Innovative Legal Leadership
Innovative Legal Leadership

Episode · 4 days ago

Ron Gill: A CFO’s Relationship With General Counsels

ABOUT THIS EPISODE

CFOs and General Counsels can’t just rely on a strong relationship to predict spending, you have to have a system in place that takes the guesswork out of managing your organizations legal spend.

In this episode, we’re joined by Ron Gill, Former CFO of NetSuite and current Operating Partner and Board Member at Lead Edge Capital. We speak to Ron about becoming a globally recognized CFO, relationships between a General Counsels and CFOs, and why he sees PERSUIT as a solution to legal spend predictability.

Join us as we discuss:

  • High Growth Companies At Different Economic Cycles
  • Becoming a Globally Recognized CFO
  • Visibility Into Legal Spending

Welcome to innovative legal leadership, the podcast, where you'll hear from the world's most innovative General Council and their leadership teams for their insights into the running of a fortune five hundred inhouse legal department, to challenges, the winds, the road blocks, the journey to date and, most importantly, what lies ahead. Let's get into the show. Brown girl, welcome to the show. It's fantastic to have you. I'm very excited about the discussion we're about to have. Thanks for having me. Fantastic. Now, Ron, a little bit different here. Usually I'm speaking to someone in the legal leadership team. General Council is typically there on SA, but you're a little bit different here. You've got a CFO background. Tell us a little bit about the Ron Gil Story. How do you get started and usually what I like to tease out here. What are some of the early kind of influences in your career, the crossroads and yeah, when we jump in a little bit about that and we'll see where it takes us. Great. You know he's won't go back too far, but I graduated from from school in the s. It look like the whole world was going to rotate towards Japan. So I moved to Japan, went to Grad school there and spent spend a decade or so there. That was really the starting place and I started walking. Don't go through that bit too quickly. I like. I actually like that. So so this ten years will fus see. You made the decision back then and I remember exactly. Of course, it is the IDs and things will tony what absolutely need. Same like didn't in the end. It didn't. The world didn't rotate that, not for very long, but it didn't. was going to. Didn't, but but it's an interesting kind of foundation for you create. You've got ten years. Tell me a bit about some of the key learnings, if you like. How did that bitch shape you? And then and then let's let's go from that. Well, it was, I mean the keyest of the key learnings, as they were are all going to be cultural. I was I grew up in a tiny town in south Texas you know, a thousand miles from anywhere, and and so it was a big move, obviously, to just and I sort of landed in Tokyo with my suitcase and my, you know, two semesters of Japanese and I love that. But I love that. So it worked out in the end. But, but, and that was really the reason to go to work at Sony, to go to work at a Japanese company as opposed to go to work at a subsidiary of an American comfort something was really to get steeped in it. And so I spent I spent a number of years. I spent some time at Sony, I moved back to the states, I went to work for Sony and New York for a while. They then said you back to Japan and I spent a few more years with Sony and it was great. It was great experience. I certainly certainly great for my language and sort of sort of cultural acclimatization, you know, to to to be at a jab these company. I think in the end I learned that I didn't want to work at a Japanese I think, and I was working at Sony, which was a very again, it was a long time ago. Sony was an extremely hot company. At the time. They would have been the you know what Google was, you know a few years back in Silicon Valley, was like the company everybody wanted to work at. That was Sony at the time. Then very hot company and it was a it was in some ways, the least it was very international company, the least very at least sort of Japanese of the Japanese companies, the Post World War Two company. But in the end it's a very it's a very tenure oriented Culturi said, there was a point where I sort of looked where I was sitting and my boss who was ten years older than me, and the only way for me to get from my seat to his seat was to age ten years, and so I decided I didn't want to age ten years in there, and so that's when so I jumped to sap in in Japan actually, which was there Asian headquarters at the time, and that was when I that was sort of my...

