Selling a business is a complex and strategic process that requires careful planning and execution. In this intricate process, avoiding common pitfalls is imperative. Lack of preparation, over or under valuation of a firm are few common mistakes, sellers must be aware of. Here are five critical common mistakes to avoid when selling a business.

 

 

Trying to do Everything Yourself

Trying to run the process alone is one of the biggest blunders to avoid when selling a business. For a few reasons, a business broker is more qualified to sell your firm. We work with brokers as your consultant to establish a value. It is best NOT to state an asking price when selling a business, but it is good for you to know what values may be reasonable when you start receiving offers. They are experts who are aware of every aspect of the procedure, from the big picture to the smallest details.

In order to get your company to the closing table, business brokers have the time and access to buyers and professionals. They can put together a presentation because they are skilled negotiators and financial specialists and,  they have experience with business valuation and know how to create a competitive price with our assistance for your review.

Setting An Unrealistic Price for The Business

It is difficult to separate your emotional investment from the company. Starting a business from the beginning requires a significant financial, mental, and emotional commitment. As a result, you run the risk of pricing it excessively or expecting unrealistic pricing offers while trying to sell it because of your strong feelings. If priced too high, you will not be able to sell your business since all the buyers will be turned off. On the other hand, you might consider lowering the price to receive the desired flow of eligible buyers. Under-valuing the business may create a fast sale but short changing you on the real value. The state of the economy and comparing pricing for comparable companies (if available) on the market should also be considered. Occasionally, an unexpected tragedy or health concern may force you to quickly sell your business. All of these factors should always be considered when determining your price expectations.

Ignoring Due Diligence

Neglecting thorough due diligence on potential buyers and not conducting self-due diligence is another key mistake that have major impact on selling a business. Inadequate due diligence can result in unfavorable deal terms, undisclosed liabilities, or a mismatch in expectations. Business consulting firms such as Sterling Cooper, Inc., can conduct comprehensive due diligence for potential buyers, and equally, perform sellers’ due diligence to identify and address any issues that may arise during the sales process.

Failure to Provide Prospective Buyers with Accurate Information

Prior to purchasing a firm, buyers may like to know crucial details such as the company’s projected sales, the risks associated with the purchase, and the timeframe for receiving a return on investment. Ideally, you want to offer as much of this information as possible to a prospective buyer. It can be beneficial to be open about the company’s income and the true compensation received by the seller including salary and all benefits, commonly referred to as ADJUSTED EBITDA.

Avoiding these common mistakes is crucial to successfully selling a business. By accurate business valuation, maintaining confidentiality, staying informed about market trends, and diversifying potential buyers, sellers can maximize the enterprise value of a firm and navigate the sale process with confidence. A well-executed sale requires careful planning, attention to detail, and strategic decision-making to achieve the desired outcome and ensure a smooth transition for both the business and its new owner. It is better to engage business consulting firm such as Sterling Cooper. Inc. (www.sterlingcooper.info) to avoid these mistakes. Their insights will optimize the sale strategy, ensuring the business is accurately priced, confidentially marketed, and attracts qualified buyers. Their guidance streamlines the complex process, addresses potential pitfalls, and enhances the likelihood of a successful and profitable sale.

Sterling Cooper, Inc is a business consulting firm in USA having over 100 years of experience. For business inquiry fill our short feedback form or call us at our Toll-Free Number 1-866-285-6572.

MAYBE THIS WILL FINALLY PUT AN END OF THE INSANITY OF GLOBAL WARMING PUSHED BY GRETA AND AL GORE?

A new government-funded study out of Britain, conducted by scientists at the U.K. Center for Ecology and Hydrology, purports to show that “human breathing is contributing to greenhouse gas emissions.”

Therefore, the study authors are urging “caution in the assumption that emissions from humans are negligible.”

The peer-reviewed study published in the Public Library of Science’s journal PLOS One investigated greenhouse gas emissions of methane and nitrous oxide in human breath, which allegedly “contribute to global warming.”

Well, there it is! I knew it was coming! Are you serious about stopping global warming? Well, then, just stop breathing!

What a boon to depopulationists! Turns out “we are not the ones we have been waiting for”; we are the problem!

Of course, some of us suck up more air — and are bigger blowhards — than others. You know who you are. Al, Greta, John Kerry, the Donald…?

Gee, I wish we had a smarter God, one who didn’t design humans (and most animals) to respirate! And then have the nerve to say, “Be fruitful and multiply!”

