TheSourceCodeModule9
TheSourceCodeModule9
com
Module 9
www.gkic.com
www.getwsodownload.com
© 2015 Glazer-Kennedy Insider’s Circle, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Published under the United States Copyright laws by Glazer-Kennedy Insider’s Circle, LLC. No portion of
these materials may be reproduced in any manner whatsoever (whether electronic, mechanical or
otherwise and including photocopy, recording or any information storage and retrieval system) without
the express written consent of the publisher. Any unauthorized use, sharing, reproduction or distribution
of these materials by any means is strictly prohibited. Requests for permission to reproduce content
contained herein shall be sent via email to our Permissions Department via email (support@gkic.com) or
facsimile (312) 880-1201.
This Presentation (“Presentation”) has been prepared No representation or warranty is given as to the
by or on behalf of Glazer-Kennedy Insider’s Circle, LLC achievement or reasonableness of, and no reliance
and/or its affiliated companies (“GKIC”) for the should be placed on, any projections, estimates,
purpose of setting out certain confidential information forecasts, analyses or forward-looking statements
regarding GKIC’s business activities, plans and contained in this Presentation which involve by their
strategy. References to “Presentation” include any nature a number of risks, uncertainties or
information which has been or may be supplied in assumptions that could cause actual results or
writing or orally by or on behalf of GKIC in connection events to differ materially from those expressed or
with the Presentation or in response to any follow-up implied in this Presentation. Except to the extent
inquiries from the Presentation. otherwise indicated, this Presentation presents
information as of the date hereof. The delivery of
This Presentation and the information contained this Presentation shall not, under any circumstances,
herein are confidential. In addition to the terms of any create any implication that there will be no change
confidentiality agreement you may sign with GKIC, by in the affairs of GKIC after the date hereof. In
viewing the Presentation you agree that you and each furnishing this Presentation, GKIC reserves the right
of your agents, representatives, advisors, directors or to amend or replace this Presentation at any time
employees (collectively, “Representatives”) will not, and undertakes no obligation to update any of the
and will not permit any third party to, copy, reproduce information contained in the Presentation or to
or distribute to others this Presentation, in whole or in correct any inaccuracies that may become apparent.
part, at any time without the prior written consent of
GKIC, and that you and all Representatives will keep This Presentation shall remain the property of GKIC.
confidential all information contained herein not GKIC may, at any time, request that you and/or your
already in the public domain and will use this Representatives promptly deliver to GKIC or, if
Presentation for the sole purpose of familiarizing directed in writing by GKIC, destroy all confidential
yourself with certain limited background information information relating to this Presentation received in
concerning GKIC and its business strategy, plans and written, electronic or other tangible form
activities. If you have signed a confidentiality whatsoever, including without limitation all copies,
agreement with GKIC, this Presentation constitutes reproductions, computer diskettes or written
Confidential Information for the purposes of such materials which contain such confidential
agreement. If you do not agree to the terms of this information. At such time, all other notes, analyses
Notice, you may NOT view, copy or distribute any or compilations constituting or containing
portion of this Presentation. confidential information in your or your
Representatives’, possession shall be destroyed. You
While the information contained in this Presentation is may be required to certify such destruction to GKIC
believed to be accurate, GKIC has not conducted any in writing.
investigation with respect to such information. GKIC
expressly disclaims any and all liability for
representations or warranties, expressed or implied,
contained in, or for omissions from, this Presentation
or any other written or oral communication
transmitted to any interested party in connection with
this Presentation, so far as is permitted by law.
THE SOURCE CODE TO BUSINESS SUCCESS AND ADVANCED WEALTH ATTRACTION
www.getwsodownload.com
CONTENTS
The Source Code to Business Success and Advanced Wealth Attraction: Module 9 ......................................4
Investments ..............................................................................................................................................32
Governing Principle...................................................................................................................................41
STRUCTURING DEALS
We have two questions.
One was, “What three things do you look at that you feel competitors or
peers don't analyze when structuring a deal or when evaluating a deal?”
The other was, “What is your filtering criteria for investment joint
ventures and deals?”
We'll talk about some of these issues. My considerations… and the quick preface
is that these do not necessarily need to be your considerations and they don't
necessarily need to be your considerations in the same order. I'm just telling
you what mine are.
I NTEGRITY
One is integrity within reason. I happen to live in worlds where, if your standard
for doing deals was 100 percent integrity, there'd be nobody you could do a deal
with, including me. So that's a little too stringent.
I explained to you earlier, if you take out the five who lie, cheat and steal all the
time, and the five who never lie, cheat and steal, the rest of us are situational.
Here's how you know that everybody has situational ethics. I can break
everybody. It's just a question of how much I pile on.
You are at the supermarket. Either you usually do the shopping or you've been
tasked with doing the shopping – doesn't make any difference.
You get there. It's the Friday before holiday weekend, so you have to park two
zillion spaces away, because you're not handicapped, you're not a pregnant
mother… everybody else they have reserved parking spaces for, you aren't any
of them.
