Updated July 4, 2020 – As of June 28 the total number of positive tests for COVID-19 in the 6 Bay Area counties reached 22,566. The 6-County daily rate of change was 2.01% (It’s been between 2.89% and 1.06% since June 14 – we’re starting to trend in the wrong direction). See the line chart (third chart).
I recently attended the annual meeting of the AMC Institute in Long Beach, CA. For a west coast venue, there was good turn out and Long Beach Convention and Visitors’ Bureau rolled out the red carpet.
There was a program this year that resurrected an old topic: “Trusted Development as a Client Partnership Strategy” presented by Michael Reed of Bloch and Reed (Association Advisors). Bloch and Reed is not an AMC, so in defining their role with clients as a “trusted partner”, I have no issue. I continue to have an issue defining the AMC-Client relationship as a “partnership” for the same reasons I did back in April 2009 when I first posted on this topic. (“AMCs More Like Agents Than Partners”)
The results are in: The 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).
Read the 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 that demonstrates the advantages of the AMC 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, and also the more productive association management model.
In short, the non-AMC model is overpriced and under-performing.
These latest results lead to an interesting set of questions: Why does the AMC model outperform the non-AMC-model? What’s the AMC model’s ‘secret-sauce”?