The implementation of “statist interventions” and “unreliable energy alternatives” isn’t enough.

So if you truly care about the planet, please go ahead and make the ultimate sacrifice.STOP BREATHING!

Do it for the scientists who conducted the study. Do it for Al, Greta, and John. Do it for Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum (WEF). I’m sure they will thank you for it.

They might even breathe a sigh of relief.in PLOS ONE, titled “Measurements of methane and nitrous oxide in human breath and the development of UK scale emissions,” researchers have embarked on a quest that epitomizes the absurdity of current climate change discourse. This study, focusing on the emissions of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) from human breath, is not only a glaring example of scientific overreach but also a worrying indicator of the lengths to which climate alarmism is willing to go.

 

 

United Auto Workers president  and MARXIST, Shawn Fain wore a T-shirt reading “Eat the Rich” and a deadly serious stare when he announced a major development in the union’s monthlong strike: General Motors agreed to include its electric vehicle and battery factories in the forthcoming labor contract. That deal will cover 6,000 employees at four coming GM battery plants.

“We have been told for months this is impossible,” Fain said during the October 6 livestream. “We have been told the EV future must be a race to the bottom. We called their bluff.”

If Fain has made anything clear, it is that he, and the 383,000 people he leads, are not bluffing. In the two weeks since GM’s concession, the union has redoubled its efforts to win similar agreements from Ford and Stellantis. Last week, every one of the 8,700 workers at Ford’s massive Kentucky Truck Plant in Louisville joined the picket line, halting production of the company’s line of Super Duty pickup trucks.

GM’s promise to unionize its EV and battery operations comes after automakers sold 300,000 EVs in the previous quarter, and everyone involved in the labor dispute feels the electric transition is all but inevitable. The strike has increased pressure on the Big Three to include their electrification ventures in the master contracts they hold with United Auto Workers, or UAW. It also could press other automakers to increase pay or agree to unionize if they hope to compete for workers.

Fain has made negotiating stronger contracts, including cost-of-living adjustments and four-day workweeks, a priority since his election in March. He also has castigated the Big Three’s battery factories for their low wages. When contract negotiations stalled, UAW members went on strike on September 14. There are now 34,000 autoworkers on strike nationwide, a number that is likely to grow as negotiations drag on.

Dianne Feeley is a retired autoworker who, like other UAW retirees, remains an active and voting union member. She says the rank and file spent 40 years working toward this moment, a fight that started as years of stagnation and corruption kept the UAW from moving forward. That led to a band of members launching United All Workers for Democracy, which expanded members’ rights to participate in bargaining and helped propel Fain to into leadership. It’s also helped conversations about the EV transition and its impact on workers come to the fore.

“This [UAW] administration has said, ‘Yes, let’s do electric vehicles, but there has to be a just transition.’ Whereas the old leadership, they didn’t even want to hear about electric vehicles,” Feeley said.

Beyond ensuring that the workers assembling electric vehicles are paid the same as those assembling conventional cars, the risks inherent in battery production are a major concern to union members. Safety issues at GM’s Ultium Cells battery plant in Lordstown, Ohio, led to the factory’s unionization earlier this year. An explosion and fire there in March prompted an investigation by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Its inquiry, released last week, found 17 violations, including inadequate respiratory protection equipment, emergency showers, and eye-washing stations. OSHA could levy $270,000 in fines.

We’ve been sounding the alarm for months about Ultium and these high-risk, high-skill EV battery operations,” Fain said in a statement to Grist. “This is dangerous work that deserves to be compensated well.”

Pay at Ultium has risen by $3 to $4 an hour since the union vote in December, even though workers do not yet have a formal contract. The master agreements the UAW holds with General Motors, Ford, and Stellantis await ratification, so none of the union’s recent victories are certain.

“It’s a little too soon to pop the bubbly and have champagne and celebrate, but it’s all good news,” said Arthur Wheaton, director of the Labor Studies department at Cornell University.

The fact GM is ahead of its domestic competitors when it comes to EV battery production played a role in its recent concession, Wheaton said. GM had already planned to phase out gas-powered vehicles by 2035. The UAW’s success at the Ultium plant, and more broadly within GM, could have an impact even beyond union shops, given the ongoing labor shortage and a need to stay competitive when attracting workers, especially when there is some evidence that EV plants will not, as some believe, require fewer workers. Auto industry analysts say any wage increases resulting from the strike will likely pressure large, stridently anti-union manufacturers like Tesla, which pays significantly less than the Detroit automakers, to raise wages in the hope that it forestalls the risk of unionizing.

