, like I mentioned the free dinner coupons or whatever. Hey, if they missed it, everybody missed it, it’s going to be covered, and so forth. They’ve got that which is different from all other insurance.

    The other issue, and this is a real profound issue particularly with regard to private equity, is that rep and warranty policies are very profitable. They have very few losses and they’re being used by repeat buyers, private equity firms, particularly buying these policies over and over and over again. Because the diligence is so thorough and because the risk is actually significantly low, compared to other policies, there haven’t been very many claims.

    So, the absolute worst thing an insurance company can do after having a narrow scope and being in the room with everybody is to show any kind of reluctance when a claim comes in. The minute they do that their credibility with the marketplace is eliminated. Private equity and the law firms that work with them will leave them immediately.

    There’s a financial pressure on the industry unlike any other product where if you don’t do your absolute best to get it right when a claim comes in … That’s their thing, they don’t just want to pay claims. They want to get it right. That’s over and over what the insurance attorneys tell me when they are helping to settle claims on these.

    They pay a lot of these claims, even though again, the losses are small compared to the amount of business they are writing. There is this obligation that they are going to show up and they’re going to do what they say and say what they do, which is unique in the industry.

    Steve Gordon: Patrick, can you share an example of how this has been applied to a deal, maybe to give folks who are listening a little bit of a specific example of how this played out?

    Patrick Stroth: Oh, absolutely, yeah. Here’s a case with a strategic where you had a large top brand auto company that was purchasing a software company because they were doing on demand drive sharing programs. The auto company wanted to get involved with that and move it over.

    Well, it’s easier to go buy this technology company than develop their own tech. The technology company had two major shareholders and had about 10 other investors. While the large auto company was making this purchase, it was a nine figure purchase, and the auto company could afford if there was a loss or whatever. They weren’t really worried about risk.

    But, the sellers, the technology company, was afraid because you had the two major shareholders were real concerned that hey, they’re going to be the deep pockets in this deal. In the event something did blow up it wouldn’t be the other 10 investors that the auto company would go after, it would be them.

    So, these two shareholders were very, very concerned. They came to us and said, “Is there a way we can insure the deal so we are protected?” We talked to the auto company and said, “Well, if you agree to put this policy in place where the auto company is the policy holder, if there’s a breach of the reps, auto company gets paid and these two major shareholders are off the hook. They don’t have to worry.”

    The auto company said, “Hey, we’re all for it. We don’t see the risk. We want these people happy. Tell you what, we’ll split the cost. If they’re willing to pay a majority,” they paid most of it, “if the seller is willing to pay for it, then we’re willing to go forward. We’ll share our due diligence with the insurance company, we’ll go.”

    That was a case where even though you had a large corporation, weren’t worried about the risk, but to accommodate their target they went and did this. You have investors and shareholders that are really pushing to get reduced exposure so that they can get their proceeds and move on and not worry about a claw back.

    There was another situation with a telecom company where it was being purchased by a larger telecom company. The owner/founder actually beyond the threshold that his attorneys had wanted him to do, bared his soul, disclosed more than his attorneys thought he should have disclosed, but he wanted to be out there honest and did everything.

    Well, the technology company said, “Fine, thanks very much. We need an indemnity cap that’s going to be about 20 percent of the transaction value.” The owner was offended. He just said, “Wait a minute. I just bared my soul. If anything is out there, I have no idea. You don’t trust me. Forget this. I can’t fathom having that kind of exposure out there when I’ve just shared with you everything.”

    The telecom buyer, more of an institutional player and they said, “Look, this is the rules. This is what we do. We want a 20 percent indemnity cap and that’s just the way it is. We’re sorry. We don’t think there’s more exposure than anything else, but this is how we do it.” So, you had an impasse.

    We came in and presented a rep and warranty policy at the 20 percent indemnity cap. Seller did not have to worry because now he is not on the hook for this. Buyer, they were able to check the box, got their requirement in there. Everybody was happy. Deal had been sidetracked was going to not happen solely over this blowup. A policy was plugged in and solved the deal, bridged the gap between the buyer and seller. You have all kinds of examples of things like that out there.

    Steve Gordon: That’s clearly a powerful tool and can be used very strategically in a deal to keep things moving forward. Patrick, that really brings me to the next most important question, for somebody listening, how do they know if they’re working on a deal that would be a good fit? What would constitute a good fit deal for a rep and warranty policy?

