A profitable year poses what looks like three separate questions: reinvest, repay, or take it out and invest. Answered separately, they tend to be answered badly.
Three conversations, three different rooms
Surplus in a good year is usually discussed in three places. Reinvestment comes up with the operating team, in terms of capacity and opportunity. Prepayment comes up with whoever manages the banking relationship, in terms of interest saved. Personal investment comes up with whoever looks after the family's money, in terms of returns.
Each of those conversations is sensible on its own terms. But it is one pool of money, and choosing any one of the three is a decision not to do the other two. That is rarely how it gets framed, because the three people having the three conversations are not in the room together.
What each option is really being compared against
Reinvesting in the business
Often the highest expected return available, and the one best understood, because it is the thing the owner actually knows how to do. It also increases concentration in an asset the family is already heavily exposed to — income, accumulated wealth and frequently the premises all sit in the same place. A good year is precisely when that concentration is least visible.
Prepaying existing borrowing
The most certain of the three: the return is the rate no longer being paid. It restores headroom for the next cycle, which has value that does not show up as a return at all. Two things are worth weighing against it — interest may be deductible, so the effective saving is the after-tax rate rather than the headline one, and repaying a facility that would be slow or expensive to arrange again converts flexibility into savings.
Taking it out and investing personally
The only one of the three that reduces dependence on the business. That is its real argument, and it is a stronger one than the returns it is usually justified by. Against it: extraction has a cost that varies considerably with the route taken, and the money leaves the business at a moment when the business may shortly want it back.
Comparing the three requires putting them on a single footing — after tax, after what each does to concentration, and after what each does to flexibility. Compared on headline returns alone, reinvestment wins almost every time, which is why it so often does.
The question underneath the three
Before any of them can be answered there is a prior question that usually has not been asked: what is this money for, and by when is it needed?
Surplus earmarked for an expansion in five years is a different question from surplus that is, without anyone having said so, gradually becoming the retirement corpus. The same amount, the same year, the same business — and a different answer, because the purpose is different.
In practice most surplus has no assigned purpose at all. It defaults to whichever of the three conversations happened first, or most persuasively.
The case for deciding once
Treated properly this is a single decision with three options, not three decisions taken in three rooms. Making it that way requires the business position, the borrowing position and the family's position to be visible at the same time — which is less a matter of analysis than of who is in the room.
A business owner may require capital today, invest surplus capital tomorrow, prepare for retirement later and eventually need to address succession. These are described as separate services because they arrive at separate times. The money moving through them is the same money.
The numbers may be separate. The financial life behind them is not.
Blog