“If you get a big pay raise for GM and Ford, then many — not all — of the automakers will raise their wages to make sure they don’t get unionized,” Wheaton said.  “And you’ll see that in the battery sector as well.”

GM’s concession was far from assured. The Big Three co-own their battery plants with foreign companies, like Ultium, which GM co-owns with the Korean company LG Energy Solutions. These joint-venture plants are not automatically covered by existing UAW labor agreements, because they are what’s called a “permissive” part of those contracts that do not require either side to negotiate the terms of their operation.

THEIR SHORT TERM DUMB THINKING WILL PUT THE EV MANUFACTURERS OUT OF BUSINESS SINCE THE PUBLIC WILL NOT BE BUYING VEHICLES THAT COST MORE THAN WHAT HOMES USED TO COST AND HAVE $15,000 COST TO REPLACE THEIR BATTERIES.

The workers can hardly afford new EV’s….so who else is going to buy them

BEING IN  A UNION, ESPECIALLY IN THE UAW, IS A SELF DESTRUCTIVE JOB.

Truck drivers lost jobs when their overburdened trucking companies could no longer compete against non union ones.

These jobs will likewise go into the rabbit hole.

Beyond that, EVs have not had the same focus as other parts of the contract negotiations, despite the central role the cars, and the batteries powering them, will play in the future of both automakers and the men and women they employ. GM, Stellantis, and Ford had consistently claimed that conceding to UAW’s demands would make them less competitive against foreign automakers in the burgeoning EV market.

“That’s why [UAW was] happy to get GM, because they use what they call ‘pattern bargaining,’” Wheaton said, referring to a labor strategy, pioneered in part by autoworkers, that uses prior organizing wins to pressure other employers into take-it-or-leave-it offers. It may also bring the union fight back to an old battleground as EV battery plants open in an expanding “Battery Belt” spanning the right-to-work South, where several foreign automakers, including Nissan, Toyota, and Volkswagen, operate factories.

The UAW has struggled to organize Southern factories like the Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee, which builds the electric ID.4. In a staggering loss considered a massive failure for the union’s organization efforts in the South, Volkswagen workers rejected union membership in 2019. Fain told Grist that the union has since the beginning of the strike been fielding calls from non-union autoworkers, “from the West to the Midwest and especially in the South,” indicating organizing priorities beyond the current contract fight.

THE WORKERS IN THE SOUTH ARE MUCH SMARTER THAN THOSE IN MICHIGAN…THEY DO NOT WANT TO SUPPORT BLOATED UNION LEADERS, AND UNION MALARKEY AND POLITICAL DONATIONS ONLY TO DEMOCRATS WHO HAVE CAUSED THE PROBLEM NATIONWIDE.

“We’re looking at organizing half a dozen auto companies in the coming years,” he said. “Pretty soon we won’t just be talking about the Big Three — more like Big Five, Big Seven, Big Ten unionized automakers.”

Yes destroy every one else jobs too!

It’s an opportune time for UAW, since Inflation Reduction Act funds are only just now flowing to EV manufacturing. The money comes with stipulations that have been favorable to the union’s cause, in particular incentives for manufacturing everything from solar panels to EV batteries domestically with union labor. Because the allocations are just beginning to flow, many factories aren’t yet online, so hiring won’t start for a while. That gives unions like the UAW time to organize, with help from environmental groups. The Blue-Green Alliance, for example, has worked to bring labor and climate interests together.

“The Big Three have argued that there has to be a choice between paying autoworkers at family-sustaining union wages and benefits, and making the shift to EV production at a pace and scale that will meet both consumer demand and the climate crisis,” said Jason Walsh, the organization’s executive director. “We think that that’s a false choice. They can do both. And the agreement with GM suggests that they now recognize they have to do both.”

Feeley had similar thoughts when she decided to support the strike. She believes the EV transition must be equitable and just — not just now, but decades from now, because “one generation comes to the plant after another.” When autoworkers demand fair treatment and better pay, they do so not just for themselves, but for the children and grandchildren who will build the cars of the future.

Fain has made negotiating stronger contracts, including cost-of-living adjustments and four-day workweeks, a priority since his election in March. He also has castigated the Big Three’s battery factories for their low wages.