...first move to enterprise software. Is the beginning of client server enterprise software. It's the mid S and and that's it. I've been pretty much in enterprise software ever since, in you know, sap, Oracle, hyperion, net suite, all these big enterprise software companies that always in the finance, general management or a finance role, but it's so not not an engineer, but always at a software pretty much at a software company. Ever since a BB software company ever since, and so my research assistant has, my trustee recess assistant is as as found for me. Look at this two thousand and third seam while work in net sweet. So you are the see if I've met sweet. Of course. The San Francisco Business Business Times named you the bay area CFO of the year for public companies with revenue up to five hundred million. Not a bad little feather in the CAP. Tell me about that period in your life, because I don't know whether I love to hear a bit more about the next sweet time because ultimately, of course, and I think you were there when it was bought by Oracle. Tell me about growing that company and perhaps then the then the acquisition my oracle, because it must been a fascinating time. I was I was lucky to catch a couple of technology trends in my life. So, as I said, I joined sap just as our three is really kept getting traction. So so the world is shifting from mainframe to client server and that really took off an sap had a fantastic run there, which I was lucky to be a part of. And then, and it's something similar, was happening at next week when I joined. I was at hyperion. We got bought by Oracle and then I and then I went to net sweet, maybe a year before the issue, before the APO right and and that was at the beginning of what then became what seems the obvious way of now, which is Sass but at the time was less obvious and we certainly spent a lot of time trying to sell people on the very concept of putting key systems in the cloud, and I think that that's that's sort of played out. We don't have to do that particular sales pitch anymore. But so I entered not as CFO but is sort of number two to the CFO, and I became CFO in two thousand and ten. And you know, net sweet. It's actually a fairly relevant story to look back on now, because so nets we goes public in December of two thousand and seven, and the parallel would be a little bit like, you know, raising your last round of financing in the summer of two thousand and twenty one. So the markets are high and you put a lot of money in the bank and having having the we ipoed and you know, put put money in the bank at the time and did what you do then, which is accelerate everything. We were grow. We grew sixty some on percent in two thousand and seven. It's sorry, yeah, two thousand and six. And then and then we do the IPO. We start to then accelerate investment because we're going to grow faster than of course, get hit right in the face by the global the global recession. Yeah, the Glat, the great recession, and so business slows down dramatically. You know the the the company's Valuation at IPO was one point six billion. By the depth of the recession the company was worth three hundred and change million. You know so, and there's obviously a to of that going around right now, and it was really a good lesson that. I think a lot of people are learning right now that your business is performance is not the only thing that determines your valuation. There's this other thing external to you, which is what the markets are doing. So business load way down. But we were assass company. One of the good things about being a SASS company is that the revenue has a bit of a momentum of its own as long as you can keep your customers. So we we slowed down but continued growing but obviously growth slowed dramatically. Some of our...

...biggest competitors at weren't ass companies were shrinking dramatically during those years. So relatively good, but still it's painful to go from sixty percent growth to nine percent growth and into it is. And if you would a shout out now, what are the two or three key lessons, will pieces of advice you would give to two companies safe? I was a more broadly experiencing that very scenario right now. Yeah, I think for us the the most painful thing about the recession for us was was churn are we went from a gross retention. So net retention is over a hundred percent, but gross retention is in the sort of mid s going into the downturn and, God, as low as the high s during during the worst parts of it. And it really was. We were very much mid market focused at the time and our customers were just going out of business. It was a WHO's a. It was a deep, long recession and a lot of small businesses closed, so a lot of our we had a lot of customer attrition that that no amount of great product or fantastic customer service would fix, because it was just the nature nature of the install base. So I think one of the things that we got a lot better at during that time was the leading indicator of the leading indicator. Of course we know that that churn is is certainly a leading indicator of a revenue going down, but we got much better at what's the leading indicator of churn and then, and then often what's the leading indicator of that leading indicator, and then, you know, I think the things that we did write we did a pretty good job of retaining talent. I think there's there's a couple of things every company right now, as we as we sit here in late May and the markets, especially the tech markets, have collapsed so much, I think everybody's starting to really to get the message of you need to extend your cash runaway, you probably need to decrease burn a little bit to just make sure you're not having to raise any time very soon, because that raise might be everybody's got that message. But I think the other things that we did was we really didn't lose any key talent. So we managed to hang onto key talent through that period, which I think is pretty critical. It's good. You're going to come out the other side eventually and you want to have the key members of your of your team in place. And then there were you know, we were essentially during the year of two thousand and eight. We're essentially overstaffed like two thousand and eight and early to because we because we had this hiring. You know, the turns out. What the the the great recession began in December two thousand seven, like as we were going IPO, but you did. Nobody sent you a memo in December and said the great recession is we got you found out sort of three quarters later. You found out that the and of course, the meantime we were hiring, like Matt. So we managed to although we were significantly overstaffed, we managed to not we did. We didn't have to lay anybody off. We managed to really retain the key people and I think then, in a period of being overstaffed, we actually improved a lot of core processes. But all that said, and this you know, I hope this is not repeated in this cycle, but it remains to be seen. The coming out the other side for us was extremely slow. We slowed down into single digit growth. In two thousand and nine, I think we grew nine percent revenue in two thousand and nine and then I won't remember the numbers exactly, but it was something like, you know, nine percent, twelve percent, eighteen percent, twenty one. You know, it was several years before we got back to thirty and and and high s growth. It took a long time coming out. So and and and sort of in the middle of that, in two thousand and ten is and I became CFO. So I guess I was...