    Patrick Stroth: The way we look at this, first of all, we’re asked often, what sector can you write, what sector can’t you write, and so forth. The insurance industry out there is open to all sectors. I mean, from aerospace to zoology, A to Z. They will entertain and look at pretty much everything. If there are businesses that are in highly regulated fields or businesses that are in non-regulated fields, like cannabis for example, the appetite is a little bit trickier there.

    However, as time goes on there’s more comfort that comes along with underwriters. The best way of saying this is the insurance underwriters are industry agnostic. Some like some things more than others, but there’s a variety of places out there. The issue is really if a deal has an indemnity cap in it of 10 million dollars or more. Now, we can do smaller deals, but transaction value, we’ll hear about that where if it’s a transaction value of 25 million and up to a billion dollars, we’d look at that.

    We prefer to look at the indemnity cap. What is the buyer looking for? If you look at the 10 million dollar indemnity cap … Because that’s how big the policy is, that’s a great starting point. So, if you have a deal, whether it’s a 50 million, 30 million, whatever, if you have a 10 million dollar indemnity cap or up, rep and warranty is an ideal fit, okay?

    The reason why I say 10 million, because the minimum premium for a policy right now is about 250 thousand dollars. That happens to be the rate for a ten million dollar policy. If you’ve got a smaller deal and you need a five million dollar policy, you don’t have a ten million, that’s fine. We can still do it. There are markets that are willing to write a five million dollar policy for that indemnity cap, but again, it’s going to be that minimum 250 thousand dollars. If it makes sense, great. It can be a fit. Ideally you want to look for risks where there’s an indemnity cap of ten million, all the way up from there.

    Steve Gordon: That’s, I think, really helpful for folks to draw a fence around where this applies as they’re working through deals. Patrick-

    Patrick Stroth: Yeah, what happens often in this … Some people may say, “Well, why ten million? Why so big? What’s going on?” It’s largely because we’ll get asked about sub-ten million dollar transactions. Wouldn’t it be great if there was a market that could handle the two million to ten million dollar deals because there are thousands and thousands of those out there.

    The reason why the underwriters want the larger deals is because you’re looking at the buyer’s due diligence. The buyer’s due diligence has to be pretty thorough. You’re not having a real thorough due diligence done on the smaller transaction value deals.

    Once you get over 25 million transaction value and up you’re having M & A attorneys. You’ve got to invest in bankers. You’ve got professional advisors. You’ve got audited financials, or at least reviewed financials. The elements that make a risk eligible as opposed to ineligible. So, I definitely want to put in that issue on the ‘why’ at that threshold.

    Steve Gordon: I think that’s good information. Patrick, we’ve only got a few minutes left and there are a couple of questions that I think are important for folks who may be looking at trying to learn more about this. The first is, I know you do a tremendous amount of education around rep and warranty insurance and M & A in general through your podcasts and your website and all that. You guys publish articles, I think at least twice a month on these topics and on other M & A related topics that folks can get to. I know that you go and do presentations and that you do webinars. How can folks tap in to all this education that you are doing?

    Patrick Stroth: The best way to find stuff, I’m pretty proud of the work that we’ve done on our website on this, is first to visit our website at Rubiconins.com. If you click on the insights tab there we’ve got a list of our articles, links to podcasts, and so forth, just to get a flavor. I would say this, as an insurance broker in the M & A sector, we have probably the easiest, most user-friendly website when it comes to finding M & A-related material.

    There are videos in there with some side-by-side comparisons on an uninsured and an insured deal. There are other resources there that it’s one click and you’re in. I’m very proud of that because when I had to do my research on this years ago, you were hunting and pecking all over the place. So, I would say the first place would be to go there.

    The other issue is that we do routinely is, on a regular basis, we’re providing ongoing continuing education to the corporate groups and the M & A practices for a number of law firms. We can do these either live or I have a webinar where we go point by point on how to execute this product, pricing on the product, and the comparisons. It’s really difficult when you’re listening to something when you hear numbers here and there, and comparisons, and so forth.

    It’s important to have some visuals. I would argue we probably have the best visuals when it comes to an M & A webinar presentation. So, those are available just by reaching out to me and scheduling that to give you on the ground work on this.

    I would say that without exception, if you attend one of my webinars on M & A for rep and warranty you will know more about rep and warranty, and how it can be executed, and how can it impact a deal than about 95 percent of the people in the insurance industry.

    There are a lot of commercial insurance agents and brokers out there that are very good and they do great work … They don’t know this. It’s not just how the product works, but how you can go from dead stop to getting a policy placed and get it set. That’s a real problem when you’ve got something new.

