WASHINGTON — More people signed contracts to buy U.S. homes last month as warm weather and rising confidence appeared to encourage consumers to look for houses.

The National Association of Realtors said Wednesday that its pending home sales index climbed 5.5 percent in February to 112.3, its highest point since April and its second-highest point since 2006.

Lawrence Yun, the Realtors' chief economist, suggested that a rising stock market had helped bolster confidence. "Last month being the warmest February in decades also played a role in kick-starting prospective buyers' house hunt," Yun said.

In addition, rising prices may have nudged some people into making offers for homes now out of fear of having to pay more if they wait.

The NAR's index of pending home sales rose 11.4 percent in the Midwest, 4.3 percent in the South, 3.4 percent in the Northeast and 3.1 percent in the West.

The U.S. housing market is looking strong despite a sharp rise in mortgage rates since the presidential election. The average on a benchmark 30-year fixed rate loan was 4.23 percent last week, up from 3.54 percent the week before the Nov. 8 vote.

Investors bid up rates in part out of expectation that President Donald Trump's plans to cut taxes and increase spending on defense and infrastructure would raise economic growth and inflation.

The Realtors reported last week that sales of existing homes fell in February after having surged in January to the fastest pace in a decade. Sales were still up solidly from a year earlier.

The supply of homes for sale is tight and is helping to drive prices up and affordability down. The number of listings for sale has tumbled 6.4 percent over the past year to 1.75 million homes last month, up only slightly from a record low in January.

The supply of homes for sale has fallen on an annual basis for the past 21 months.

(Copyright 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. economy grew at a slightly faster rate in the fourth quarter than earlier estimates, as consumers powered economic momentum heading into 2017.

The gross domestic product, the economy's total output of goods and services, expanded at an annual rate of 2.1 percent in the October-December period, the Commerce Department reported Thursday. That is an improvement from the previous estimate of 1.9 percent. The added strength stemmed from stronger consumer spending, which offset an increased drag from trade.

The small change to the fourth quarter did not alter growth for the entire year, which came in at an anemic 1.6 percent. It was the worst showing in five years. President Donald Trump has pledged to boost GDP growth to 4 percent or better, though private economists are doubtful.

For the fourth quarter, the government revised its estimate for consumer spending, which accounts for two-thirds of economic activity, to a growth rate of 3.5 percent from a previous estimate of 3 percent.

The economy also got a boost from slightly stronger rebuilding of business stockpiles. However, these increases were offset somewhat by a bigger trade deficit, which subtracts from GDP growth, and less business investment.

The 2.1 percent GDP growth in the fourth quarter came after a 3.5 percent spurt of growth in the third quarter. For the current quarter, analysts believe growth will come in around 2 percent

Since the Great Recession ended in mid-2009, annual growth has averaged 2.1 percent, the worst performance for any recovery in the post-World War II period.

Trump vowed during the campaign to double economic growth to 4 percent or better. He said his economic program of tax cuts, deregulation and increased spending in such areas as the military and infrastructure would boost the economy back to growth rates not seen on a sustained basis in decades.

However, Trump's legislative agenda received a setback last week when Republicans were forced to pull a measure to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act because they did not have enough votes in the House of Representatives. Despite the setback, Trump has said the administration will soon unveil a plan to cut individual and corporate tax rates, a key component of his stimulus program.

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said last week that even if the initial goal of getting the tax measure approved by August slips, he still believes the plan can win congressional approval by this fall.

Mnuchin has cited a lower goal of growth above 3 percent. Private economists, however, believe the impact of Trump's stimulus efforts will be even smaller. Top forecasters with the National Association for Business Economists on Monday projected GDP growth this year of 2.3 percent, rising only slightly to 2.5 percent in 2018.

Private economists believe that even with the full adoption of Trump's stimulus program, the economy will be facing stiff headwinds such as an aging workforce as the baby boomers retire and disappointing gains in productivity. Growth in the labor force and productivity growth are the two key components that determine potential GDP growth.

Another complicating factor for Trump's program is the Federal Reserve, which earlier this month boosted a key interest rate for the second time in three months and retained a projection for a total of three rate hikes this year. The Fed is raising interest rates to make sure that inflation does not become a problem but higher rates could make it harder to achieve faster GDP growth.

(Copyright 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

WASHINGTON — U.S. consumers increased their spending at the weakest pace in six months, while the 12-month rise in consumer prices was the largest in nearly five years.

Consumer spending edged up 0.1 percent in February following a similarly sluggish 0.2 percent increase in January, the Commerce Department reported Friday. The small gains suggest that overall economic growth likely slowed in the first quarter.

Incomes, however, were up a solid 0.4 percent in February, offering hope for stronger consumer spending in the months ahead.

Meanwhile, an inflation gauge closely watched by the Federal Reserve increased 2.1 percent in February compared to a year ago. It is the sharpest 12-month rise since March 2012 and slightly above the Fed's 2 percent inflation target.

The Fed raised a key interest rate in March, just three months after a hike in December. Officials have sent signals that the pace of rate hikes will accelerate this year after seven years of stagnant rates at a record low near zero. In the last two years, the Fed nudged rates up just one time in each of those years.

The overall economy grew at a 2.1 percent rate in the October-December quarter, supported by a strong gain in consumer spending.

But with the recent weakness in spending, which accounts for 70 percent of economic activity, many analysts believe growth in the January-March quarter could slow to a rate of 1.5 percent or less.