...lucky that I was. I became CFO at the kind of at the bottom and then rode the there was hopefully only one way from there and that that's right. But well, the but there what it is. But at least we yeah, we were the right way. But I mean just thinking about thinking that environment, which is I'm sure the environment that's been experienced in the last couple of years least, of a sixty percent growth rate and then can and then hitting nine percent. That is an extreme it's incredible to confidence. I love two years. Yeah, that's the yeah, yeah, the deceleration and the keeping the town. The re acceleration, YEP, was slow. Yeah, and if you had a hazardous guess in the next couple of years, do you you know don't have a crystal ball and whether or not we're going to go into recession. That's the that's the debate of the day. But what's it? What's your take? What's your take on the next couple of years, particularly for an impact on, let's say, high growth tech and and software businesses? We're I think there's no question we're in a better place than we were as the as the two thousand and eight nine recession began. I mean, I think there's a different set of problems and they're for real problems, but we but there's some macro issues that we just didn't have that we've got some issues now inflation and an and yeah, war and an interest rate environment that is unquestionably going to be rising for some time, which was which was not the case then. But I think the business businesses are in better shape now than we were then. I think sometimes it's a little bit exaggerated. We all look at how far things have fallen and you'll look at some know the public SASS stocks that have fallen fifty and sixty and seventy percent. But those numbers, everybody's measuring those numbers from a summer two thousand and twenty one high. That was a that was a very brief, very crazy high, and it's it's getting more painful to look at this every day, but I often am looking at it and just saying like so, how much gain did we lose from the time point of view? And you'll look at some of these stocks and it's like, Oh my God, the stock is down sixty percent. But then, I said, I'll say like, okay, so when did we when do we fall back to? How many years of gain did we just lost? And it's often like, oh, we fell back to spring of two thousand and twenty. One S price correct that. It's funny you say that. That's exactly the lens that I have when I look at that runs. I okay, so you fallen back to where you were six months ago, twelve months ago, and when you look at the graphs, that typically put it straight up from the up until, you know, certainly up until spring last gee, and then kind of stripe down from that. But it is it was a very high acceleration. It's almost exponential when you see that Sha process, certainly since April two thousand and twenty or mass two thousand and twenty. When. So I think that's right. That's that's a lames that like the Lady of Mrs that's what looks like anomally. What really looks like the anomally is the April two thousand and twenty are there about to to fall of two thousand and twenty one. That period is the is the super bizarre and I'm like the I think that I think that's wrong. is though, you know, we were going into the there were there were not a lot of public SASS companies going into the into the recession, there was only a handful. But at that time, well, two things. At that time, a healthy growing SASS company may be growing thirty or forty percent, whereas now there's there's some companies still, even at this point, still growing much faster than that. And it was at that...

