_Jun/handicapping.jpg "handicapping.jpg")
On Wall Street it’s often said that “financial markets don’t like uncertainty.” Commercial businesses on Main Street also value a stable environment—or at least some idea of how current conditions may change. In 2017, after eight years of one administration, America gets a new president, and odds are it’ll be either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. Before these nominees were chosen, a nonprofit institute that serves accountants and controllers surveyed its members regarding the uncertainty a presidential election causes for decision-makers, especially where workforce strategy and capital spending are concerned.
Regarding workforce, a full 81 percent of respondents to this AIPCA survey said the election isn’t a factor in their staffing decisions (56 percent) or that they expect to continue hiring at their current pace (25 percent). About 13 percent expected to delay hiring until after the election, and 5 percent said they would reduce hiring in the meantime. Asked about cap-ex and business expansion, most said the election either won’t be a factor (53 percent) or that they’ll continue spending at the current pace (27 percent). Another 10 percent said they would defer capital outlays until after the election, while 8 percent said they would reduce them prior to the voting.
When course owners were asked about the 2016 election, responses ranged from the general to the specific. David Kramer, owner and general manager of the 36-hole Los Serranos Country Club in Chino Hills, California, has “never looked to elected officials for meaningful leadership,” which leaves him with only a passing interest in this year’s campaign rhetoric. “The golf business teaches you that what matters most takes place in one-to-one connections,” says Kramer. “People feel the most anxiety and discord when their focus gets away from their community. As a business, our golf course serves the community and brings people together—what we do is bigger than presidential politics.”
Chris Sauer, part of an ownership group that controls three golf facilities in Minnesota and Wisconsin, says his company has been on a good run for several years, but he’s wary of regulatory overreach. “Politics is so divided now that a president can’t get anything passed through Congress,” says Sauer. “As a result, we see this White House turning very active with its various agencies—the EPA, the Department of Labor, some others. Between now and November, I can imagine a lot of environmental and wage-and-hour rules getting pushed through, and that could cause us difficulties.”
Linda Rogers is another course owner concerned about agency initiatives that could throw a wrench into profit-and-loss calculations. “Government regulations that ensure public safety and certain other basics are necessary,” says Rogers. “Other regulations might sound good, but there are usually lots of unintended consequences.” She points out that prospective overtime-pay regulations, as applied to seasonal workers, can be misguided. “Yes, you will find workers pulling very long shifts at golf courses in the summer,” Rogers says. “[But] in the winter, they might only be working 20 hours. In the end, things balance out.” She cites the WOTUS regulation that expands federal jurisdiction over bodies of water, as another example of overreach.
Rogers had presidential politics staring her in the face during her interview, which took place on the day of the Indiana primary. Juday Creek Golf Course, owned by Linda and her husband, Mike, was being used as a precinct polling place, due to renovations at the nearby church where voting is usually held. “We had no event scheduled so we moved the tables out of our banquet space and let them bring in the voting booths,” Rogers says. “And I’m glad we did because it’s given us exposure to a whole lot of people who’ve never been here.” A panoramic view of the course, with fruit trees in colorful bloom, may have created some hot prospects for wedding bookings, surmises Rogers.
—David Gould