Paul Giannamore: They would cut the rates because the economy is on the balls of its ass. There are a variety of reasons but, largely, it's related to a recessionary environment.
---
Patrick Baldwin: Welcome back, sir.
Paul Giannamore: Hey, Fat Pat.
Patrick Baldwin: I feel like we're playing tag team here. You're coming back from Asia. I'm headed out to New Jersey. I don't know which one is scarier.
Paul Giannamore: That's true. When do you have your Jersey trip?
Patrick Baldwin: I’ll fly out Monday. Aren't you sending a babysitter for me?
Paul Giannamore: I’m sending your chaperone, the Mexican.
Patrick Baldwin: I'm worried. This is my worried face. This is also tired but this is worried as well.
Paul Giannamore: The guy is a menace to society so better with you than with me.
Patrick Baldwin: The text messages already have me concerned though. He's planning on a lot of fanfare in the evening time and I will make sure I lock myself in my hotel room.
Paul Giannamore: That's probably a good idea.
Patrick Baldwin: I’m looking forward to Jersey. How was your trip to Asia?
Paul Giannamore: It was good. It was a long trip. It takes two days to get back. Jet lag is killing me. I’m back on the road tomorrow. A short stint, two days here, and then back on the road again.
Patrick Baldwin: Cool.
Paul Giannamore: What's on tap for us, Patrick? You've been collating a lot of listener questions. Since I'm suffering from a twelve-hour jet lag, this would be a good day to hammer through some of those.
Patrick Baldwin: I appreciate you making time. I did give you an out knowing that you would be jet lagged. I got a couple listener questions. You all send in your listener questions at TheBuzz@PotomacCompany.com. By the way, we've had a lot of people RSVP for the internal buyout and partner buyout event.
Paul Giannamore: I forgot about that.
Patrick Baldwin: Also, RSVP for that event. Both of those, send in your questions, or RSVP at TheBuzz@PotomacCompany.com. We love listener questions. They are definitely some listener favorites. It's funny. This is the ones that we usually get the most comments on when the listener episodes go out. I have two and then I have a question here as well. The first one is Jeff heard of rate cuts coming as early as next year. Are these rumors credible? He wants to know what this would do for the M&A market.
Paul Giannamore: I don't know, none of us do. If I did know that, for sure, you and I wouldn't be having this discussion because I would back the leverage truck up and double down on the long-bond. There's a lot of speculation as to whether the Fed is going to pivot and institute some rate cuts here in the near term.
If you look at the Fed fund’s futures market, the future’s market is anticipating a rate cut as early as March. The reality of this situation is if the Federal Reserve cut short-term interest rates, it is not bullish for equities, and it's certainly not bullish for M&A. If they have to cut rates, it's because the recession is in full effect. Recessions are neither good for the equity market nor for M&A in general. The Fed cutting short-term rates is not a bullish thing, in general. Remember, the Fed controls the short end of the curve. The bond market controls the long end of the curve to a certain degree.
Rates that are falling on the long end of the curve, of course, are not great either because that would take place during a recession, which is not good for the M&A market. I've heard a lot and a lot of folks keep talking about, “When rates fall again and if they fall next year, it's going to be great for the M&A market.” Unfortunately, that's probably the exact opposite of what would be good for the M&A market.
Patrick Baldwin: Interesting because of what it signals. At the tip of the iceberg, we would think that the rates going down would make debt cheaper and it would boost M&A again but it’s not what it seems.
Paul Giannamore: The question is why are the rates going down? Rates going down, you're right, would be related to a recessionary environment. The Fed is higher for longer, quite frankly. I don't think they're going to be able to cut in Q1. We'll see though. If they do, it's because some bad things are happening.
Patrick Baldwin: Is it the thought of cutting rates to help boost the economy? Why would they cut the rates?