So you're parked way out in the hinterlands. You have the two kids in tow.
You go in. You get the groceries. While you're in there, the worst thunderstorm
in the history of wherever you live has broken out outside, and it is pouring rain.
It took you longer to get the stuff than you thought and you went to the live
cashier line… where they are now putting the dumbest people possible as
cashiers to try and get you to go and use the automated line.
By the time you are schlepping through the rain with the screaming children
and the groceries, to the car out in the hinterlands, you're running late. You have
promised to pick your spouse up at a particular place, at a particular time that
you are now in trouble with, and she or he will be standing out in the rain.
As you are putting the kids in the car and the groceries in the trunk, you realize
the clerk gave you $5 too much in change.
Do you take the kids, go back through the thunderstorm to the supermarket and
turn in the $5? You don't have to answer, just answer to yourself.
Some people will claim yes. Some people will admit, no, but I can make it worse.
Everything I just said, plus when you got to the car, you’ve got a flat tire you’ve
got to change. Are you going to take the $5 back in?
Now, there's five percent of the people you can't break, but the rest of us...
situational ethics. I can break you all at some point.
Same thing with taking a towel from a hotel room. Some people take everything
to start with. It's just, “It's mine. I'm taking it!” That's where they start.
But I can get you to the point that you're mad enough at the hotel, you're mad
enough at the desk clerk, you've had a miserable... I
The litmus test for
can get you to, “Well, at least I'm going to take the
towel!" You can be broken. me is integrity
within reason.
When you understand there are situational ethics,
other than that five percent… so the first thing you
want to do is avoid the five percent, of course, who lie, cheat and steal all the
time, do it compulsively, obsessively, whether there's any benefit to them or not.
You want to try and weed them out of your life as inexpensively as possible, but
the rest of it... the litmus test for me is integrity within reason.
One question is will they hurt me on purpose or will they only hurt me by
accident? That moves the needle somewhat. Not a lot, but some.
Will they steal a little or will they steal everything that isn't nailed down? Is it
going to be a bloody stump at the wrist? Is it going to be a bloody stump at the
elbow? Is it going to be a bloody stump at the shoulder?
Philosophically, where are these people? Some people are perfectly content with
just taking it off at the wrist.
Under the right circumstances, I can live with that. So think this through.
C APABILITY , R ESOURCES
Capability. Resources. Do they have the wherewithal to execute?
If they have the competence, but say they have no money, or they have
competence, but they have a completely dysfunctional staff… so do they have
the wherewithal?
R ELIABILITY
Reliability. Will they execute? Do they have a pattern? Is there some evidence to
me to support the idea that, given that they can, usually, they do?
How much do I have to worry about whether they will, even though they can?
For example, when you book a speaker, there's now a series of compliant acts
you need. They have to show up. They have to show up sober. They have to
show up on time. They have to show up and not run around and hump the
women in the audience, at least not without express permission from one that is
single.
There's a series of things you have to worry about, and then, in our business,
you have to worry about what'll they do with any customers they get
afterwards.
The fact that they need some management, I wouldn't rule them out, but if
there's a pattern of them not showing up places or there's a pattern of them not
showing up sober...
For several years, I was working with Yanik Silver on his Underground events.
We got a celebrity each year that fit the spy theme. The year I stopped managing
I said, "No, no, no. I know about… Let me tell you the 42 reasons you don't want
to do this. I'm telling you, this is a really bad idea, Yanik. Bad, bad, bad ... idea. If
you want to do Austin Powers, get Robert Wagner.
Robert Wagner's going to cost you more, but Bob will show up. Bob will show
up sober. Bob won't do anything bad on stage. Bob will not sleep with anybody
who's not really trying to sleep with him. Bob is really not going to be much of a
management headache at all.
Mini-Me. Different story. Don't you watch reality TV? This is not pretty. First of
all, midgets, in general, are mean and nasty and pretty much trying to hump
everybody.
Mini-Me, this guy's a nightmare. I said, "If you insist on using him, Yanik. He's a
drunk. If he gets there, which is questionable, then you’ve got to have a
babysitter and you’ve got to manage him the entire time. Make sure there's no
booze in the fridge in the suite you put him in. Monitor his room service order.
Somebody stay with him. You’ve got to manage this guy every step of the way."
At the Underground, first of all, of course, he gets loaded. By the way, sober
midgets are one thing. Drunk midgets, that's a whole other kettle of wax,
altogether.
All he's supposed to do... He's not speaking, either. All he's doing is coming up on
stage and they’ve got 10 winners, the runner ups all the way to the Internet
Marketer of the Year; so he's supposed to announce the awards and people
come up and they get their picture taken with him on stage.
Then he's supposed to do a photo opp. in his little Mini-Me costume from Austin
Powers.
Number one, he refuses to wear the costume. So now, you’ve just got a midget.
Then, the people who come up want their picture taken with him, they want him
to do the Mini-Me thing. Yanik asked him to do it. He says, "Fuck you."