...point like you'd be trading at seven times forward revenue, eight times forward revenue, and people thought that was nuts. And so we're in a very different place now. I don't I don't think we'll ever get back to well, I don't think that I'll see multiples again like we saw, you know, last last spring and summer. It'll be it we entering to see if we get although I think we're now trading below the historical multiples for SASS companies. The problem with historical multiples for SASS companies because they don't go back very far. Okay, these companies have, you around very large so they might procession. So they may well be fourteen years ago. Yeah, so there may well be skewed too high because of yeah, Yeh, I think that's what we don't actually know what a normalized position is, essentially, do you haven't had enough data to say what were what good is really like? Hopefully it's somewhere in between seven times and forty times forward, revenen. Yeah, yeah, yeah, let's shift gear a little bit. Roun. Tell me a little bit about with this in your role, the Safe Oh, tell me about the relationships that you've had with the legal team, General Council more broadly. What does that look like? The good, the bad and the unbolute? Yeah, tell me about that. Well, I think I've been lucky to work with some very good general councils. I think from what's is the plural of General Council, General Councils, General Councils, I think so, yes, that will count. General Councils. I've been lucky, either whether as a CFO or even as as an audit chair on a board where you also spend a decent amount of time with with General Council, to work with some with some really good ones, and I in and over my career I've there have been times when legals reported to me, which is not necessarily something I'd recommend, but it's happened that at times. And there's been times when when you're just partner in. CFO and GC are partner in. Certainly you, especially when you're a public company, those two are partnered very heavily and spend a lot of time together. So I think the good is I've general I've been fortunate that that relationship has generally been very good and we've gotten along very well and it's very much felt like as CFO and general council we're sort of rowing in the same direction in terms of corporate governance and trying to keep the company on track and and risk mitigation. So that's all been good. I think the bad for me has been more on the on the spend management side, so those a little more tactical, but certainly, and I think this and in pursuits a definitely a part of this. I think this trend is it's getting a little better, but in mote for most of my career, legal spend is is a bit of a black box and even with I have a great relationship with the GC, and I think it's probably a specially I don't know, maybe this I was going to say it might be a specially true at more of a midsize company at the at the at the twenty person legal team, in a house legal team size, that the GC's got the all of the relationships and engagements running in his or her head, as opposed to it being anywhere that I is CFO can examine and that from a you know as a CFO and you really care not a just about the volume of spend but about the predictability of that spend, the volatility of that spend, and you know the last thing you want as a cfo is a surprise of any kind. And that's what if there's been tension in the GC relationship, at least for me, it's been over that. It's been at every quarter end I have to send like a team of FPNA people in to sit with legal and figure out how much have we spend? How much have we committed to spend? When is that spending going to take place? That that...

...project has probably been the the the point of friction, and Ron say you're we can call it out here. So you joined the pursuit Strategic Advisory Board. You're an operating part of course, at ladd capital lead to capital has a bit of an interesting pursuit. I've got no doubt you get tons of offers to sit on boards or strategic advisory Boards. Without it being too much of a plug for pursuit. I'm just like to get what. Why would you say? You know what, I'm going to spend some time on this. This is of interest. What? Why? Yeah, it's really because I'm interested in the solution to this problem, having having lived it. Like I said, it's a it never spoiled the good relationship I had with GC's, but if there was a point of friction, that was it, and it was really from a from A, from a a couple of points of view, some of which I touched on. One is just pure visibility. There's no every other part of my organization, every dollar spent, I've got some visibility into it. Coming payrolls, we know we've got contracts for those. I've got purchase orders for everything else in my organization and there and there are, there's some companies, I don't think it's a majority, that have purchase orders for legal commitments, but it's not most. And so you often don't have purchase orders and, as I said, these these commitments are existing in in the ether or in the heads of General Council and Assistant General Council and they're hard to get at. So that improvement I very much look for and at the same time not to not to not to, you know, malign those in the legal community. But I there's, at least in my experience, there was a lack of discipline around the scoping of legal projects and so at the RFP stage, and it's a funny because I would often had a company, especially very large company, we would have a purchasing function that really required the RFP structuring of any large engagements and often the biggest thing that was not flowing through that purchasing function. And maybe they're very good reasons, maybe not to flow legal spend through a purchasing function that maybe the value add is not there, but what it meant was very poorly scoped projects very the milestones aren't clear, the the the deliverables aren't clear. It's hourly rate and I don't know how many hours it's going to end up being and how many of those hours are going to be partner hours versus first year associate hours. And it's it would just an a more amorphous blob and again, nothing to seefo hates more than big chunks of spending that have no visibility. So for me it was a real problem that I experienced in industry and I saw an opportunity for a product likes pursued it's now will get into the part that it's hard to keep from being a bit of a plug, but of it changing a couple of things in there. So one and it's not. You're not the primary thing that pursue really, you know, cells on necessarily, but it does get some discipline in the structuring of the engagement at the beginning of the process. It's not just that I will then get multiple firms to bid perhaps on it, but it's that it required me to sit down and actually lay out what the thing is going to be and put some fence around it and then, of course, like I would, I would be a big advocate for trying to get everything to go through the platform, because then I've got some place outside of the GC's head where those engagements sit, where they can be examined. where, and even if I or might the finance organization was never in the pursuit tool, if I go to the legal team,...