Paul Giannamore: They would cut the rates for a variety of reasons. They would cut the rates because banks are going bust. They would cut the rates because the economy is on the balls of its ass. There are a variety of reasons but, largely, it's related to a recessionary environment. If you look back through financial history, even as most recently as the 1970s, when you have a massive rate cut, it's not bullish for equities. There's a reason they're cutting rates and it's not because everything is rosy.
Patrick Baldwin: Who benefits from a rate cut? You're saying it would save banks, but who else? I think about you backing up your leverage truck.
Paul Giannamore: It would certainly be bullish for bonds. Any holder of sovereign debt and bonds would benefit from that.
Patrick Baldwin: This sounds like it could be a drastic rate cut. If it's slow and steady, is that less of a recessionary signal? Getting back to what it's been over the last five years, that'd be healthy.
Paul Giannamore: If you look where interest rates are right now, they're pinned to around 5% on the shorter end of the curve. It's lower than where we've been for the last 40 years. Rates are still historically low, it's just that the US economy can't function now at historic interest rates because there's so much debt. At the end of the day, low rates beget low rates. When rates are low for an extended period of time, it causes governments, businesses, and consumers to take on more debt. You then get to the point where you can't raise rates so that becomes now the new ceiling and then they have to be lowered again and then people take on more debt.
We find ourself in a position where, at some point in time, the US government finds it difficult to fund itself in the current rate environment. They will be going down. The Fed is going to have to monetize this debt. This is where we're going. Inflation is certainly not getting back to the 2% target anytime soon. I can't understand how that would even happen. A long answer to a short question is even if rates were to dramatically fall next year, that's not a bullish sign, that's a bearish sign for the equity markets.
Patrick Baldwin: Let’s say that, overnight, they cut in half. Would there be panic in the market?
Paul Giannamore: Yes. The institutions would say, “What does the Federal Reserve know that we do not?” A massive overnight rate cut would be a bad thing.
Patrick Baldwin: Thank you, Jeff, for sending in that question. You definitely got a long answer from Uncle Paul. Another question here is from Thomas. Thomas has a $1 million business and plans on selling in the next two years. He says he has not done door-to-door before but he's asking if he should invest in door-to-door in these next two years to beef up his revenue.
Paul Giannamore: I would say that's probably one of the worst things that he could probably do within two years of selling. My advice is for those that are on the doors, the last 2 or 3 years prior to selling, you pull off the doors. You certainly don't want to do the opposite of that. Door-to-door accounts, of course, are more riskier than traditional accounts from an account retention perspective. It'll push up your attrition rates. You want to stay away from that. If you've got a longer-term horizon and you want to do it for a couple of years and sell 5 or 6 years from now, that's a fair thing to do. If you're on the glide path to selling, don't get on the doors.
Patrick Baldwin: I think about the Pointe’s and Greenix’s, out in the open, if they have door-to-doors, a big component of their strategy, I don't expect them to necessarily scale off nor did the Brody Brothers scale off to zero door-to-door in the last two years. They were in door-to-door. Is there a number that they need to scale back to before selling? I'm not particularly throwing Greenix or Aptive. These are companies that come to mind that do door-to-door. Yeah.
Paul Giannamore: There are companies that will not buy businesses that are on the doors, in general. If you take a company like Rentokil, for example, they've bought 1 or 2 in the last two decades. They're not doing that in general. There are a lot of private equity firms that will not touch door-to-door businesses. If you're on the doors, you're necessarily limiting your buyer pool. There are less acquirers that will take the risk of buying a door-to-door business. The less amount of new revenue that comes in on the doors, the better.
For example, if you take a $10 million business that's adding on $500,000 per year of new accounts versus a $10 million business that's adding on $3 million in revenue per year in door-to-door, those are different animals. We've had this period of the last few years where door-to-door businesses that were largely unsellable at the prices at which they have sold found buyers. That could potentially change. I don't know where this goes here in the future, to be honest.
Patrick Baldwin: Thomas did have a second question baked in. He said, “What should I not do in my last approximately 2 years?” I know we just talked about door-to-door. Are there are other things he should not be doing.