Then, he's supposed to announce the 10th runner up, the ninth runner up... He
announces the Grand Prize winner first, which sort of takes the drama out of it,
it really deflates the number eight guy from wanting to even come up and get his
award.
Now it's funny and people found it funny and all that, but...
When we use celebrities, by the way, we try and talk to people who have used
them so you have an idea of what you're in for.
C OMPLIANCE
Compliance – can and will they work with me the way I need to work?
If it becomes very quickly evident that they are going to be grumpy and balky
and all that about having to communicate through Vicky, and not being able to
communicate by email and stuff, there's no point in me doing a deal with them,
because we're both going to be miserable. What good is that?
His chief flaw in life is when it comes to doing productive joint venture deals,
customer-sharing deals, with other people.
For a time, I teed them up for him and every one was
stillborn or went sour for the same reason. He would As dumb as they are,
come and he would say, "These people are stupid. they have 10 times
They don't know a tenth of what we know and they're
as many customers
idiots. First of all, in the process of doing the deal,
as we’ve got.
we're going to teach them a bunch of stuff that they
don't know and we're going to teach it to them for
free. Second of all, dealing with them is annoying because you’ve got to explain
everything, because they're stupid."
He was not wrong about any of this, he was just wrong about his reaction to it. I
would point out, "You're right, they're idiots. We're going to teach them a bunch
of stuff and they're annoying to manage. Furthermore, they are going to benefit
more than we benefit overall.”
However, as dumb as they are, they have 10 times as many customers as we’ve
got and they have customers we want.
Being dumber than me does not automatically rule you out. That's not the point.
You have to understand what the point is.
If they’ve got something you want, they had to be smart about something,
because money doesn't go to dumb people by accident. It refuses.
So, if they’ve got something you want, that you're going to turn into money,
they’ve got to be smart about something. It's impossible for them to be dumber
about everything.
R ISKS
Risks. I consider the risks involved with the people. How bad are they?
Some years ago, Guthy-Renker calls me in, they're all excited about doing a show
with this 'get rich in real estate' guy, some of you will know him or remember
him, Dave Del Dotto.
This is only seven or eight years ago that they called me and they're about to do
the show with Dave. They want me to work on the show.
I have nothing against Dave, by the way. I like Dave. Dave's a very funny guy. If
you want to go have a glass of wine with somebody, he owns a winery in
northern California. He's a kick and a half.
However, Dave is like waving a red flag at a bull to the regulatory community.
We race in lightning, and we're in metal sulkies. I've always thought it was a bad
idea. I always say I particularly dislike it because I'm the tallest guy out there. It
wouldn't be so bad if I was the shortest guy.
So I always try, when we're out there in lightning, before we go to the gate, I try
and be between two other guys, so I at least… "Let's stay close.” Maybe there's a
shot that it'll miss me and get you.
Well, there's no shot, if you stand this close to Dave, of it missing you.
I said, "Why on earth…? The risk is enormous of at least costly problems, if not
worse. You have no need to do it."
At that time, they were a $400 million company. They’ve got three planes now,
they had one then. One's okay. Every once in a while, they both wanted to use it,
but you can usually work it out. That problem does not justify Dave.
Dave is one of these guys… he can't say five words without one of them violating
a law. He's incapable of doing it. It really doesn't make him a bad guy, it just
makes him very, very, very risky to be around.
So I evaluate the risks. The worst case scenario of the involvement with this
person.
We had a speaker at a SuperConference some years ago, five-six years ago now,
and I have made sure we have never had him again and I discourage everybody
from having him, even though… I'm not going to name him but I will tell you
why… even though he can sell like the dickens and so everybody makes money.
I happen to be better at it than Bill Glazer; hence, I was the one in the room for
45 minutes, but I'm only marginally better. I don't like it.
That rules him out forever. You can never darken our door again because the
worst case scenario is I'm going to be in a room with a weeping, distraught
woman. Once was enough! So I evaluate worst case scenario.
#2: SYNERGY
Number two, then, for me is synergy, which basically is, does this thing relate
to/somehow help other things that already exist… or
Ninety percent of the
get helped by other things that already exist… or is it
completely disconnected and separate? time I violate this, I
regret it after the
Ninety percent of the time I violate this, I regret it
after the fact. It's just stupid.
fact.
You’ve got all this good stuff going on and now you're going to go do something
that is completely unrelated. It's not helped by the good stuff that's going on. It
doesn't help the good stuff that's going on. Odds are, this is not going to turn out
well.
The next thing I'm doing for them, which would sound like a lot of work if it was
being done from scratch is a complete certification course for freelance
copywriters. They will have a Kennedy certification.
We have one for copywriters for info-marketers. Now we're doing a Kennedy
certification for freelance copywriters, so, A to Z, everything they need to know
to write copy effectively.
Well, from scratch, that's ugly, but I've been teaching copywriting for 20 years.
I’ve got a mountain of stuff. I’ve got a room of stuff. All I’ve got to do is just tweak
it so it's for the freelancer instead of for you doing it for yourself.