However, economists expect the economy will accelerate later this year to rates around 2.5 percent or more if President Donald Trump is successful in winning approval for his economic stimulus package, which includes tax cuts, infrastructure spending increases and deregulation.

Another reason for the optimistic spending outlook is the recent surge in consumer confidence, which by the Conference Board's measure hit a 16-year high in March.

The February spending figure reflected in part an unusually mild winter, which sapped demand for utilities. Services, the category that covers utility payments, was up just 0.1 percent. Spending on goods was also weak, with purchases of long-lasting durable goods such as autos down 0.1 percent. Nondurable goods spending showed no change.

The combination of a strong gain in incomes and modest rise in spending pushed the saving rate up to 5.6 percent of after-tax income in February, the highest level since October and up from 5.4 percent in January.

(Copyright 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

Jonathan Breedlove has joined AgHeritage Farm Credit Services as agriculture loan officer in the Dermott branch office.

He previously worked as a sales representative at Arkansas Ag Co.

See more of this week's Movers & Shakers, and submit your own announcement at ArkansasBusiness.com/Movers.

Joey Small has been named to the list of America’s Top 1,200 Advisors: State-by-State, published by Barron’s magazine.

He is a private wealth adviser at Ameriprise Financial in Little Rock.

Alexandra Kosmitis has joined Simmons Bank in Little Rock as executive project manager.

In her new role, she will lead and administer various executive and companywide projects. An attorney and certified public accountant, she previously worked as an associate at the Pine Bluff law firm Bridges Young Matthews & Drake.

Tyler Steele, Tommy Coughlin and Carla Martinez have been promoted at Grand Savings Bank.

Steele has been named vice chairman of the board of directors at the bank in Bentonville. In addition to his board duties, Steele oversees all market presidents and is responsible for the bank’s loan and deposit growth as well as business development and community involvement. He joined the bank in 2012 as the northwest Arkansas market president and board member.

Coughlin has been promoted to market president of the Bentonville and Rogers area. He previously served as a vice president and loan officer.

Martinez has been promoted to market president of western Benton County. This expands her previous role as market president of the Gentry and Decatur locations to include Siloam Springs and Gravette, which will open in the summer of 2017.

Natalie Bartholomew has joined Grand Savings Bank in Rogers as the new chief marketing officer and vice president. She will also work as a loan officer while serving roles in business development, company expansion and meeting the needs of a growing customer base. She joins the bank with more than 16 years of banking experience.

Dan SanRoman has been hired as operations manager at Snap Shot Services in Little Rock. He previously worked as an appraisal specialist at Centennial Bank.

Teresa Sutterfield and Carla Mabry have joined Stone Bank in Mountain View. Sutterfield will be customer service manager, and Mabry will serve as a senior customer service representative.

Sutterfield was previously a universal banker for First Service Bank as well as an assistant vice president and branch manager for First Security Bank of Mountain View and a branch manager for Bank of Mountain View.

Mabry has held banking positions at Bank of Mountain View and First Service Bank in Mountain View.

See more of this week's Movers & Shakers, and submit your own announcement at ArkansasBusiness.com/Movers.

A country singer/songwriter who lives in Hardy in north Arkansas recently received a $2.1 million jury award against a Missouri bank for selling the master recordings of his songs and his recording equipment.

David Lynn Jones, who wrote “Living in the Promiseland,” which became a No. 1 hit for Willie Nelson in 1986, sued West Plains Bank & Trust of Missouri in 2012 in U.S. District Court in Batesville for selling the master tapes to 114 of his songs and his $35,000 recorder for just $430, according to his attorney, Gary Speed of Little Rock.

Jones, who had his own top 10 record in 1987 with “Bonnie Jean (Little Sister),” had given the equipment and the five albums’ worth of songs to his friend, Robert “Bobby” Roberts in West Plains, Missouri, for him to transfer from analog to digital.

Roberts, though, had defaulted on a loan with the bank, which then foreclosed on Roberts’ property, including his studio containing Jones’ songs and equipment, Speed said.

As a result, in 2011 the bank took possession of Jones’ property, even though Jones “didn’t have any obligation to West Plains Bank at all,” Speed said.

Roberts told the bank that the items belonged to Jones, but that argument fell on deaf ears. The items were then sold for $430. Because trash was in the studio, the bank thought the equipment and tapes had been abandoned, Speed said.

Jones sued the bank for taking the items.

During the five-day trial in March, the person who bought Jones’ items sold them back to him for $430.

Nevertheless, for years Jones “wasn’t able to have the songs mixed into digital works that could have been made available for downloading,” Speed said.

The jury awarded Jones $600,000 for compensatory damages and $1.5 million for punitive damages.

The bank is expected to file a motion for get a new trial.

Its attorney, Bryan Wade of Husch Blackwell LLP of Springfield, Missouri, didn’t immediately return a call for comment.

A new lender and a new contractor are accompanying a restart of the dormant K Lofts project in downtown Little Rock.

A subsidiary of Ardent Financial of Atlanta provided a one-year funding agreement of $2 million to get the 32-unit apartment redevelopment moving again.

According to loan documents, $1.8 million was used to refinance the original construction loan and pay outstanding bills for work to bring new life to the 115-year-old building at 315 Main St.

Most of that money went to repay Fort Smith’s Creek Capital Partners LLC, which in December purchased the original $1.3 million first mortgage from IberiaBank.

Another chunk went to Little Rock’s AMR Construction LLC, the original contractor on the project.

After pulling off the job on April Fools’ Day 2015, AMR filed a lien claim of $196,440 divided between two contracts.