Paul Giannamore: If you've got a two-year time horizon, it's a good time to run your business as clean as possible. You can always do add backs and adjustments to the P&L but that's the time to go down the P&L line by line and ask, “Do we need this expense?” It's also important to keep your foot on the gas pedal from a revenue perspective.
The last two years is the time when you want to make sure that you're growing, in real terms, at least 5% to somewhere around 10% so somewhere in the high single digits. You can grow at 10% or 15% and that's better but if you can continue to focus on growth and if you can do everything you can to manage costs so that your cashflow is as high as possible, those things are important.
What other things should you not be doing? You have to watch capital expenditures. People think that if they go out and buy a bunch of capital equipment, that's going to be added to the purchase price. That's not the way it works. When an acquirer buys a business, you're paying an all-in price for all tangible and tangible assets.
To make miscalculations and buy a bunch of fixed or tangible assets that you don't need or otherwise can't get a return out of, that's not a good time to do that in the last couple of years. I wouldn't go out and buy a ton of brand-new vehicles. You don't want to sell a garbage fleet but, at the end of the day, you don't want to spend a lot of extra money buying a brand-new fleet when you're getting ready to sell. It’s those things.
Patrick Baldwin: Talking about growth rate, I've heard in the past you say you want to be at least double the regional players that are in the market and that is excluding acquisitions and excluding door-to-door. That's organic growth as a generalization. Still, how do they know these numbers? I'm in Waco, Texas. How do I know Rentokil, Terminix, or Rollins? How do I know what they're growing at?
Paul Giannamore: It's difficult. You could obviously pay attention to earnings calls and understand what Rentokil and Rollins are reporting. They don't break it down by Waco, Texas. New Jersey might be growing at 4% and Waco might be growing by 10%. A good way to get more granular on this is you don't want to find yourself in a position where growth is decelerating for your own business.
If you're growing at 5% two years ago and 6% last year, you certainly don't want to be growing at 2% this year. If you can grow at least the same growth rate as a prior year when you're taking it out to market, it shows that the business is not declining. One of the worst things that you can do going into the market is having a business that's declining in terms of top-line revenue. You don't want that.
Patrick Baldwin: 1What about decelerating growth? Are you talking about declining revenue.
Paul Giannamore: I'm talking about the growth rate in revenue. Those are two different things. You don't want a decelerating growth rate and you certainly do not want declining revenue, which would imply that your growth rates have historically decelerated rapidly. You don't want that. I'm glad we're talking about it because it's a common problem. What happens is folks take their foot off the gas pedal as they're starting to prepare to go out in the market and they focus too much on cashflow, which is a great thing to do. You want to focus on cashflow.
We've said this historically over and over on the show that cashflow is king and it's extremely important but it's not the only thing. You don't want to grow cashflow at the expense of top-line. Remember, when you're valuing a business, you're projecting cashflow going forward. If revenue declines today and cashflow is up, we know that cashflow will decline tomorrow because the revenue is down today. It's a balancing act and it's not easy to do.
Patrick Baldwin: Where's the magic button on that one?
Paul Giannamore: It's not an easy thing to do but it's one in which you need to have a solid month-to-month look at your financials, looking at the accounts you're adding each month, and looking at your expenses. It's important to get granular on your P&L so you can stay in control of that.
Patrick Baldwin: We've talked a lot about recurring revenue and de-risking the business makes it worth more. The conversation you and I had about average trailing twelve-month recurring revenue or future twelve-month recurring revenue, are those one and the same? What is an acquirer looking at? If you’re putting this into the sim, you're selling future cashflow. Are you more concerned about the next twelve-month recurring revenue.
Paul Giannamore: When we put together sell side materials and when our buyer looks at it, you're attempting to project forward the financial performance of the business. You're looking at historical metrics to determine, “Is this business performing historically?” If you look at somebody's P&L and the last two years or down, that's a problem.