I actually can even have a bunch of it done by Carla, so she can get me to rough
draft by taking the stuff, organizing it, putting it into modules. I don't even have
to do that.
And it's all front-end loaded. I get to do it once. Hands off from there on.
We've re-run the certification program for copywriters for info-marketers four
times and I haven't touched it since the first time. I haven't done the calls. I
haven't done nothing. All the work was front-end loaded. The benefits keep
coming and coming and coming, so that's a good deal.
Can I prevent mission creep or must I fear it? Mission creep is we agree that I'm
going to do X and you're going to do Y and here's a list of stuff I'm going to do
and it expands. It just gets more and more.
The mission just gets gloppier and gloppier and gloppier. Can I contain that,
which loops back to integrity because if I write the agreement really well, that
helps, but will they honor the agreement?
It loops back to their capabilities because I may almost volunteer for the mission
creep if they're proving unable or unwilling to implement, then I've got to create
mission creep. I have to consider all of that.
Is there anything that's really onerous? Is there something that is just, to me,
personally abhorrent? I'll also consider is there anything that's particularly
cool?
I like to work with Chris Cardell for several reasons. One, he's really smart. All of
this, he qualifies; he's a "yes" to every one of these things, except he won't steal,
so that's a "no", but everything else, he's a "yes" to.
We're talking about doing a seminar at Downton Abbey. The onerous thing is
I’ve got to get on an airplane and I’ve got to go to England, so I’ve got to consider
that.
It's not about going to England, by the way, it's about going anywhere. England's
not really any worse for me than flying to L.A. It's about the same, but there is
water and there's customs people and it's completely unappealing.
On the other hand, the cool factor of doing it once and man, it'll be really cool
and it'll be fun and Carla will have a ball, and I get to work with him and Gayle,
so there's particularly pleasing things. That factors in.
If I'm putting in cash, at risk, in addition to time, I’ve got to think about, "Really?
Why am I doing that?" because people will give me equity for free. Why do I
want to put money at risk?
You may have to consider that, say, with your relationship with your spouse.
You may have to consider that with business partners. You may have to consider
that with other distribution channels, where you really have the unfettered right
to do it, but you're still going to go and negotiate and position it as a favor, in
order to do it.
You can only go to that well so many times, so I’ve got to think about that.
Somebody else… though they are in the same field… the way they're conducting
business, the legal risk is relatively low, so I consider that.
Is the thing itself and the person…how thin of ice do they skate on? How far do
they push it? How much interference is there in their category of business?
How bad is this going to be and how easily can I get out if it does blow up in my
face?
Can I get what I want in the agreement? For me, the more negotiation there is,
the less I'm interested in doing anything. And are they lawyered up?
Generally speaking, the more lawyer language there is in the agreement, the
more I figure that it has been written to screw me. I don't really need to read the
46 pages. Somewhere in there…
Do they have a bunch of knowns or are they flying on opinion and guesswork
and belief system? How many cooks are in the kitchen, because it's really hard
for me to deal with committees; it's really hard for me to deal with five or six
people at a time. It doesn't fit my modus operandi.
She was in Titanium with us. You could just watch and like every 15 minutes,
there's this ... I’ve got to stop and, "You don't know what that is, do you?"
This is what this guy's marriage has got to be like. To me, it's tough enough
without that, but...
In just about any deal you make, you should be able to see
more of the future than they can.
And you want to… because you want to control that future. You want to be able
to monetize that future.
One thing is an immediate payday is fine, but if there's reason to believe that a
small tail will be worth more, that's an even better opportunity.
So you’ve got to be able to see what the tail might look like and what
opportunities exist or could exist or what needs for you exist or could exist that
they don't see.
Then you make decisions about whether you want to volunteer them or
whether you want to keep them to yourself and create opportunity by the way
you structure the deal.
Dick Cheney theory... The first thing I did that made money for me after getting
hired to consult and figure out how they could make more money at events – the
first thing… and it was half-accident/half-not… is I wound up the speaker on the
program at the end, selling all the stuff.
The one thing I expected, going in... I didn't know exactly how it was going to
materialize, but I expected that I was better at that than most everybody else
they were using.
So it didn't surprise me that, pretty quick, everybody's amazed that with one-
tenth the audience, I'm selling as much stuff as regulars with 80 percent of the
audience. In dollars per head, I'm selling more stuff than anybody else.
I wasn't sure, going in, if I was going to get the money from Peter or I was going
to get the money from the people, but I was pretty sure there was going to be
some money there somewhere, which there was.
In a couple of cases, I got the money from Peter. In a couple of cases, I got it from
the other speakers… percentage of gross for five years. I fixed them.
I don't feel any ethical requirement to do that. "You didn't ask. Had you asked, I
would've told you, but you didn't ask."
"So now, do you want to do this? If you do, let's talk about how we make the
money work."
You want as narrow of restrictions as possible on you. In a deal, if you are letting
somebody put you in a box for money, you want that box to be as tiny as you can
possibly make it, with a backdoor to a big world of opportunity behind it.
