The Second Smartest Guy in the Room

10/12/23 • 6 min

Alan Weiss's The Uncomfortable Truth®

The Second Smartest Guy in the Room by Alan Weiss

The Second Smartest Guy in the Room by Alan Weiss

Previous Episode

A Conversation with Barry Banther

We are in the midst of the largest transgenerational shift in wealth in the history of the country. Part of this are the maturing retirement funds created under the Reagan administration, and part is the succession of small business owners from founders to the second (or third) generations. Barry Banther has worked with hundreds of family businesses, from $50 million to $500 million in revenues. He creates strategies for continuity and succession, from family ownership to outright sales with proceeds going to the family. He distinguishes between family-owned and run businesses and family owned but not run businesses (run by professional executives employed for that reason). He's worked with some of the most well-known families in the country whom we can’t name here but whom you would recognize instantly, as well. He talks of the three major factors involved in positioning successful family businesses, and of the sometimes incredible factors overlooked (trusts, wills, successions plans, etc.). He points out the dangers in having a family member serve as a trustee. Barry has run his own business independent of this one, and works with his clients typically for several years in order to position them for success. He’s currently finishing work after 17 years with a company that was at $60 million and will now be sold for a quarter billion. Small businesses are the largest creators of net new jobs in the country. The smart and longest-lived ones listen to Barry Banther. Perhaps you should, too.

Next Episode

Bonanza

Bonanza: A situation or event that creates a sudden increase in wealth, good fortune, or profits. It was also a TV show in the heyday of westerns, and ran from 1959 to 1973, second only to Gunsmoke in longevity. It’s still shown in reruns on a variety of cable channels. By accident, I happened to see one the other day with a disclaimer on the screen, citing racial stereotyping on the show and to be aware of it. My first reaction was that this racial and gender stereotyping was all-too-common in the past. My second, however, is that wouldn’t a viewer know that and understand how far we’ve come and how far we still may need to go? (I don’t readily recall stereotyping on Bonanza, although maybe their Asian cook was the problem somehow.) I believe we’re all adults above a certain age, imbued with intelligence and judgment, which allows us to hold jobs, drive cars, and feed ourselves. (If a child were watching that rerun, somehow, would the kid understand the “trigger warning”?) Is this a legitimate warning or is it just more virtue signaling, like signs and flags on lawns? Those represent to me people trying to convince you of their virtue without necessarily behaving with virtue. (I’m all for stopping at a “stop” sign for everyone, but for me a “rolling stop” is okay.) After all, the station doesn’t have to run Bonanza at all. (CVS has taken tobacco out of its stores but not sugary candies and processed foods.) My feeling is that we learn from the past, both in our victories and our defeats, in our honorable behavior and in our sins. That’s the only way to improve the future, not by eradicating the past, or shouting opposing views down on campuses, or demanding we all take loyalty oaths to whatever cause. (Don’t laugh, they’re required in some universities for newly hired professors. You have to sign a diversity or inclusion oath, or the offer is rescinded. Remember when we were proud of having Communist professors speak their peace?) The media today are full of derivatives (a new “Frasier” with some new characters, appropriately diverse, which is not going to equal the original); new takes on “reality” shows (a 72-year-old “golden bachelor”); celebrity game shows (Wheel of Fortune, Jeopardy) where the questions are either easier or the answers are hinted at. Let’s be honest about the past and optimistic about the future. Revising or eradicating the past doesn’t improve the present and pretty much undermines the future.