Beyond ensuring that the workers assembling electric vehicles are paid the same as those assembling conventional cars, the risks inherent in battery production are a major concern to union members. Safety issues at GM’s Ultium Cells battery plant in Lordstown, Ohio, led to the factory’s unionization earlier this year. An explosion and fire there in March prompted an investigation by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Its inquiry, released last week, found 17 violations, including inadequate respiratory protection equipment, emergency showers, and eye-washing stations. OSHA could levy $270,000 in fines.

“We’ve been sounding the alarm for months about Ultium and these high-risk, high-skill EV battery operations,” Fain said in a statement to Grist. “This is dangerous work that deserves to be compensated well.”

Pay at Ultium has risen by $3 to $4 an hour since the union vote in December, even though workers do not yet have a formal contract. The master agreements the UAW holds with General Motors, Ford, and Stellantis await ratification, so none of the union’s recent victories are certain.

“It’s a little too soon to pop the bubbly and have champagne and celebrate, but it’s all good news,” said Arthur Wheaton, director of the Labor Studies department at Cornell University.

The fact GM is ahead of its domestic competitors when it comes to EV battery production played a role in its recent concession, Wheaton said. GM had already planned to phase out gas-powered vehicles by 2035. The UAW’s success at the Ultium plant, and more broadly within GM, could have an impact even beyond union shops, given the ongoing labor shortage and a need to stay competitive when attracting workers, especially when there is some evidence that EV plants will not, as some believe, require fewer workers. Auto industry analysts say any wage increases resulting from the strike will likely pressure large, stridently anti-union manufacturers like Tesla, which pays significantly less than the Detroit automakers, to raise wages in the hope that it forestalls the risk of unionizing.

“If you get a big pay raise for GM and Ford, then many — not all — of the automakers will raise their wages to make sure they don’t get unionized,” Wheaton said.  “And you’ll see that in the battery sector as well.”

GM’s concession was far from assured. The Big Three co-own their battery plants with foreign companies, like Ultium, which GM co-owns with the Korean company LG Energy Solutions. These joint-venture plants are not automatically covered by existing UAW labor agreements, because they are what’s called a “permissive” part of those contracts that do not require either side to negotiate the terms of their operation.

Beyond that, EVs have not had the same focus as other parts of the contract negotiations, despite the central role the cars, and the batteries powering them, will play in the future of both automakers and the men and women they employ. GM, Stellantis, and Ford had consistently claimed that conceding to UAW’s demands would make them less competitive against foreign automakers in the burgeoning EV market.

“That’s why [UAW was] happy to get GM, because they use what they call ‘pattern bargaining,’” Wheaton said, referring to a labor strategy, pioneered in part by autoworkers, that uses prior organizing wins to pressure other employers into take-it-or-leave-it offers. It may also bring the union fight back to an old battleground as EV battery plants open in an expanding “Battery Belt” spanning the right-to-work South, where several foreign automakers, including Nissan, Toyota, and Volkswagen, operate factories.

The UAW has struggled to organize Southern factories like the Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee, which builds the electric ID.4. In a staggering loss considered a massive failure for the union’s organization efforts in the South, Volkswagen workers rejected union membership in 2019. Fain told Grist that the union has since the beginning of the strike been fielding calls from non-union autoworkers, “from the West to the Midwest and especially in the South,” indicating organizing priorities beyond the current contract fight.

“We’re looking at organizing half a dozen auto companies in the coming years,” he said. “Pretty soon we won’t just be talking about the Big Three — more like Big Five, Big Seven, Big Ten unionized automakers.”

It’s an opportune time for UAW, since Inflation Reduction Act funds are only just now flowing to EV manufacturing. The money comes with stipulations that have been favorable to the union’s cause, in particular incentives for manufacturing everything from solar panels to EV batteries domestically with union labor. Because the allocations are just beginning to flow, many factories aren’t yet online, so hiring won’t start for a while. That gives unions like the UAW time to organize, with help from environmental groups. The Blue-Green Alliance, for example, has worked to bring labor and climate interests together.

“The Big Three have argued that there has to be a choice between paying autoworkers at family-sustaining union wages and benefits, and making the shift to EV production at a pace and scale that will meet both consumer demand and the climate crisis,” said Jason Walsh, the organization’s executive director. “We think that that’s a false choice. They can do both. And the agreement with GM suggests that they now recognize they have to do both.”