    When you’re into M & A transactions and you’re dealing with bankers and their fees, you’ve got advisors and their fees. If you want to stage your company you’re going to have some compliance issues and costs to get yourself set up, IT expenses to get your security up.

    Then, you’ve got legal costs. You have all these things you’re going to incur before you’re even going out there on the road to get an offer for selling your company. There’s all these expenses out there.

    To get the idea of rep and warranty in there, that’s just one more thing on the pile of other to-dos that you have. It becomes a reluctant item because you’ve got so many other things out there. What we show with both the webinar and in speaking with me is that there’s a step-by-step way of doing it. It’s a very simple process and it’s manageable. The best thing about it, it’s at zero cost. Until you’re committed to where you want to move forward on a policy you don’t spend a dime.

    So, that’s a nice departure from traditionally getting other services where you’re going to incur some kind of retainer fee or expense just to get started. That’s not the case with this. The more people that know that there’s this free resource for a key tool, the better.

    Steve Gordon: Excellent, Patrick. I know you do a tremendous amount of work to put all that together. So, for folks who have listened to this and now they’re thinking, “Well, maybe I have a deal that could be a fit,” what’s the best way for them to maybe get in touch with you to begin to talk some specifics, just to see if the deal is a fit? How do they go about doing that? How do they get in touch with you?

    Patrick Stroth: Absolutely. The easier it is just to get a quick snapshot look, I think, the better. So, the way you do this is you either reach out to me by email, which is pstroth@rubiconins.com. You can also find it on the website or call me, 415-806-2356. Give me a call.

    Here’s what I need. This just shows you how simple we’ve made it for you, okay. If I have four data points: the transaction value that you’re thinking about, what the indemnity cap is, is there an escrow amount, for comparison purposes, what escrow if you were uninsured, what would that be, and then what is the state of domicile for the buyer? That’s important because all policies have taxes and it depends on where the buyer is domiciled, so we can get that.

    If you have those four items, I don’t even need to know what type of company it is. If you give me that, we can at least give you a real back-of-the-envelope number. Then, it’s just a matter of is the due diligence eligible for the underwriters? And we would go through that later.

    But, at least with those four data points, that’s all I need and you’re going to at least have pricing. If you can get that idea budgetary-wise what’s out there, as you go into the letter of intent stage, it’s a lot easier to incorporate this powerful, powerful tool without having to stop doing what you’re doing in the deal to then inject this process and then do it later. It’s much more effective if it’s baked in to the deal at the outset.

    Steve Gordon: Very good, Patrick. This has been really educational. I know I’ve been taking notes as we’ve talked. You’ve shared just a ton of information. I appreciate you doing that. Folks, Patrick will be back as the official host of the M & A Master’s podcast in the very next episode, so be sure and come back for that. Patrick, thanks for giving me the opportunity to turn the tables on you today and put you in the hot seat. Thank you again, for everything that you’ve shared. It’s been great having this conversation with you.

    Patrick Stroth: Thanks very much, Steve. Appreciate the help there.

  • Samir Shah | The One Person Who Can Transform Your Startup
    POSTED 10.30.18 M&A Masters Podcast

    Samir Shah has a unique pedigree in the M&A world. He was previously an owner whose company was successfully sold. And these days he’s with Silicon Valley-based pre-series A venture capital firm Cervin Ventures, specializing in helping founders in the enterprise technology space.

    Based on his experience Samir has come up with eight “one-liners” (i.e. rules or words to live by) that should guide every startup.

    The first one is a question every entrepreneur should ask before even thinking about starting a business.

    You get all the details, and, along the way, find out…

    • How the best product could be ignored without this one element
    • Where to find your best customers (you already know, even if you don’t realize it)
    • Why you shouldn’t try to “sell” – do this instead
    • The mindset shift you need to go from “startup” to “business”
    • And much more

    Listen now…

    Mentioned in this Episode: www.cervinventures.com

    Read More >

  • Elvir Causevic | Add Millions to Your Company’s Value Overnight
    POSTED 10.3.18 M&A Masters Podcast

    Many technology companies are sitting on an untapped resource that could add 5%, 10%, 20%, or more to their company’s value, says Dr. Elvir Causevic, managing director of Houlihan Lokey’s Tech and IP advisory department.

    Read More >

  • Jim Reilly | The Data Breach that Cost $500 Million
    POSTED 9.19.18 M&A Masters Podcast

    Today, we discuss why cybersecurity is a necessity for companies considering an M&A transaction. If your company doesn’t use the Internet, you can skip this program.

    Read More >