Clarity, specificity, detail matters enormously. I have clients who get themselves
in joint venture agreements and they're broadly written and they're sloppy and
then everybody ends up arguing about, "Now you're competing with our thing."
The non-compete deal came from LegalZoom.com and it's written so horribly
you could drive trucks through it and now everybody's mad at each other.
You probably could've avoided doing it at all, but at least if you did it, you
should've narrowed it to the nth degree.
GOOD QUESTIONS TO A SK
Good questions to ask yourself:
What is important to me about this deal that I get to make the decisions
about?
Nelson just switched after a long period of time to a new book publisher
and he is already ruing not getting into the contract his right to control
titles. Because after thirteen books in a successful, branded series, the
first thing the new nitwits want to do is change the brand and change all
the titles. Of course.
• What do I want right of approval over? The most recent book I did
with Jack Dicks was "Stand Apart."
It's an anthology. They get people to buy the chapters. I'm the main guy
and then everybody else contributes a chapter.
Well I want right of approval over who gets chapters, because there
might be somebody in there who I really feel is in the five percent
criminal category or is just completely incompatible, one reason or
another.
Often, by the way, there's a bunch of stuff that's important to the other
party, that they think is going to be important to you, but doesn't matter
to you one whit. That's great negotiating stuff.
I don't want to touch it. I don't want to hear about it. I don't want to
know about it. I don't want to see it.
ESCALATING MINIMUMS
In license agreements and many other kinds… In agreements where you are
getting paid something for the use of you – name, likeness, story, content,
intellectual property, access, whatever – and it's a multi-year deal and it is
percentage driven, you should usually put escalating
17 percent of
minimums in.
nothing is nothing.
It doesn't mean you have to enforce them, but you
should usually have escalating minimums that they have to meet or they lose
the exclusivity, or the deal dissolves entirely, if that's what you want to do.
Now, they're not doing nothing and you can't go get anybody to do something
because you’ve got four more years to wait while they don't do anything and
you scream at them, which tends to be not all that productive.
They always have the option, if they've done nothing, if just writing a check to
keep the exclusive, but at least there's some pressure on them to perform.
G ETTING P AID
Who gets money moved to them, when and on what basis?
I'm not crazy, personally, about other people getting paid before I get paid out of
some arrangement that we are in together.
Like we're in a joint venture together and you're going to get a salary and you're
going to get your car paid and you're going to get your mistress paid and you're
going to get your vacations paid and I'm going to get an equity distribution once
a year. This is unappealing to me.
Now, if I'm on the other side of that deal, I like it a lot, but it's unappealing to me,
if I'm on the receiving side.
So you’ve got to think about who gets paid when and how can I make sure I get
paid at least at the same time everybody else gets paid?
You have no control over who's getting paid and, if it's a decent-sized company,
really, about the only time you're ever going to see any money is when it gets
sold.
It's sort of like waiting for your uncle to die to finally get some money. It turns
out the sucker lives to be 119.
The second thing is, there's a rule in Hollywood that says, "There ain't no net."
Garner, famous example, died without ever seeing a penny of the net
distribution agreement he had for The Rockford Files.
If you can convince me there was no net… there just was never any net that he
could get. So there's never any net.
If somebody else can control whether or not there's net, and you are being paid
on net, there's a lot of ways for them not to have net.
It really is adjusted gross, describe what items come out of gross, that gets you
to a total at the bottom from which we divvy stuff up.
If I'm going to provide the product, you're going to provide the customers and
we're going to sell this thing and we're going to split the net 50/50, there ain't
ever going to be any net.
"Well, office staff, operations, my tolls driving back and forth to the airport, had
to get my shoes shined..."
There's never going to be any net. So its got to be gross. Here's a list of the stuff
we deduct and then here's the number that we divide up.
I'll just give you inside baseball. This event is outside of my main GKIC contract.
This is a joint venture arrangement. We have revenue sharing, we have product
sharing, all that. The revenue share is 60/40, 60 to me, 40 to them.
That means we never have to have a conversation that either one of us doesn't
like. "Well, really? Two pirate girls? Why not have one?" "Really? Let's just give
away pictures of banks."
By the way, either side could be having that conversation. Nobody ever has to
have that conversation when we're dividing gross. As soon as there's expenses,
then everybody has to have that conversation. So I prefer gross.
C ONFIDENTIALITY
Personally, I never agree to nondisclosure or confidentiality. I've never had to.
I've never lost one because of it, all these years.
A lot of people just roll over to it and agree to it. I never have. Too much stuff
crosses my desk. To me, that's like "Sign here, to be sued in the future." That's
what that says to me. No thank you.
If you sell a thing or you sell part of your thing, you can create a list of
exceptions to the non-compete part of that sale, and you should.
You may have other pre-existing activities, relationships, that would violate the
non-compete, but they already exist and maybe there's going to be more
extensions of that.
In our sale, I had to carve-out AWAI... my carve-out list is five pages. In some
cases, you can anticipate future activities and relationships and get them carved
out.
You may have, in some cases, target prospects for something that you would
carve out.