To your point, looking at forward recurring revenue versus historical doesn't matter because you are still projecting forward. If we get a little bit more clear as to exactly what you're talking about, we had a discussion and we talked about looking at the recurring revenue base on a trailing twelve-month basis. On December 1st, 2023, what is the recurring revenue on our books? If you take that snapshot in June 2023 in North America, you've probably taken a lot of new accounts in the summer.
Let's say that you've added 500 new accounts on June 1st. On June 30th, that revenue that you're probably getting paid for monthly is not incorporated in your financial system yet because it hasn't happened, you haven't received it, but you still have the client on the books. You would ask me a question, “Should you be looking at it from a historical perspective or a go-forward basis?” I said, “It doesn't much matter because, at the end of the day, if I've got the financials and I'm able to understand net increase or decrease of new accounts, it'll help me being able to project it forward.”
Patrick Baldwin: I took a phone call with someone who listens to The Buzz and he said, “If I get my team focused on one number, I'm heavy on growth, I'm willing to sacrifice cashflow, and I’m willing to sacrifice profit at the expense of growth, what should my whole team be focused on?” My first initial reaction was trailing twelve-month recurring revenue. I said, “Even one better is future twelve-month recurring revenue and then they can all focus on that.” Month to month, there's variability.
In the example of June, if they bill that monthly subscription billing, it’s great going forward. He's baked in a lot of quarterly billing so there is some unevenness month-to-month in that cycle. I said, “The next twelve-months of recurring revenue, that's your number.” In his case, he's on field routes and that is a number that can easily come out of field routes. That's what I said.
Paul Giannamore: You can go a little bit further and say, “If the whole team's looking at this number, can it be recurring revenue units on the books today?” For example, if you have 1,000 accounts and those are recurring accounts, it's November 30th so we have 1,000 accounts. Let's say that we were fortunate and we added another 50 accounts between now and the December 6th. We don't have to look at revenue period, we can just look at account units. The team can clearly say, “We've gone from 1,000 to 1,050 and to 1,020.” That takes, in consideration, net losses. We lose an account and it's netted against that. Now we're not even looking at recurring revenue, we're just looking at units.
Patrick Baldwin: I would say yes if it's a presidential business and the pricing per unit is consistent. I do hear all the time where technicians fall back to minimum pricing. It's hard to get a technician to get up some premium pricing. If that's an issue, I would probably push back and say, “Let's go for a dollar sign instead of a unit,” if we're encouraging them.
Paul Giannamore: I would speculate that the majority of residential companies in the States probably don't have that pricing issue. A lot of that is sold online and over the phone nowadays. You don't have as many companies where technicians are out there trying to get a sale. I'm wondering if you have such a disparity in pricing. Back in the day, they would send inspectors out or a technician would go out and try to get a sale. In order to do so, it was allowed to give a discount. Now, when you call over the phone, it's like, “I need pest control at my house.” They say, “It's a $1.99 to get started and then you're going to pay you $35 a month. That sounds like a lot but that's what we sell it for.”
On the commercial side, you're right, it's a different situation. It's typically a bid situation. You're faced off against Orkin and Rentokil and you're writing a proposal and the market is less transparent than the residential market. It’s more competitive. It's one thing to sell pest control to the Indian restaurant down the street and it's another thing where you're getting into industrial parks and you've got commercial sales guys all calling on the same account. That becomes more complicated and we're seeing a lot more pricing pressure there than traditional residential.
Patrick Baldwin: Stepping back from this whole conversation, would you agree or argue with that? If he could focus on one number, one number as recurring revenue the number? There are so many variables and there are so many things to choose from but that's where I came up working with Bob and that was the number that we focused on, recurring revenue. You get the one-offs, the termite jobs, and the specials, and all of that happens. That's money in the bank account. We didn't turn those away, we just got premium pricing for them but it was always about building recurring revenue.