...they've got a source that says here's where, here's where everything is, here's where we are and these projects, here's the scope of each and so here's what we think the spend is going to be anyway. So I saw a need and it was a it was a pain point that I had really lived and so that's that's why I got excited about so I spoke to any few days ago. Actually, I'm going I'll see, but it might get aired before this one, but to elwis Epstein, of course, and Dr Elowis Epstein is also a member of the pursuit strategic advisory board, and she had a classic comment and she and she described this guy. Have to repeat it, and she and she called out to the DC's out there. She said, look, I know you think you are, but you're not a special flower. So I thought, because exactly what you're saying right now the discipline that exists typically across most of the other functions legal had in the past and to large we still does have an exception or an exemption, and that's right and I think that's a very good point and I would I would even expand it to say not only is perhaps the legal department not not as much as special flower as they would like to think, law firms are not as much of a special flower as they would like to think. They're vendors selling a service that we need to go out and of course those vendors have reputation and experience and connection. That all matters, but at the end of the day their vendors billing us for a service and I think there's a little bit not that I mean not that we intend to blow up the whole industry and I think but there's been a just so much of that that's been on. who were the WHO's you know, who's the one outside council for exact comp that the GC knows? Who's the one outside Council for whatever SEC security issue that the GC notes? And it's been very tight and buddy and there's very little objectivity in the in the selection process and there's and there's just something healthy about expanding that a little bit, making a little bit more supplier vendor relationship, making it a little bit more objectively decided process, and it's kind of hot to see how anyone can sensibly object to just that level of objctivity, but of transparency in the predictability as a Safo, and hopefully, if we've got some safe I'd listening right now. That's what you want. You just want everybody hates surprises. In fact, the in house legal times had the surprises when it comes from the law firm. So that was the one thing that's one of the key things we hear from the in house teams is nothing worse than a poll exercise or no exercise at the beginning in terms of scoping and then and then getting that nasty surprise come in. So one of the other things I have to say, and I've repeated it now a few times, there's a phrase that that you coined actually when we caught up a few weeks ago, and I loved it and I've repeated a number of times right now, both within dissuiting outside. And it was time to value. You said, Jim, there is something really about your or pursuits time to value and you've got to absolutely protect it. Don't let anything to fear it at and work out, essentially, how can you how can you continue accelerating and doubling down on that? I love that phrase because I don't care whether there's legal tech or anything else. There are so many choices out there. When somebody's trying to operate, all will gain efficiencies and what they do and there are so many choices about what technology or what solution to pick to solve what problem.