You can carve things out that way. Carve-outs and exceptions are really, really
important.
P RE -N UPS
The most important part of any cooperative agreement is the pre-nup. People
ignore me all the time and I always hear all the same reasons:
It don't make any difference. Odds are somebody is going to get grumpy at some
point about the relationship.
People agree to all sorts of things before there's real Odds are somebody
money. But as soon as there's real money... Ask John
is going to get
Du Cane and his Russian Kettlebell guy; ask Tony,
grumpy at some
Guthy-Renker; on and on and on.
point about the
People start to feel differently about real money than
relationship.
they felt about play money.
The business partnerships that go the distance till the business ends or
somebody dies are so rare that they're like business legends.
Everybody knows about them. There's a reason for it. They are rare.
These things go bad, so the pre-nup is critically important. The ingredients are
here.
How can I get out? If I choose to get out, how do I get out?
What do I get paid if I leave? Then maybe a difference in how I get paid or what I
get paid if I leave for an agreed upon cause. Like you get prosecuted for a felony
in your other business, that's an agreed upon cause. I get to trigger my exit
strategy from this thing, because I don't want to be
These things go bad,
associated with a felon.
so the pre-nup is
We've pre-agreed that, if that happens to you, I can
critically important.
leave and here's how much I get paid and here's how
I get paid.
On the other hand, how do I get out by pure choice? You haven't done anything
wrong, it's nothing; we just don't like each other anymore; I don't want to work,
whatever. How do I get out?
I may take less, if I'm leaving by choice than if I was leaving by pre-agreed cause,
so how do I get out? What do I get paid when I leave and how do I get paid?
How can you get out? On what basis can you get out and how do you get
compensated if you choose to get out?
I had two clients together doing a joint venture with a newsletter business. They
built this thing up. They were bringing in about $100,000 a month and one
simply decides he doesn't want to do it anymore. There's no problems.
He literally ran off to India to meditate. "I am quitting business and I am going to
India to an ashram and I’m going to meditate. I'm leaving."
I've seen some version of that myself, either involved with it or so close I might
as well have been, nine times in 40 years.
Off to the ashram; off to the cult; off to the weird religion; off to the islands; off
with the other partner's wife, off with...
Almost nobody prepared for it. It's not that uncommon! People lose their minds!
It happens all the time! Perfectly sane, rational people suddenly go nuts! It
happens all the time.
There's somebody in the room now, every time I talk to them, the conversation
starts with, "My psychotic business partner... "
It's a great book title, isn't it? "My Psychotic Business Partner..."
You’ve got to think this through. How they get out; on what basis; how do they
get paid?
Is intellectual property shared? Does content come back to you and marketing
go to them? Vice versa?
There's assets here, just like there is in a marriage. There's furniture, there's the
dog. You’ve got to think this through.
I just want to go get the piece of paper out of the drawer and, "Here's what we
both agreed to. Let's go." Mutual custody of the dog.
I do a thing called equity without equity. I've done it a number of times over
my career.
The reason to have equity in an enterprise is because you believe there will be
an equity play. The enterprise is either going to get sold, it's going to get merged,
it's going to IPO. Otherwise, there's no reason to have an equity play.
You're better off with a clean, simple income play, like X percentage of the gross.
Just give me the money.
If there's going to be an equity play, and you are, in one way or another, making
a significant contribution to that value, which is now going to be sold, based on a
multiple of future earnings, then you ought to have a piece of that upside, as
well.
My relationship with Bill, I had no equity. When I sold to Bill, I sold him 100
percent, but I had equity without equity.
I had percentages tied to income streams and I had percentage of the future sale,
but I had no ownership.
We never have to have a conversation about, "Really? Did you have to buy
cupcakes?" Or "You should've bought some cupcakes." It's not in my
department. So I don't aggravate him, he doesn't aggravate me, over those kinds
of issues.
Second, I can have some emotional detachment. The fastest way to have mission
creep is to have equity, because now, if you think the people running the
enterprise are messing something up and you have equity, you feel compelled to
get in there and fight over it and fix it, and you can't be detached from any of it.
You want to paint the barn purple? I don't think it's a very good idea. Here's the
five reasons you might want to consider not painting the barn purple, but if
you're going to paint the barn purple, it's your barn. Paint away!
A number of times over the years, I've done what I call equity without equity,
which simply says that on any equity money… you sell it, you will it away, it
changes hands, in whole or part, it merges, it IPOs… here's the percentage I get
of that money.
I also, in this case, then have equity without equity and equity without liability,
because I have no ownership.
If Charlie Brown gets in trouble with this thing, I’ve got a consulting contract,
that's what I’ve got. I don't have any ownership. I don't have any managerial
role. I can't make any management decisions.
I have sat in a room with regulators, with that consulting contract, and I have
walked out unscathed, thank you very much.
Triangle deals. If you can get paid from both sides, why not? I like triangle
deals a lot.
For example, the way I do my books is really a triangle deal. The publisher pays
me and then people pay me to be in the book. I get
I like triangle
paid from both sides of the equation, and I'm the
foundation holding the thing up. deals a lot.