Paul Giannamore: I'm of the mindset that it's never good to have one number. If the measure becomes the target, it ceases to become a good measure. That has to do a lot with the fact that systems can be gamed. If you make recurring revenue units, for example, as the number, “That's the only thing we're focused on.” Pricing could be one issue where folks are selling things on the cheap. It could damage service.
If everyone's incentivized solely to get recurring revenue accounts and there's no yin or yang, incentives should have both a yin and a yang. You can incentivize a technician to do a lot of production and we call that maybe the yin aspect of it. If you don't have a yang, which is a quality metric behind that, then the incentive is solely focused on completing production as opposed to completing production and providing a quality service.
The quality service aspect of that might be treating the customer with respect, spending enough time at the location in order to do a quality service, and do those little extra things that delight a customer. I always think that there are fundamentally a lot of problems when people attempt to manage a business by one number.
On the flip side, you don't want to manage a business by twenty numbers. I do think every time you think about upsetting a particular goal and you make that a target, you need to think about the potential perverse incentives that you're creating and how that can negatively impact your business. You think a lot about major Wall Street and public company fraud.
When you think about Wells Fargo, for example, they were incentivized to open up bank accounts and they opened up tens of thousands. We all know the stories. That was an incentive based on one number and it's human nature to focus on that one number and it's human nature to figure out everything that you can do to effectively game the system. That's my thoughts on the one number conundrum.
You, as a manager, could say, “A financial metric, the recurring revenue account balance that we have is something that I am focused on, how do we increase that?” There's yin and yang in there because the yin is selling new accounts and the yang is retaining old accounts. You can't accomplish both of those by only focusing on selling new accounts, which is the age-old problem with door-to-door. It's the problem that acquirers have complained about forever.
It's one of the things that folks in the door-t0-door business is doing much better with nowadays than they had historically and that is these companies are sales organizations and nothing more. They can't service and retain accounts. They hire young guys that have zero experience that are mercenaries that are not there for a career in pest management. These are technicians that are effectively summer technicians, so to speak. They’re paid relatively low wages and don't know what they're doing and the company can't retain the accounts but that's focused on one number. How many recurring revenue accounts are we getting?
Patrick Baldwin: Two numbers? Three numbers? It’s not twenty. Is there a sweet spot? I always think of giving options, 2 or 3. As a buyer, don't overcomplicate my life. Keep it simple for me. Give me 2 or 3 options tops. We’ve talked about that with Marcus. I could be making that up.
Paul Giannamore: If you think about an individual, a small number of indicators, you might look at five different things for a technician. You might take five data points that you're going to measure every technician by. You, as a manager, might be looking at 3, 4, or 5 things. On the one hand, you want to have a full picture of everything that's going on in the business if you're the general manager. You could have certainly had your scorecards that are focused on 3 to 5 metrics that you're focused on and you just have to put a lot of thought. You have to put a lot of thought into what those are.
I don't think every pest control business or every lawn care business, for example, should use the same metrics. People always want to say, “What are the most important KPIs?” One way to get competitive differentiation in your business is to pick things that are strange and unique to you and then focus on those things.
Patrick Baldwin: That's where my head went. Give generalizations but I hear exactly what you're saying. I did tease out that I had one question for you. Paul, I do not do M&A and we're well aware of that.
Paul Giannamore: Yes, we are. Okay.
Patrick Baldwin: I focus on accounting and finance and that's all I do. I get asked a lot, “What are valuations at? What are the multiples of EBITDA? Is it multiples of revenue?” I've come to believe this might not be true that underneath $1 million, it's a multiple of revenue. This is a generalization and this might be bad information. Above $1 million dollars, it becomes more important the multiple EBITDA. Even the course of what we talked about so far, we talked about it's more than just cash flow, there are growth rates, there's recurring revenue, and there's a lot that goes into it. Backing up, is there a number where you say, “Underneath $1 million, it's this over $1 million. It's EBITDA.”