More than $143,700 was owed on the original $2.1 million contract to redevelop the upper floors of the once-dilapidated five-story building.

More than $52,600 was owed on an $825,300 contract to re-pair a partial collapse of the east wall in 2013.

The remaining $200,000 from the Ardent loan is devoted to pay for work needed to complete the project.

Who is finishing the job?

That would be MWF Construction LLC, led by Matt Foster.

We understand that installation of appliances and flooring are the biggest items remaining. These tasks and the necessary final inspections could be completed before Memorial Day.

Arkansas labor and employment attorneys are keeping an eye on challenges to the U.S. Department of Labor’s overtime rules as well as a bill that would amend the Minimum Wage Act in Arkansas.

The Labor Department had planned to raise the pay threshold for salaried workers to be considered exempt from overtime rules, but the issue has been mired in court since late last year. The salary level has been $23,600 a year since 2004. But just before Dec. 1, when the threshold was supposed to jump to $47,476, a federal judge in Texas blocked the change with an injunction. Some employers, including St. Bernards Healthcare in Jonesboro, had already made staffing changes to prepare for the new rules.

The Department of Labor has appealed the judge’s ruling to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where it remains.

“Things are still in limbo,” said attorney Jane A. Kim, whose practice area includes employer and workplace issues at the Wright Lindsey Jennings law firm in Little Rock. “This uncertainty is certainly frustrating, and it’s challenging.”

Meanwhile, the Arkansas House of Representatives passed a bill last week that could keep employers from having to pay employees for putting on and taking off protective gear. As of Thursday morning, the bill was pending in the state Senate.

The legislation is in response to an opinion last May by the Arkansas Supreme Court that upheld an award of $3 million to workers at a Gerber Products Co. baby food plant in Fort Smith who had not been paid for the time it took to put on and take off protective clothing, even though the union and the company agreed that the workers wouldn’t be paid for that time.

The bill would allow a union and a company to agree to make those types of collective bargaining decisions.

“We think it’s a bad bill,” said Tim Steadman of Holleman & Associates PA of Little Rock, one of the attorneys who represented the Gerber employees. “It’s a right-to-work state. You don’t have to be a member of a union. … The union shouldn’t be able to trade your rights.”

The sponsor of the bill, Rep. Charlie Collins, R-Fayetteville, said the bill would affect few workers in Arkansas and is designed to mirror federal law.

“The AFL-CIO is OK” with the legislation, Collins said. “It does not interfere with collective bargaining rights, so to my knowledge there’s no significant opposition.”

Gerber also believes it is the right legislation, said one of the company’s attorneys, E.B. “Chip” Chiles IV of the Quattlebaum Grooms & Tull PLLC law firm in Little Rock.

“Throughout the litigation, Gerber took the position that the terms of the collective bargaining process should be honored, and Gerber believes that now,” Chiles said.

Overtime Rules
Attorney J. Bruce Cross of the Cross Gunter Witherspoon & Galchus firm in Little Rock said it might be some time before the Department of Labor’s overtime regulations are settled.

Cross, whose practice area includes employment issues, said President Donald Trump’s nominee for secretary of labor, R. Alexander Acosta, could modify the overtime rules if approved by the Senate.

And Cross said he thinks when a secretary of labor is confirmed, the Department of Labor “will come back with something that would be more acceptable to more people and have a better chance of being successful.”

In addition, whatever decision the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals makes on the overtime rules will probably be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, he said.

If the overtime rules had been implemented as proposed on Dec. 1, they were expected to award pay to 4.2 million Americans, about 50,000 of them in Arkansas, who previously wouldn’t have been eligible for it.

Kim, the attorney with Wright Lindsey Jennings, said that some of her clients had already made the changes to meet the requirement of the overtime rules before the injunction came down. Those employers are keeping the changes in place.

However, some of her clients who were moving toward making staffing changes put those on hold once the injunction was issued.

She advises her clients who have already adjusted employee salaries or statuses to keep them in place, Kim said.

“But, then, if employers who decided not to make any of the changes, … I think they may want to consider tracking the hours of any employees who may end up being reclassified just in case the rule is enforced retroactively,” Kim said.

Employers’ Strategies Differ
Last summer, St. Bernards Healthcare worked on its strategy for the looming overtime regulations.

It had two options, said Lori Smith, the health company’s vice president of human resources: Either increase the individual salaries or reclassify workers as nonexempt and pay them overtime.

She estimated that only about 50 employees out of about 3,000 needed the adjustment.

Even though the overtime rules weren’t expected to go into effect until Dec. 1, St. Bernards adjusted its employees’ status or pay on Oct. 1.

Some employees received a bump in pay so they could remain exempt, while others who were salaried employees became hourly workers. Those newly nonexempt employees now receive overtime pay when they previously didn’t, Smith said.

“It was really a benefit to our staff,” she said.

When the overtime rules were put on hold, St. Bernards kept the employment changes because of the benefits to the employees.

Smith said the estimated annual increase in payroll expense is $100,000.

Unity Health in Searcy took a different path. It decided to wait to see the final outcome of the overtime rule before making employee adjustments, which were estimated to cost the health care organization a little less than $100,000, said Stuart Hill, Unity Health’s vice president and treasurer.

He said some employees would not have been happy being moved from a salaried position to an hourly classification. “It was an employee satisfaction issue, and it was going to cost us extra dollars,” Hill said.

