Michael LoBue writes: In a soon to be published white paper, that I authored, comparing the profiles of AMC-managed and standalone organizations, two major conclusions are clear.
First, there is no difference between the types or organizations managed by AMCs and those that "own their resources". An organization that owns its own resources is one that employs its own staff, leases (or owns) its own office space and spends its scarce revenue on capital goods (e.g., furniture, furnishings, IT resources, etc.).
Second, AMC-managed organizations out perform standalone organizations across conventional operating metrics like:
- Operating Efficiency
- Net Profitability
- Leverage (a measure of risk)
Oh, and let's not forget that standalone organizations pay, on average, a 50% premium to "own" those resources that, on average, produce lesser results! How this translates into "fiduciary responsibility" is lost on me...
The white paper will be posted on the AMC Institute website for downloading, but I would also be happy to email a copy of it to anyone that is interested. Just send me an email request at: LoBue@LM-Mgmt.com.
This is not to suggest that all standalone organizations up to $5M in annual revenue, the threshold up to which the comparisons were done, are irresponsible for using the standalone model of management. But, we now have hard data that governing boards and management can use to ask: "Is the premium we're paying for our management model providing the right return for our unique needs?"
The real value of the comparisons in the white paper is that organizations can begin to explore this question beyond half-truths or simply because the standalone model is what they've been use to.
The comparisons in the white paper do not give us the most important analysis all organizations need to conduct, which is how an organization's programs connect to the impacts outside the organization that each was formed in the first place to have. But, it's a start!
Comments