Paul Giannamore: It's a great question because it's asked a lot. A lot of people are confused by it. It's good to go back to some basic first principles and ask ourselves, how are financial assets valued? Your pest control business, your lawn care company, or whatever it is, is a financial asset. How are those businesses valued? The question is, when I buy a pest control business, I am buying an asset that kicks off a stream of cashflow.
Effectively, you're buying cash, you're buying cashflow, that's what you're buying at the end of the day. You don't want that business for any other purpose other than to generate a financial return for you. When you think about all businesses, irrespective of the size of the business, it's kicking off a stream of cashflow and that stream of cashflow is what you are buying. We've talked about this on The Buzz extensively that there's an inverse relationship between valuation and risk. The riskier an asset is, the more that stream of cashflow into the future needs to be discounted.
If you were to apply that to a pest control business, let's use the example of a $400,000 firm. We've got a company doing $400,000 in revenue and then we have another one doing $10 million in revenue. Those businesses should be valued using the exact same methodology, in theory. We've got two businesses of different sizes but they're both generating a stream of cashflow. When you compare a $400,000 pest control business to a $10 million business, those are different organizations.
The $10 million business might have 60 or 70 employees, whereas the $400,000 business might have 1 or 2, it might be the owner, a technician, and an office person. You're buying a different bundle of resources and capabilities when you buy the $400,000 business versus the $10 million business. If you want to bring it all back to financial theory, effectively, by buying the $400,000 business, you're buying a business that is far more risky than you are when you're buying the $10 million business.
You're buying less capabilities and you're buying less ability to grow that company. Your question is, is that thing valued based on accounts versus using a discounted cashflow model? For a practical purpose, it is. That $400,000 business, when you look at it, you might say to yourself, “Cashflow, in this case, is a largely non meaningful figure because I'm going to buy this $400,000 business and I'm going to incorporate it right into my own operations.
Sure, I'd love to have that technician but if I lose a technician, it's not a huge deal. I don't care about the office. I don't care about the vehicles. I don't care about the file cabinet sitting there since 1976. What I want is I want those accounts.” Those accounts though, the quality of that revenue might be different than the quality of revenue for the $10 million business. The $10 million business, it's extremely unlikely that you have 1 or 2 individuals servicing that customer base that's built up a relationship with them over years.
Whereas with the $400,000 business, it’s very likely that you have an owner and maybe one technician that's been around for nineteen years and they have very close personal relationships with those customers. That's another important risk factor. You're very much likely to lose those accounts vis-a-vis the larger business. When you're thinking about it from a buy side M&A perspective and you look at a $400,000 business, you have to ask yourself, “What am I buying? Am I buying a going concern? Am I effectively buying a bundle of accounts and I don't care about much else?”
I don't know that there's a size threshold, Patrick. In my mind, it’s defined if you think about yourself as an acquire and you ask yourself, “What is it that I'm actually buying here?” That should determine the methodology by which you ultimately value that business. Would I use a discounted cashflow model? Would I use comparable acquisition statistics based upon free cashflow or EBITDA for a $400,000 business? If I were buying it, no, I wouldn't.
What I would do is I would look at the business and say, “What am I buying?” I'm making this up, “I'm buying 938 accounts. I need to focus on those accounts. I got to look at the pricing of those accounts. I got to look at how those accounts fit into my current network.” I then got to determine what's that worth for me based upon what I will likely lose. If I were on the buy side there, I would focus more on the impacts of those accounts to my gross margins. It then becomes a buy versus build decision. If I can buy 938 accounts, what will I have to invest to do that organically?
On the one hand, you could argue that doing that organically is a better situation. What ultimately answers that question is what could you buy it for? It's better to have organic growth. It's better that somebody comes to your company. It's better that they make right into the mix with your technicians. It's a better way to grow a business. However, it could become a much better way to grow a business by going out and buying these things if you could buy them at the right price.