Minimum Wage Clarity
Last week, the Arkansas House passed a bill on a 92-0 vote to clarify the Minimum Wage Act in Arkansas. The bill was a response to the Arkansas Supreme Court opinion involving the Gerber workers.

In 2012, the workers filed a lawsuit in Sebastian County Circuit Court charging that they weren’t being paid for all the time they worked at the plant, which included putting on and taking off their protective clothes. The employees’ union and Gerber had agreed that the workers wouldn’t be paid for that time.

The state Supreme Court found, in a 4-3 decision issued on May 26, that the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act requires the workers to be paid for the time.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Rhonda K. Wood wrote that the court’s decision means “the floodgates will open to litigation at the enormous cost to businesses in Arkansas.”

Steadman said he hadn’t heard of any lawsuits being filed as a result of the opinion.

Rep. Collins, however, said a few lawsuits had been filed.

Steadman said that Collins’ bill further muddies the water on the definition of what work is.

“If the Legislature had set out to define what work is, that would provide clarity for both employers and employees to know what’s work, what kind of activities you have to pay for,” he said.

And he said that might lead to more lawsuits. “Employees are still going to feel, rightly, that they’re being cheated if they’re forced to perform tasks that they’re not paid for,” Steadman said.

Collins thinks his bill is clear and is “the best that any human can come up with.” But a lawyer “makes money by creating discord and lack of clarity,” he said. “So if I’m a lawyer, that’s what I’m going to focus on: ‘Where are the seams and how do I pull them apart?’”

Being a small business owner these days is tough. Entrepreneurs face challenges at every turn and it requires personal investment of time, talent and treasure to be successful. Not the least of these challenges is stretching available resources by taking on operational tasks personally.

It’s no secret entrepreneurs wear many hats; many times they are the marketing department, the HR department, the purchasing department and the cleaning crew all rolled into one. Even those businesspeople who have grown past the stage where they have to do everything themselves still feel that tug to stay connected to many of these functions in the name of retaining tight controls.

Bookkeeping is one of those business functions that’s often an afterthought for small business owners, something to be done on weekends or passed off to one’s spouse, in order to save money. That works in theory, but with everything else that can pop up, bookkeeping tasks are also easy targets to be pushed to the side. With everything that can come along unexpectedly in a typical day, it’s altogether too easy to save updating the books for another time.

One big negative of postponing your bookkeeping tasks, maybe because a machine broke or a client moved up a deadline, is such tasks have a tendency to snowball, putting you constantly in catch-up mode and increasing the chance for errors. Moreover, bookkeeping is more than keeping an up-to-date ledger, it’s a roadmap for how your company is doing and what direction to take next to overcome challenges and maximize opportunities in the marketplace. You can’t do that very well without accurate, up-to-date records.

A Helping Hand

When it comes to bookkeeping functions, business owners of every size can benefit from the help of a designated individual, be it through hiring the right help, assigning the tasks to an existing employee or enlisting the services of a third-party vendor. Sometimes the decision to farm these tasks out is made for the entrepreneur, as their business has grown beyond the limits of their available time and expertise. Whatever your motivation for considering a designated bookkeeper, there are several factors you need to consider.

First, consider your needs for timeliness and accessibility of information. If your business demands access to your financials daily or several times a week, it’s probably better to have someone just down the hall than to go through an outside vendor who, besides being offsite, is taking care of several clients besides you. Companies who don’t need that level of access may find it more cost effective to retain outside help versus shouldering the load of salary, insurance and office space of a new hire.

Of course, many small companies maximize their investment in employees by giving them additional responsibilities, such as HR or office manager functions. Here again, one runs the risk of bookkeeping duties taking a back seat to other matters, all of which are demanding the employee’s immediate attention.

There’s also the old adage, “The right tool for the right job,” to consider. Is the person to whom you’re assigning these duties up to the task in terms of training, organization or skill set? If you hire someone new, are you willing to share such company sensitive information with someone you don’t know well?

Expertise Matters

One strategy that many small business owners have employed is splitting the bookkeeping work to include the best elements of in-house and outside help, saving time and money in the process. Companies train someone on staff for day-to-day data entry with some management oversight, then have a qualified outside entity clean it up, reconcile everything and get reports to management in a timely manner.

This hybrid system also keeps tasks within the realm of a business owner’s — or their employees’ — respective skill set. As with legal services, airline pilots or your doctor, there are some things where you’re just better off leaving things to a professional. A reputable outside firm is going to have the expertise to handle just about anything your business can throw at it and, equally important, translate those issues into terms you can understand. That alone often justifies the cost of such services.

Put another way, you are the expert in your business and accountants and bookkeepers are the experts in theirs. Recognizing the value of such expertise can save you a lot of time, headache and ultimately money over doing it yourself.

Kelly M. Phillips, CPA

Principal, Bell & Company, P.A.

Paul Kanneman has joined Simmons Bank as executive vice president and chief information officer. In his role as CIO at Simmons, Kanneman’s duties will include management of information technology infrastructure, physical and information security, data analytics, business applications and information technology project management.

Kanneman worked the previous 14 years for the international accounting firm Grant Thornton and was based in Dallas. Kanneman has more than 30 years of experience in management consulting, technology management and governance advisory services. During his time at Grant Thornton, Kanneman served in multiple leadership roles, including time as the national managing principal of the firm’s technology, business consulting, governance, risk and compliance services. He served clients in the banking and financial services industries ranging from small community banks to global financial services companies.

Kanneman graduated from the University of Toledo in Ohio and then served as a U.S. Army intelligence officer for seven years.