My early Platinum groups had people paying from both sides; Kissinger gave it
to me. I finally abandoned it, because it was small money.
But for the first few years I did a Platinum group, you paid to be in the group
and if you did any deals with each other, because you were in the group, I got
three percent from you and I got three percent from you.
Kissinger taught it to me in the green room. In the right environment, it's worth
doing.
I gave it up. I just raised the fee of Platinum and said “Screw it,” but in some
environments, that would make sense.
Obviously, work once, get paid multiple times for the same work.
Can we create something that we either re-label, we let people niche, we sell the
asset more than once or at least profit from it being sold more than once?
I've sold the same thing three or four times. I like doing that.
I have a friend, Somers White, and one of the big differences between Somers
and me… we both opened an office in Phoenix the same year; he bought an old
rat-trap house on the edge of Scottsdale and put his office in the house. I leased
space.
The net difference… I'm not even done, so I'm still paying rent. He's done. He
retired about five years ago and sold the rat-trap house in which he had put his
office.
In that time, Scottsdale expanded around him, so the house is worth crap, but
the piece of land it's on is worth a significant amount of money because
somebody will knock the house down and build a much bigger, better house on
it.
The net difference in money between he and I… if you add up all the rent I've
paid, and you add up the gain he made on the house and put it together… is $2.1
million.
In the same period of time, I probably out-earned him. I'm sure I out-earned
him, but I left $2.1 million behind for really no good reason. So it's important to
move to the investor class.
One, we can get money from work, and a highly developed skill that sells for a
lot of money. Sometimes, labor is necessary and unavoidable.
Even doing low skill labor is sometimes unavoidable as part of the whole mix.
There's stuff I do that is far below my pay grade, but in the whole mix, it's okay.
I'm much happier writing copy. It's a much better deal for me at $100,000 a
project, than it was at $10,000 a project. It's the same amount of work.
Management. We oversee other peoples' work and we make money from other
peoples' work and labor.
He has certain procedures and systems and stuff he's used to do that; some of it
purloined from me, but that's okay, because that was part of the plan.
There's money invested back into those things, the second category where we
get money.
The third big category is where we get money extracted from all of those things
and put to work independently.
You have six purposes to consider when you put money to work somewhere.
Your considerations, again, may be different than mine. Mine have certainly
changed with age benchmarks. I've got considerations that may not be yours
and I have them in an order that may not be your order.
One, safety. For me, the first and most important thing is let's not lose it. I can
replace it still, but I'm not really eager to do so.
I'm much happier doing this by choice than by financial duress. So the first thing
is let's not lose it. I want my safe
harbor position.
Money Purposes to Consider
The second one, then, is growth,
1. Safety
in ways that your own entity 2. Growth
can't provide. 3. Yield
4. Access to Information, Connections, etc.
Speculation is okay, but you 5. Influence
6. Profit from the independent source
really should only gamble what because of its “lift” from your entities
you can afford to lose with only
like a day of aggravation over it.
People come to me to get an infomercial made and I always counsel them that
the odds of a success are very low overall.
• Firstly, you'll be unable to sleep peacefully for the rest of your life if you
don't try it, and find out whether you can or you can't
• Secondly, if the total budget, if it all turns to crap, if you can take the tax
loss, bury the masters in the backyard and only be really grumpy about it
for about a day.
If neither one of those two things are true, let's not do it, because there's safer,
more reliable ways that we can sell things, market things, get customers, etc.
If you want to swing for the fence, fine, but those two things need to be true.
Three, we do it for yield. Money begets income which turns back into things.
Steve Ballmer is buying the Clippers. I saw an interview, and he was asked why.
But NBA owners are NBA owners, so maybe the $2 billion isn't as dumb a price
as it seems, because he's already figured out in his head that there's some deal
to be done with four or five of these guys, if we all fall in love over a year, and
maybe the $2 billion is nothing. I don't know. So access to information,
connections.
It cost him a half a million dollars to be president of the NSA, the way he chose
to be president of NSA, which was very different than many presidents of NSA
before and many presidents of NSA after.
It cost him a half a million dollars out of pocket, but it was an investment in
association, prominence, relationships, ways of extracting money, then and for
many years to come.
Last, profit from the independent source because of its lift from your
entities. So, if your entities can lift another entity…
We're going to lift Infusionsoft anyway, it'd be nice to bet on a win. We're giving
the horse a head start. It'll be starting halfway down the backstretch. Maybe we
want to be along for the ride. You’ve got to think about that.
INVESTMENT ADVICE
Here's my investment advice. How to invest, made simple. Virtually every time I
adhere to this, I do well and almost every time I violate it, which, unfortunately, I
do from time to time, I get booted in the ass. Jim Rogers, who's a really good guy
to study, says:
“The way you become a wealthy investor is by investing in only what you
have a wealth of knowledge about.”