Feeley had similar thoughts when she decided to support the strike. She believes the EV transition must be equitable and just — not just now, but decades from now, because “one generation comes to the plant after another.” When autoworkers demand fair treatment and better pay, they do so not just for themselves, but for the children and grandchildren who will build the cars of the future.

Watch what happens to these jobs that are self destructing!

 

By the year 2025, communist China plans to unleash large number of humanoid robots, meaning robots that look and act like people but are just walking computers and circuitry.

In a race with Elon Musk’s Tesla and other Western companies working on similar technologies, China hopes to start mass producing its version of humanoid robots by 2025.

The United States is more interested in DEI than the real world advances in robotic technology. If our businesses only hire on the basis of equity and inclusion and not merit, we will never see any humanoid robots in the USA.

According to banking giant Goldman Sachs, the market for humanoid robots could reach $150 billion per year in just 15 years. Fully operational humanoid robots are expected to be mass produced and working in factories between 2025 and 2028, and later in other jobs by 2030 through 2035.

Tech for Good author Marga Hoek argues that the technology is a good thing for the world, even though it stands to make human workers obsolete. She believes that up to one in every four jobs will be impacted by robotics and artificial intelligence (AI) technology.

“My biggest worry is that all humankind spends a lot of time on fearing, instead of accepting and anticipating,” Hoek commented, adding that more research still needs to be done to look at which job roles will still “add value” in a world kept spinning by humanoid robots.

“If we don’t train people, if we don’t anticipate, if we don’t radically change around the school programs, for instance, we’ll be too late,” she added.

In Chicago, the worst public education system in the USA, its college programs all offer due to need remedial reading education…are we to think that these students if they ever even graduate,  are going to be at the forefront of a robotic future and lead advances in technology? NO WAY!!!!

 

Congress Spent $7.5 Billion on E.V. Chargers. After 2 Years, None Are Built.

More than $2 billion has been distributed, but only two states have even broken ground and most states haven’t even submitted proposals.

President Joe Biden has made a transition to electric vehicles (E.V.s) a key part of his presidency, spending billions of dollars both to help companies build them and to help customers afford them.

The 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act included $7.5 billion to build 500,000 public charging stations across the country. Under the program, states can qualify for as much as 80 percent of the cost to build chargers and bring them online. But as Politico reported this week, not a single charger funded by the program is yet operational.

It’s the latest setback as Biden attempts to change consumer preference by force rather than allowing the free market to innovate its way there.

Earlier this year, the Environmental Protection Agency mandated that by 2030, half of all vehicles sold in the U.S. must be electric. This will require an enormous ramp-up in resources, especially around charging infrastructure. As Politico notes, “consumer demand for electric vehicles is rising in the United States, necessitating six times as many chargers on its roads by the end of the decade, according to federal estimates.”

Other estimates are even more dire: In January, Stephanie Brinley at S&P Global Mobility wrote that “even when home-charging is taken into account, to properly match forecasted sales demand, the United States will need to see the number of EV chargers quadruple between 2022 and 2025, and grow more than eight-fold by 2030.” As of this writing, there are just under 158,000 public chargers, meaning there may need to be more than 1 million to support the Biden administration’s timeline.

The federal program is off to a slow start: Politico reports that while more than $2 billion has been given out, only two states—Ohio and Pennsylvania—have actually broken ground on chargers, while just six others have awarded contracts. Fewer than half of U.S. states have even submitted a proposal for funds.
What’s the hold-up? “The slow rollout…primarily boils down to the difficulties state agencies and charging companies face in meeting a complex set of contracting requirements and minimum operating standards for the federally-funded chargers, according to interviews with state and EV industry officials,” the article notes.

Even with federal funds, part of the problem may also be cost, because the chargers are quite expensive to build and maintain. The types of chargers mentioned in the law are either Level 2 or Level 3, also known as Direct Current Fast Charging (DCFC). Level 2 chargers use alternating current electricity and take between four and 10 hours to charge an E.V., while DCFCs use direct current and can charge an E.V. in less than an hour.

Any long-term solution would prioritize DCFCs—no road-tripper will want to wait all day for their car to charge when fueling up a gas burner takes minutes. But DCFCs are considerably more expensive to install: A 2019 study by the Department of Energy found that while Level 2 chargers can cost up to $6,500 to install, DCFCs can cost as much as $40,000. Depending on factors like hardware costs, other estimates have put the price between $50,000 and $100,000.