Ben Wilburn has joined Equity Bank in Harrison as assistant vice president and commercial lender. He previously was a credit analyst and commercial banker for Arvest Bank’s Clarksville and Harrison locations.

Richard T. Puloma recently joined the Arkansas State Bank Department in Little Rock as an information systems examiner trainee. Puloma has been employed since graduation in May 2016 as an assistant manager at Puloma Properties LLC in Conway.

Landi Mkhize has been promoted to chief financial officer of Chambers Bancshares Inc. in Danville, the holding company for Chambers Bank. Mkhize, a 2005 graduate of the University of Arkansas, spent eight years with the Arkansas State Bank Department before joining Chambers Bank in 2013 as controller. He was CFO until his most recent promotion.

See more of this week's Movers & Shakers, and submit your own announcement at ArkansasBusiness.com/Movers.

Which numbers do you believe these days?

Marketers, pollsters, meteorologists, economic forecasters and many other professionals face a rising tide of skepticism when they try to inform and persuade via statistics. Some of the damage has been self-inflicted, when people who are in the description business have ventured into the prediction business. The most recent election was a vivid example.

Still, skepticism about statistics and claims has been growing for some time — across industries and national borders. As just one example, the 2011 Nielsen Global Survey found that people around the world are skeptical about the health claims found on food packaging (e.g. “low fat” or “all natural”). More than two-thirds of respondents believed nutritional claims are either never trustworthy or only sometimes trustworthy.

Business people need to understand data and use it to communicate effectively with consumers, regulators and the media. How can you make your case, clearly and honestly, in such a skeptical age? Here are three important considerations when using statistics to educate and persuade:

Use the right communication tools. Mathematical literacy and attention are typically in short supply, so brevity is a good starting point. I have seen people stuff 10 statistics into a single PowerPoint slide or a few dozen into an article or white paper. The audience is quickly overwhelmed. It’s a better idea to focus on one or two statistics at a time.

Some ideas are easier to convey through statistics than are others. In that Nielsen survey, the most trusted health claims on food packaging were calorie counts, vitamin content, and fat content—things that appear to consumers as scientific, objective and easily measured.

On the other hand, consumers generally don’t believe more ambiguous claims such as “fresh” and “heart-healthy.” (Only 15 percent of respondents thought those types of claims are always accurate.)

Graphs, bar charts, and infographics convey authority and credibility. Consider using them, especially if you have a more complex, ambiguous idea to support.

Match your data to common understanding and personal experiences. Many organizations try to use statistics to educate some segment of the public. But what if the public doesn’t understand? The Nielsen survey found that only 41 percent of consumers around the world even “mostly understand” nutritional labels. That figure, already low, was down from 44 percent back in 2008.

Part of the solution is to take data from a rather dry context (product labels) and connect it to more everyday experiences. For example, health experts typically recommend that adults drink 64 ounces of water per day. On its own, that number is difficult to remember and apply. But when you instead recommend eight 8-ounce glasses or four half-liter bottles of water per day the guidelines are easier to visualize.

Mona Chalabi, a data journalist, recently gave a TED Talk on statistics that included a great example.

She demonstrated the average distribution of flu season by month through a hand-drawn chart. Rather than lines or bars, her chart featured six noses representing the months of October-March. The length of, um, stuff coming out of each nose represented the number of times that month was the peak of flu season in each year since 1982. The visual might cause a lot of cringing, but it is easily relatable for everyone.

Be clear about sources and limitations. In the past I have written about the uncertainties associated with polls and interpreting them. There are many, including sampling (who was selected), response rates (how many actually participated) and the order and wording of questions. Each can introduce errors and biases. If you are transparent with the audience about the source of your statistics, then that act alone will blunt some skepticism.

(Editor's Note: A different headline appeared on this column in the April 10, 2017 issue of Arkansas Business.)

Jim Karrh of Little Rock is a consultant, coach and professional speaker as well as a consulting principal with DSG. Visit JimKarrh.com, email him at Jim@JimKarrh.com and follow him on Twitter @JimKarrh.

A Fulton County native, Richardson started at U.S. Bank in Mountain Home. He became district manager for the Little Rock area nine years ago before moving to Columbia, Missouri, to be a regional president. Last year, Richardson returned to lead the Arkansas Region after the retirement of Michael Shelley, U.S. Bank’s previous regional president for Arkansas.

He’s a University of Central Arkansas graduate and attended the Graduate School of Banking at LSU. He and his wife, Sherry, have three children: Brittney, who played basketball for the Lady Razorbacks; Dane, a senior at the University of Arkansas; and Taylor, a pupil at Chenal Elementary.

U.S. Bank may be thought of as a central Arkansas business, but how many households does the company work with in the state?

We have 40 branch locations in the state, with about half in the central Arkansas area. We serve more than 256,000 consumer customers in Arkansas, more than 13,100 businesses, and have close to 350 employees. U.S. Bank is the fifth-largest commercial bank in the United States and has a rich heritage of serving consumers and businesses in Arkansas.

What loans do you see moving and what does that tell us about Arkansas’ economy?

We have observed an increase in our business banking applications and production since the beginning of 2017. Our balance growth is one of the strongest throughout the company for equipment lending. We’ve worked with businesses to upgrade their technology or to finance specialized equipment that’s sometimes difficult to finance with normal channels.

Commercial real estate lending has been strength for us. It is still early in the year, but we hope to see growth in businesses investing in technology and equipment upgrades.