Patrick Baldwin: 938 accounts that you're buying today with 1976 pricing versus if you organically go put 938 accounts on, a different look I bet.
Paul Giannamore: The one problem with buying a small company, and I hear it over and over and I see it, is that you got 1 or 2 technicians there and 1 of them is typically the owner. They've got the relationship with the customer. It is hard to retain those. However, it's not impossible.
Patrick Baldwin: There might not be a rule of thumb over or under $1 million dollars. It comes from the acquirer's perspective. What do they already have existing and what are they bringing into the fold?
Paul Giannamore: That's exactly the way that I look at it.
Patrick Baldwin: I like rules of thumb but you just blew up my thumb.
Paul Giannamore: I'm sorry, I got rid of your rules of thumb on that one.
Patrick Baldwin: Paul, I do have some devastating news.
Paul Giannamore: What's that?
Patrick Baldwin: Waco is known for its fires. You've eaten at three places in Waco.
Paul Giannamore: Let me see if I remember. I've eaten at Homestead. I've eaten at Helberg. I've eaten at some random Mexican joint.
Patrick Baldwin: Two, like David Koresh, they've burned to the ground.
Paul Giannamore: It’s sounds like a sabotage of the places I like, Patrick. What happened to Helberg?
Patrick Baldwin: Fire happened outside the building in an adjacent building and took everything. I'd say that's my second favorite barbecue I've ever had. The other one is down Franklin in Austin.
Paul Giannamore: When did Homestead burn down?
Patrick Baldwin: It was right around Christmas 2022.
Paul Giannamore: Helberg, they should be able to get that thing operative by January 1st. That was literally a box. I felt like I was in a trailer with picnic benches inside.
Patrick Baldwin: It was a building. It turns out they didn't own it. I didn't know that. We've got a listener coming down and we were going to take him to Halberg and I had to break the news to him. We're going to go to the next best barbecue joint in Waco. When you talk about sabotage, that thought did come to mind. I ate there and I was like, “Maybe they're behind this.”
Paul Giannamore: It makes sense to me that they would be, Patrick. Helberg will be back again. There wasn't much there. The place was fantastic. I highly recommend it. If you find yourself unfortunate enough to arrive in Waco and Helberg is back in operation, go there because it was great.
Patrick Baldwin: My treat, a standing offer. Come visit me. You have to put up with me for an hour but I'll at least buy your lunch.
Paul Giannamore: How's your cholesterol, Fat Pat?
Patrick Baldwin: I saw the doctor.
Paul Giannamore: Did you talk about cholesterol?
Patrick Baldwin: Cholesterol is good. It's the blood pressure, that's what we're watching. Going to New Jersey and seeing the Mexican, I will make sure I double down on my blood pressure medicine.
Paul Giannamore: I would suggest that you do that.
Patrick Baldwin: Paul, thank you for making time for Jeff Thomas and Fat Pat to answer some questions.
Paul Giannamore: Indeed. Until the next episode, PB.
Patrick Baldwin: See you, Uncle Paul.
---
Dylan Seals: Thank you so much as always for supporting us at The Boardroom Buzz. We know your time is valuable and the fact that you spend 45 minutes or an hour with us means the world. All the media that we put out from Potomac is meant to honor and celebrate you, the service industry owner. As Paul would say, “Yee who toil in the pest control vineyards.”
As part of giving back, we have this podcast, but more than that, Paul and I have been working our tails off over at POTOMAC TV. We've spent a tremendous amount of time, energy, and resources to build out that platform to bring you market updates, to bring you visual breakdowns of the merger acquisition process, and to tell stories and present information in ways that, frankly, it's not possible for us to do on The Boardroom Buzz.
Adding the visual element takes it to the next level. I want to invite you to go to YouTube and find us, it's POTOMAC TV. Potomac.tv will get you there. Go there and subscribe. Check out some videos and leave some comments. Let us know what you like and let us know what you don't like. Let us know what you want to see more of and we'll see you over there.