And that's that's very much in the legal space right now, when there's a whole lot of competing priorities. So one great thing about that phrase that you coin. That's how when I'm having discussions now, that's what I talked about to the legal ups and GC's. You've got a bunch of competing priorities, think about what you can deliver and where your time to value equation is the strongest, because you don't want to spend twelve months, any months, implementing something but kind of a difficult to measure our wise. So don't you talk about that. But it's something that is really stuck with me. It's funny because the the and and and some of the stuff that I have been talking about really is is value like that, from the CFO point of view, is the grander once we've adopted the platform fully and things are flowing through it, that I really get some of these benefits like visibility to the overall spend and that kind of thing. But this time to value concept came up because we were talking about where actually reviewing some pilots where the customer is literally doing the first project in the system really just as a learning process, like this is the first one we're going to do. Okay, we'll put this particular job out and bit and we would see these incredible results in the pilot, which is literally in the first, you know, week of having the product. We're going to run this one thing and we we just you can literally see the difference between the first bid from the firm we always use versus either the final bid from the firm we always use or the ultimate bid from a different from you could just see the difference in these and it was just remarkable how immediate and sort of with a very first transaction, you kind of paying for things. It's so that was that was what was so impressive and and and ending an incredible and, as I said, it has actually really impact out on the dialog now that we have both internally and externally. So I should thank you that. And it's a really good focus to it's a real good focus, particularly for those who have got competing priorities and the looking at ull all sorts of solutions to solve all sorts of problems. Even as I say, it's it's not about it legal whatever. It might be just a great way to judge how to assess your priority and how to prioritize time to that you think about time to day. You. So, yeah, I think it's going to be part of our DNA run. I think it our arm was, by the way, and yeah, I just start that. I think you just ought honestly, I think you've articulated it and I think, yeah, it's a fantastic lens through which to think about what you're doing, the discussions you're having and the messaging that you send me out there. Cool. I usually wrap up run with three kind of favorite questions. My first one is going to be advice or on to your twenty five year old self. I feel like my twenty five year old self was super lucky, and so I'm I have a little bit of a butterfly effect concern about changing anything that that guy because I feel like I did the ripple theory. Yeah, you don't want to touch everything there touch it because, like I said, you know I made this. What did it up being a very large bet on, you know, couple of years of school in your pan and then and then lots of years of working in Japan, on on the world rotating the way. It looked like it was going to rotate in one thousand nine hundred and eighty eight and it didn't, but it worked out fine. You know, it actually worked out really well. So I'm, if so, I'm hesitant to change anything that that guy did. If anything, I think for me the risks worked out, and they were. They were big, you know big, strange, strange risks. To move from small...

...town Texas to Tokyo and in a jump was a was a big risk. It worked out. Every every time I've agonized over a career change, probably the agonizing was was the right thing to do. I probably made for I could describe it as a thorough decision making process. It was really more just agonizing. But they but they but they worked out. All the big leaps worked out. And if it was, a friend of mine pointed out to me that, like every every big successful change in career, really comes with a lot of stress. In a lot of stress and the decision your you can never be sure. You're always it's always easier to stay with the with the thing you know, than it is to make a step towards something you don't know. But that's usually where step function improvement comes it's funny. So the two most popular answers I get to that question, and I think there's a Risenn what one is I just worried too much. A lot of the worrying I didn't actually matter. You call it be going to agonize. That's so easy to say, and it cost of these because the future is uncertain, you're ambitious, you want to make sure that your decisions are right, all of that kind of stuff. But the second one, which I think is really I have to say, I keep repeating this when I'm speaking, is that that those that are earlier on their career was to take ball risks. I always get picular from the GC. Is it I just wish I took a few more risks and I was it because when I did take them they actually paid off. Yeah. So so I don't know whether that's kind of general counsel specific, but I think the Roote, I think there's a surveyor there's a survivorship. Yeah, and that end they're probably that. That's fair to point. That's a fair point, but I mean I say that as having just essentially given the same as a correct correct but I think there's a there is something, though, about it. Even the word risk is sometime could be prohibitive, but it's actually to me it's about making choices that you're leaning in and they might not necessarily be the and they're not the safest choices, put it that way. The packing up going to Japan there are a little off the beaten path, but to me that's where the kind of that's where the growth is, that's where the adventure is and that's where the opportunity is. So, you know, that's something I don't mind talking to those that are a little bit younger in that crease about. Okay, next thing, the hottest thing that you've done, personal or professional, that you will and to share with us. Gosh, I feel like I should have given this, some thought to this before. What is that? I think more than once, and I won't go into specific to but but more than once I've left a good job. And this is so. I'm sure there are harder things I've done, but but it really it's an echo of what we just talked about. More than once I've left a good job where things are going well and it'd be easy to stay for a move. That I mean more than once I've left a company and then had, like you know, half a dozen exacts come to me and say, what are you doing? You're crazy, why are you leaving now? You know, certainly anyone who quit Sony in one thousand nine hundred and ninety, whatever it was. Everyone was just like you're going to do what? You're going to quit Sony and go work where for a German company. And so more than once I've I've left. I've left a floating boat. You know that that's working well for something, for a rickety looking raft, and and again it it's worked out and those have been always their tough decisions and sometimes there's a lot of pushback, but but I've done those in it and it worked out and there's...