Do you worry that rising interest rates will stifle the economy or are they a good sign?

Rising rates reflect a healthy economy. Rates need to get back to normal at some point. Increases in the Fed Funds rate will signal that our economy is heading in a positive direction. The frequency of adjustments will be something to watch closely. Consumer confidence is at a 15-year year high.

With a lot of banking done online, what does the future hold for bank branches?

Technology plays a large role how customers are interacting with money. They have instant access to their accounts and the ability to conduct business anytime, anywhere. It’s an exciting period in payments history, and U.S. Bank is a leader in the field with P2P payments (person to person). We’ve been at the forefront of launching Apple Pay, Samsung Pay and Android Pay.

Banking is a relationship business. The key to the future is to be able to provide the latest technology to enhance the banking experience, at the same time capturing the fact the interaction with the branch staff remains pivotal. It’s the function of the branch teams to lead the customers through change.

What banking trends are you focused on now?

U.S. Bank’s dedication to doing the right thing has made it one of the most stable, reputable banks in the industry. U.S. Bank has been honored as one of the “World’s Most Ethical Companies” by Ethisphere, an independent organization, for three straight years. That reflects the way business is conducted, fostering a culture of ethics and transparency at every level. We have also been named one of the World’s Most Admired Companies by Fortune.

I hope to attract, retain and develop bankers for the future. Last year, we moved a new team to Arkansas that supports areas for the rest of our footprint. For this market, my family and I just moved back to Arkansas, because it’s home and because of the opportunity I see for growth. We want to grow in all areas.

More Arkansas investors will soon have more options for putting their money to work.

The Arkansas Legislature passed and Gov. Asa Hutchinson signed Act 668 in March to loosen some restrictions for non-accredited investors, though all details haven’t yet been worked out.

Act 668 was the state’s response to Title III of the federal JOBS Act of 2012, which went into effect in 2016 to help entrepreneurs and small businesses raise capital through crowdfunding.

An accredited investor is someone whose net worth is at least $1 million or whose annual income is $200,000 or more. Non-accredited investors don’t meet those qualifications and, before Title III, were heavily restricted from equity investing in private companies.

The new state law is directed at Arkansas companies with Arkansas investors. Individual non-accredited Arkansas investors can invest up to $5,000 in an Arkansas-based business.

The law was sponsored by Rep. Robin Lundstrum, R-Springdale, but was drafted by the Arkansas Securities Department. ASD Chief Counsel David Smith said the department wanted to get the bill enacted two years ago.

The department hopes to have rules and regulations for Act 668 finalized in time for its implementation in August.

“This is something that has been studied by the state for some time,” Smith said. “A number of other states have had this law in effect. There are pluses and minuses to it. There were arguments of ‘it’s going to be rampant with fraud.’ By limiting the amount people can invest, that limits their risk exposure. There are some safeguards in there with it.”

Title III of the JOBS Act opened the door for small-time investors, but not many people have used the opportunity. ASD Deputy Commissioner Ann McDougal said the department hasn’t received one filing of investment since the JOBS Act went into effect in May 2016.

“Unfortunately, the tidal wave of changing how businesses are capitalized hasn’t really been realized to the effect that the early dreamers might have hoped,” said James Murphy, CEO of EquityNet. “If you look at the amount of money that goes into small businesses on an annual basis in terms of equity versus loans, the lending market just squashes the equity market. The majority of volume that is fueling liquidity in the small business space is with loans.”

Shopping for Dough

EquityNet is an online platform to help entrepreneurs and businesses connect with willing equity investors. It was founded by Judd Hollas in Fayetteville in 2005; Hollas left the company in 2015 and the company left Fayetteville and was acquired by Pittsburgh investment bank Capital Foundry in 2016.

Murphy, who replaced Hollas as CEO, said the best part of Title III is that it allows general online solicitation of funding, so it makes it easier for businesses and money to find each other.

“One of the most important things in general is that discovery process,” Murphy said. “It’s amazing how many deals get done very localized in Texas, in Arkansas. It wasn’t necessarily that you found someone outside the state. Even if a guy lives a mile away, you’re not going to run into him at a coffee shop and know he’s looking for funding. It’s a great discovery method for like-minded, whether you’re looking to invest or be invested in.”

Murphy said EquityNet focuses more on established companies looking to expand rather than startups. Title III, while opening up the door to small investors, can still be restrictive.

“The specific Title III rule is actually a very arduous fundraising process; it’s very expensive,” Murphy said. “The thinking by the legislature is that if we’re letting non-accredited investors in, these are non-sophisticated investors, we need to put a lot of safeguards in place. The safeguards on a small investment take up a lot of time and effort and costs. The end result is not a lot of money has transacted in that regulation, a miniscule amount.”

McDougal said the state regulations will have some of the same provisions of Title III, and Smith said the administrative expenses shouldn’t be a recurring fee that becomes overly punitive.

“People who are raising $100,000 to $500,000, it does give you access to whole new group of investors previously you had to turn away,” said Cal Rose, an attorney at the Wright Lindsey Jennings law firm in Rogers who specializes in securities and investments, before referring to the $5,000 limit per investor. “I think this will actually be used and be helpful. That’s still a sizable enough piece. It can make a difference.”

Getting the Word Out

Equity crowdfunding isn’t the only way a company can get itself some startup or expansion dollars. Entrepreneurs can use online platforms such as Kickstarter and Indiegogo that don’t offer equity but other incentives.