The worst I've done in maybe a decade, the height of stupidity, is I am sitting in
the concierge lounge at the Animal Kingdom Lodge in Disney and I'm watching
the financial thing on TV.
It's the day the bank stocks… they'd been going down, but they now went poop.
They are in the toilet.
There's eight pundits and they're all talking about how shocking it is that they're
this low and it is impossible for these things to go any lower. “People are just
nuts! Here's the value equation, yada, yada, yada...”
I watch this for 15 minutes and like a complete idiot, because what I know about
banks is I don't like them and I hate going in with a check and watching the
teller do this or disappear into the back room and he doesn't tell you what he's
doing.
I know that and I know that they used to give you toasters. That's all I know
about banks. I don't know shit.
Worse, not only do I not know anything, I know I don't know anything. But I sit
there and I run back to the room and I get on the phone and I buy a big basket of
bank stocks.
You can name them. I don't need to name them for you. It's every one that
continued to go down. That's what it is. Most of them have not come back yet.
Maybe that part of the stock portfolio will transfer to my future life and, when I
am reincarnated, into the mouth of the frog will be pressed the stock certificates
from B of A.
I don't know, but I know it was stupid. Stupid! Nobody to be mad at but me!
I bought Sirius satellite radio stock high. I'm watching Imus, and I like Imus. He's
funny. Imus has been in radio his whole life.
If anybody knows radio, it's Imus, right? Imus is talking up Sirius and Stern's
going to Sirius and this is going to be the blockbuster of the century.
Here’s what I know about radio: button, dial... I know that. I know about
advertising on radio. I know that, but I don't know squat about radio stations
and I don't know squat about satellite radio. I don't know nothing.
I actually have it now. It's a gift. It's in the Jeep and I kind of like it actually. It's
cool, but so what? Like a moron... I mean, it's a stock tip from Imus for God's
sake… I got me a bunch of Sirius.
It is now within… It's been how many years since Stern went to Sirius? Eight.
Okay, so in eight years, it's come back to 50 percent of what I paid for it. That's
where I'm at. Every month, I look at the statement and I say, “Stupid!”
If I bought more of the stuff I really have a wealth of knowledge about, all of that
has gone up like there's no tomorrow.
I'm in great shape with Tupperware. I've made money on Herbalife four times in
and out. I understand the direct-selling industry really, really well. I get it. I
know what they're doing. I know why they're doing it. I know how they're doing
it. I can tell a good executive from a bad executive. I understand a lot about that
industry. No, I'm going to buy B of A. So this is a great principle.
I got a question: “Do you think your broad experience in so many different fields
has naturally led you to diversify investments, business interests or have your
diverse investment goals led you?” Both.
I found my way into some things because activity has taken me there. I did very
well, in and out, on Weight Watchers and NutriSystem, because I was working
with Weight Watchers.
The month before last, I got and went through 72 different trade journals from
72 different industries, and a good percentage of them, I have clients in.
I read Nation's Restaurant News every week, because I have a client in the
restaurant industry. I read the Chiropractic Trade Journal because I have a client
in chiropractic. It interests me, but it also sometimes leads me places. So I think
it's both.
Another question I was asked, which I think is a good question, “How do you
plan your yearly investment goals?” Again, mine are, number one, try not to lose
it. The number one interest for me is preservation.
So I have the income goals and I have the appreciation goals, week by week by
week, quarter by quarter by quarter and I'm posting
Imperfect
numbers to them as money goes into the bank and
trying to track… am I on schedule, behind schedule? measurement and
If I'm not making it in this category, can I make it up management is
in this category? better than no
Pretty much the last quarter of the year, most of my measurement and
decisions about whether or not I'm going to work are management at all.
made by where I am into the third quarter in these
three categories.
INVESTMENT DIVERSITY
The last thing then is your investment diversity. Your pre-event questionnaires
tell us that, in diversity, there are only three of you who get an A, out of 90
reporting, because you are in at least 10 of 16 of the different areas of
investment that were listed on the questionnaire.
There are only nine of you who get a B and 13 who get a C. 74 out of 90 get a
failing grade. You are in one, two or three things, at the most.
This fact reflects the other fact of you're really not a student of a main part, a
main path of wealth. You're pretty much ignoring it.
The time to start fixing it is yesterday, not any time later, because
none of us are getting any younger.
A chief motive, purpose, whatever language you want to attach to it, you should
have one that trumps everything else. That helps a lot with clarity.
Mine is autonomy. I prize that above everything else… money, friends, you name
it; if I'm forced to choose between this and sacrifice of my autonomy, I'm
choosing autonomy every single time.
Yes, the world does revolve around me. No, I don't want a boss. No, I don't want
to compromise. No, I don't want to negotiate.
Yes, I know that makes me an ass. That's okay. I'm perfectly happy, looking in
the mirror, seeing the big donkey ears. That's okay, as long as I have my
autonomy.
I'm not saying that yours should be that. You might find it a beneficial and
enjoyable and rewarding thing, but, I'm not saying that. I'm only saying you
should have one. I don't know what the one is for you, but you should have one
that overrides everything else.