...a lot of and to me that kind of ties a little bit back in the wrist. I always say assess, and especially when you at the time and when you haven't had the benefit of essentially that to see how a decision works out. Everything it's hard. Sometimes you think it's the worst decision you could have made. I remember giving up, well, certainly giving up a career in Australia, moved to the Middle East and I remember on day one when I arrived, that was a hundred and eighteen degrees outside. I walked into an office I didn't have a single client, a single connection, no brand, no reputation, and I sat there and I thought I didn't know the laws, I didn't know the language and I and adorned. I'm with it. What the Hell have I done? I've left the most secure I was really in a secure position, having a fantastic income and but with the benefit of time and the next six years, it was the it was the pinnacle of my professional career and the most enjoyment that I had. So I always say at the time what can seem like the worst is, in the worst thing that could have happened to you ends up opening up opportunities, doors. Whatever it might be. So always assess something by of friends to time, let it play out, because to me that's often where the learning in the growth and the real potential is. That's right. Every it seems like almost every big decision comes with buyers remorse at some point. So usually that guy take that new job. Usually there's a point, you know, three weeks in, where you're going, Oh my God, what did I do? You know, almost almost everybody I've ever hired, even those who turned out to be fantastic. There's a point a couple of weeks eirather, two months after you Hians, we're just like, I'm not sure I did the right thing, and so you gotta sometimes your instinct is right and you didn't do the right thing. But but yeah, a lot of times it's just you just got to get to the other side. Last question. Anything that keeps you up at not now. It keeps me up at night now. I mean I you know, I have I've got I have kids, and so certainly just everything two boys is right, and one of one is is is sort of twelve years old. The other one is is in high school, and so what the world is going to look like for them? I certainly. I certainly concerned about one of them will go off to college and and it seems like I, you know, I think it's definitely a time where you still need to go to college. For my from our older one, although it's you know, he's a computer aciance guy and it's very questionable as to whether he'd learned more computer science in or out of college. But I think at this point today you still go to college. I'm pretty sure that's still true for my twelve year old. When it comes time. I don't know if that remains. And then, of course you worry about the the the macro economy and how big you know it's. These are there very mundy worrying about your kids as something that every parent does, I think, all the time. I you know, may be because of my background. I very much worry about the macro economy, not about I'm not worried about the fact that it's as stocks are down, you know, it's from the summer high. I worry about the amount of debt the United States is created and where it's where it's headed and what is it? What does it mean for a kids? I mean what does that mean? What's all I think it's yeah, we've borrowed a lot of money from these kids. Yeah, yeah, we're what we should be doing. It's funny, that's exactly what we've done. We should be paying full wood all of the benefits that we've...

...had, the advantages, but it doesn't seem like we've done we've done the opposite, and we've done the opposite. A bit of a somber note to finish up out, and that's right. But that's right, Ron, fantastic heaving you on board. Are Really apprecied that time. I've had a fantastic, fantastic tome and a blast. So thanks for joining me. Wrong all right, Jim, thanks for having me but by it. Thank you, listeners, for tuning to the show. For more, please subscribe to the show in your favorite podcast player. If you or someone you know would make a great guest on the show, please connect with me, Jim, the host of the show, via email jim at pursuit pgr Sui tcom. We'd love to hear from you.

In-Stream Audio Search

NEW

Search across all episodes within this podcast

Episodes (63)