Two years ago, friends Michael Iseman and Jay Clark dreamed up a board game patterned after the classic Life game but with a modern, mature twist. To get the game to market, they started a Kickstarter campaign to raise $10,000 — after an attempt to raise $25,000 failed.

Everyone who pledged $30 was promised a first-edition game. Those who gave $100 also got a video of the two men doing a silly stunt like eating a spoonful of Cinnamon or slapping one another.

Iseman, a University of Arkansas graduate and an employee at Startup Junkie Consulting in Fayetteville, is a serial entrepreneur who was part of a team in college that started a business for a robotic arm for use in pathology labs. Still, all of his and Clark’s ideas were stagnant until they were able to raise $10,500 through Kickstarter.

The first 540 games are due in Fayetteville later this month; 190 are pledged to their contributors.

“With more attention, we could bridge that education [gap] of what is crowdfunding, then there would be a lot of room to grow,” said Iseman, 25. “The first time we launched our board game on Kickstarter, I had a lot of people congratulate me for launching. They didn’t understand, ‘No, this is when I need your help. This is nothing if Kickstarter isn’t successful.’”

Whether investors have deep pockets or not, Murphy said that building the crowdfunding industry is important, and having professionals manage the system is key as the investor class grows.

“It’s a safe investment and a good investment to invest in growing companies,” Murphy said. “I’m not so sure it should be click on the TV and throw some cash at whatever pops up. There is a big time appetite. People are going to the private markets.

“With interest also comes a lot of bad actors. You see a rise in everything, which is why it is important to go to places there are established and have been around for awhile and know what to look for.”

A change of ownership is in motion for Little Rock’s One Bank & Trust. The U.S. government has asked for a court-ordered stock sale of controlling interest in the $305 million-asset bank.

No date has been set for the sale, but a proposed order indicates the sale will be held at the Marshals Service office at the federal courthouse in Washington.

Court filings reveal several parties that have expressed an interest in possibly acquiring One Bank: Bank of England, First Financial Banc Corp., parent company of El Dorado’s First Financial Bank; EJF Capital LLC of Arlington, Virginia; Home BancShares Inc. of Conway and Arvest Bank of Fayetteville.

“Half a dozen have looked at the bank,” said Paul Berry, chairman of the board at One Bank. “Some have performed due diligence and some haven’t.

“There are several potential suitors still in play, at least three or four, maybe five.”

For now, ownership of One Bank continues to reside with its insolvent parent company, OneFinancial Corp. The 344,577 shares held by OneFinancial represent a 99 percent stake in the struggling bank.

Rocked by bad loans and mismanagement, One Bank hasn’t produced a normal quarterly profit since the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ousted Layton “Scooter” Stuart in September 2012.

Stuart, chairman, president and CEO of the bank and OneFinancial at the time, once controlled the shares now in play. He died on March 26, 2013.

The stock has been held in escrow since it was seized by U.S. Marshals on Nov. 3, 2015. The seizure was made in advance of the Department of Treasury obtaining a massive default judgment against OneFinancial on Jan. 11, 2016.

“They are the de facto owner of the bank,” said Berry, a One Bank director since 2001.

Treasury’s $47.9 million judgment represents the balance of a triple-damage award tied to its TARP funding fraud claim.

Under Stuart’s direction, OneFinancial obtained $17.3 million in TARP funds to stabilize One Bank’s deteriorating capital.

The government claimed the bank’s true financial condition was misrepresented to gain the much needed funding and that some TARP money was illegally spent by Stuart.

The TARP debt alone, without the multiplying effect of the default judgment, exceeds the value of the only asset of OneFinancial: One Bank & Trust.

Another OneFinancial liability is $8 million of trust-preferred securities issued in 2004 and in 2006.

TruPS payments can be deferred up to five years without a technical default. The clock on OneFinancial’s deferral runs out this year, said Bob McPherson, managing director in the Memphis office of StoneCastle Financial Corp.

“We will fight to uphold the integrity of the capital structure,” McPherson said. “We make our living investing in banks, not pushing them into bankruptcy or some unrealistic collection effort.”

Jerry Pavlas, CEO of One Bank, believes that if Treasury takes over ownership of the bank shares, it will effectively wash out the TruPS debt and free the stock from any security claim.

“Which we’re good with because this creates a clear path to consummate a deal,” Pavlas said.

In addition to a possible sale, Pavlas has worked on potential deals to recapitalize One Bank with an investment group composed of institutional and private investors.

Pavlas, who was hired to replace Stuart, could reap added reward through stock options granted to the key executive management at One Bank.

“We have stock options that we’ve earned over the past five years,” he said. “We’re minority shareholders.”

But whether that’s 2 percent or 49 percent is unknown. Pavlas declines to disclose the size of the minority position.

Who else was granted options besides Pavlas and Jim Schnoes, executive vice president and chief financial officer?

“I’d rather not say,” Pavlas said.

One Bank & Trust, Little Rock
Staff: 73
Full-Service Locations: Little Rock 7; North Little Rock, 1
(All dollars in thousands)

*Loans that are 90 days or more past due.
**Reflects net unrealized loss of $978,000 on available-for-sale securities.
#Reflects a $3 million extraordinary item, money released from seized assets of Scooter Stuart held by the U.S. government. The cash reimbursed One Bank for premiums paid on the life insurance policy of Stuart, former owner and CEO of One Bank.
##Reflects a $1 million settlement the bank received in a lawsuit against Travelers Indemnity Co., an affiliate of St. Paul Mercury Insurance Co. The dispute was tied to One Bank’s efforts to collect $2 million on its financial institution bond for coverage that included “dishonesty of employees.”
+Reflects a $403,000 gain on the sale of mortgages on the secondary market.
++Reflects a $6.92 million extraordinary item, final settlement release of seized assets of Scooter Stuart held by the U.S. government.

