During a call earlier this week with ChannelE2E, an MSP business owner/founder described why he doesn't plan to sell his company. Instead, he's transitioning day-to-day operations to his chief operating officer (COO). And the owner/founder will gradually step away from the company -- which will essentially pay him a monthly pension over time.To be clear: The owner is not signing up for a formalized small business pension plan. Instead, the owner/founder will essentially retire but earn a monthly sum from the business (for some predefined amount of time) and treat that as a 'pension' of sorts.Additional wildcards could involve an actual business ownership transition. For instance:PS: Surely I missed a few other variables. Feel free to post a comment or email me key scenarios I failed to cover ([email protected]).
Joe Panettieri (@JoePanettieri) is co-founder and executive VP of After Nines Inc. and its IT media platforms — ChannelE2E and MSSP Alert. His great grandfather arrived to the United States from Italy around 1917, charting the way for three generations of entrepreneurs.
Owner Transitions/Executive Agreements
It's a promising strategy. But it also invites some risk for executives on both sides of the table. Among the variables:- The owner -- now 60 years old -- and his COO have to align fully on a long-term business plan, financial targets, workloads, roles and responsibilities.
- The COO has to deliver on those financial targets in order to keep the business healthy and maintain a monthly payment to the founder.
- If the business underperforms on the financial plans, what safeguards are in place -- if any -- to ensure the owner/founder still receives that monthly payment?
- In return for a monthly payment to the retired founder, does the company ownership gradually shift to the COO -- and if so, at what rate, and over what time period?
- The founder and the COO also are discussing potential M&A scenarios: At what price would the founder and his COO potentially be willing to sell the business -- and what financial terms associated with the deal would be acceptable?




