How to calculate your break even

Many business owners do not understand the financial side of their business and actually do their best to avoid it, as it is perceived as a complex and dificult process. In this article the author aims to address just one of the most business criticial financial analysis that needs to be done for you to better understand your business. Whether you are in financial services, selling products wholesale or run a consulting business. Knowing when your business actually breaks even is extremely critical. What is the break-even point? The break even point is defined as the point where business sales or revenues (your income) is equal to your business expenses. Therefor there is no profit made nor no loss incurred at the break-even point.

This figure is imperitive for any business owner in the managing of the business since the break-even point is the lowest limit of profit when setting prices and determining business margins. Obviously the break-even point becomes very important when calculating a strategy for net profit or quoting on new projects or even introducing new products to your business. Calculating your break even amount is actually extremely simple, you merely calculate your operational expenses. However I believe it is prudent to take the following factors into consideration when calculating your break even and I have my own little break even calculator, although it may not be academically correct it has worked well in every business I saw it introduced. Break Even = Operational Expenses + Contigency Provision + Cost of Re-Capitalisation + Minimum Entrepreneurial Fee required. Now lets unpack that in a little more detail:

Operational Cost = The total running cost of your business.
Contigency Provision = An amount of money you put aside to isnure break even in the immidiate future. Either by being able to use it to address some unforseen circumstances or to have surplus capital available to "cover" yourself.
Re-Capitilisation = How do you cope with growth? How do you replace that machine you bought cash. You recapitlisation savings is used to insure that when old machines are reduntant you do not need to suddenly scramble for cash.
Entreprenerial Fee = The minimum entrepreneurial fee is the minimum amount required by the entrepreneur to keep himself going. Do not place your wanted income hear, but the minimum income required.

Now that you have a true break even margin you need to work out how you are going to get there. This is done by calculating your break even margin.The break-even margin is a ratio and this ratio shows the gross-margin factor for a break-even condition. The formula is also fairly simple. You take your total expenses and divide by net revenues and multiply this by 100 to get a percentage. This ratio is extremely helpful when setting your selling prices, in the tendering process and when negotiating contracts with vendors and accounts.

By understanding your business break-even point and the required break-even margin business owners can truly understand the impact of decisions. In purchasing, costs can be lowered by bulk purchasing, negotiating price/ terms or finding new suppliers. Revenues can be improved by increasing value to the customer or offering non-price concessions. It must at all times be remembered that increasing profits by simply increasing margins, therefore selling price, could be a very risky strategy. Unless the consumer perceives higher value from the product or service, the consumer may not be willing to pay these higher prices.

Ignorance or Ignoring

King III, the good for proper corporate governance, was published on the 1st of September 2009 and the codes apply to all entities. This is very different to the old King I and King II reports that was only applicable to public or listed entities. The question I however want to ask today is whether the property syndication industry are working along these ethical guidelines.
I firmly believe that they are probably not. This, to me, is evident from the constitution and guidelines of the Public Property Syndication Association (PPSA) that does not mention compliance to any of these codes. Two of the syndication companies I have had dealings with namely Blue Everest Investments and City Capital (Capital Investments), both of which are now defunct never conformed to King I or King II and it did directly apply to them as public companies. Further the Financial Services Board (FSB) also does not mention it at all as one of the 1.8 licence requirements.

Now the next question we have to ask is why? Is it ignorance or just ignoring it. Is it because the cost of compliance is excessive? Well before you answer that question for yourself, let’s look at why compliance to these codes are, at least in my opinion, important.
The King reports are all about conducting an ethical and transparent business. It is about disclosing all the facts to all stakeholders, giving access to required information, it is about accountability of company directors, it is about thinking of others. The codes also places strong emphasis on independent directorship and active shareholder participation. In conclusion it is about playing open transparent cards and honest commentary to everyone involved and respected writers like Bruce Cameron and Deon Basson has been claiming that is the last thing that they are doing.

Now that you have some information to make up your own mind on why the property syndication industry may not be applying these codes let’s focus on being active in demanding the application of the codes. Financial Advisors, Regulators and the public in general should demand the application of King III in all syndicated companies and fractional ownership schemes so that we insure that it is not avoided by ignorance. This will then make it extremely clear which promoters is ignoring ethical, transparent and honest business practices.

If you want to find out more about King III, the New Companies Act or the Consumer Protection Act visit http://www.sinkorswim.co.za/ or contact john@sinkorswim.co.za

Property Syndication and King III

Although King III was only “launched” on the 1st of September this year we have to already start asking whether the Property Syndication is gearing towards the compliance of King III. That said it may even be extremely prudent to ask if they have ever been King I or II compliant. As the aim of the King reports was directly related to Public and Listed companies.

A lot has been said about the Property Syndication industry with a wave of allegations made against the operators. Some warranted and some maybe not. I believe that most of the attacks have been along the wrong avenue. We have seen some esteemed writers hammering the syndication industry about shareholder communication, so called inflated returns and poor and expensive management principles. Although these items are obviously extremely relevant and more than just idle points of discussion I believe that more emphasis should be placed on whether property syndication promoters subscribe to the King II and now King III rules of governance.

The basic reality is that most may not even know of the King reports. For example the directors of the now defunct Blue Everest Investments never even attempted to subscribe to King I and II and I believe that this was due to ignorance to its existence. Is that an excuse? I don’t think so, Asset Manager City Capital also never attempted compliance to King. Why not? Is it pure ignorance from the public, the promoters and from brokers alike? Is it that the so called governing body ,the Public Property Syndication Association better known as the PPSA, does not even mention compliance of King in their constitution? Or is it because we never demanded it?

In an industry that is bombarded by negative press brokers still keep selling their products and we are led to believe that it is merely the high commission being paid that motivates selling the products. I am however of the opinion that the concept behind the industry is solid and could be a fantastic investment for investors, but only if the syndication industry is more aggressively regulated by us, the public. Having an FSB number is no longer enough to protect the public, as clearly evident in the Capital Investments debacle. Capital Investments was/is a fully licensed Asset Manager and millions of rands are alleged to have been lost in this investment platform.

The focus for the immediate future should be to look at items like proper governance, ie. King III and the broker industry should demand compliance to these codes.

To find out more about the New Companies Act, King III and the Consumer Protection Act please visit www.sinkorswim.co.za