The results are in – AMC-management model generated more consistent operating surpluses and grew reserves to a greater extent between 2006 and 2015 than did the non-AMC-model (i.e., directly employed staff and full financial responsibility for occupancy and capital costs).
(Full report here…)
For those familiar with the AMC-model, this is not a big surprise. What is newsworthy about the results is that we have credible evidence about the advantages of the model for associations. These results add to previous studies conducted in the past decade showing that the AMC-model is both the less-expensive alternative to hiring staff directly and shouldering all operational costs, including capital purchases, but also the more productive association management model. In short, the non-AMC model is overpriced and under-performing!
These latest results lead to a more interesting set of questions: Why does the AMC-model outperform the non-AMC-model? What’s the AMC-model’s ‘secret-sauce”?