Loose Ends
Two dormant lawsuits at One Bank were restarted recently. One dates back to 2013 against its former chief financial officer, Tom Whitehead. The other against its parent company, OneFinancial Corp., dates back to 2014.

On March 31, One Bank filed a motion for summary judgment against Whitehead with allusions to and excerpts from his testimony during the October 2016 criminal trial of two former colleagues, Michael Heald and Brad Paul.

Heald, former chief operating officer, and Paul, former executive vice president, were acquitted of charges they helped conspire to defraud the U.S. government in association with obtaining $17.3 million in TARP funds for One Bank. Whitehead was given immunity in exchange for his testimony during the three-week trial.

One Bank’s case against Whitehead, filed on May 20, 2013, began as an $84,000 debt-collection suit and escalated into counterclaims, amended claims and amended counterclaims. One Bank first sought $62,000 owed on a loan and unpaid interest plus more than $20,000 owed on a One Bank Visa account.

Whitehead counterclaimed that the debt was tied to a lease agreement the bank allegedly breached on a Mountain Harbor condominium near Lake Ouachita. One Bank “compelled him” to buy and take on debt associated with the condo for the benefit of the bank, according to Whitehead. The condo debt was to be repaid by monthly lease payments from the bank.

One Bank responded with an amended complaint against Whitehead for aiding and abetting Scooter Stuart in defrauding the bank of more than $2 million. The bank also alleged that Whitehead personally profited from the condo deal.

About a $1 million went to Stuart, the bank claims, and the remainder was tied to alleged damages from two fraudulent loans orchestrated to buy homes for his son and daughter.

In his amended counterclaim, Whitehead alleged the bank owes him $1.5 million from its senior employee retirement plan.

One Bank denied the claim, saying that Whitehead forfeited his SERP benefits when he was fired “for just cause” on Dec. 27, 2012.

The case was put on hold a month before the start of a trial scheduled for May 2015 in Pulaski County Circuit Court. The catalyst for the extended continuance was an expected criminal trial involving Whitehead.

He was indicted with Heald and Paul. However, the charges against Whitehead were dropped as part of his deal with federal prosecutors.

A fourth defendant, former One Bank EVP Gary Rickenbach, was sentenced to two years of probation and 100 hours of community service in December as part of a plea agreement.

Last month, One Bank also renewed its pursuit of more than $700,000 in damages against OneFinancial, the lone defendant remaining in the civil case.

The original defendants in the lawsuit included Rivercity Energy Co., Richard Torti Sr., as successor trustee of the Stuart Family 1997 Trusts, Richard Torti Sr., as personal representative of the estate of Layton P. Stuart, deceased, Tom Whitehead and JAS Properties LLC.

In its original complaint filed after Stuart’s death, One Bank claimed OneFinancial was an alter ego of Stuart that he used to defraud the bank he owned.

A default judgment appears to be a forgone conclusion. The rudderless bank holding company has no money and no one at the corporate wheel.

Pavlas and Berry couldn’t explain what the bank hopes to gain from a judgment against its insolvent parent company. They said it was something that just needed to be done.

Twitter, with its 140-character limit, is not a good medium for detail or nuance, and in careless hands those short messages can result in a lot of wasted time. Especially Congressional time that could be better spent than chasing down presidential tweets.

But Twitter, demanding concise communication, can also deliver pithy commentary, like this from a user named Allen Davenport (@SugarboyWilson) in response to Assistant Editor Kyle Massey’s recent article about efforts to redevelop the county seat of Jefferson County:

@gwenmoritz @KyleWMassey What's the bigger number: population of Pine Bluff or stories about the rebirth of Pine Bluff in last 25 years?

— Allen Davenport (@SugarboyWilson) March 28, 2017

The less concise editorial writers at the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette also took note of Massey’s work, using it as a jumping-off point for an editorial on the importance of preserving historic buildings. That’s because the story began with candid, compelling interviews. New Hampshire industrialist Tom Reilley said his first impression of downtown Pine Bluff three years ago was a pine tree growing through the roof of the once-grand Hotel Pines. Economic developer Lou Ann Nisbett said she had tried to interest the producers of “The Walking Dead” in using some downtown buildings as zombie sets. Blowing them up, even.

Pine Bluff has never lacked for boosters, but there must be more than sentimental nostalgia for a once-great city to create real, sustainable growth. The continued loyalty of a fast-growing publicly traded company — Simmons First National Corp. — is vital. Reilley built a $230 million Highland Pellets plant there, and there’s promise in a proposal by Energy Security Partners’ to build a $3 billion-plus plant to convert natural gas to liquid fuel north of town. A sales tax proposed by the City Council — regressive, to be sure, but self-imposed if voters approve — could be a difference-maker.

Or this could be just one more story about the rebirth of Pine Bluff.

State Rep. Andy Davis isn’t sure why his bill was able to get traction this year when similar bills in previous years did not, but he’s delighted that his Personal Finance & Job Readiness Act received overwhelming support in both the House and Senate and is now Act 480 of 2017.

I’m delighted too, although the finished product is not exactly what Davis or I would prefer. He set out, in 2015, to fill a gaping void in our education system, one that is not unique to Arkansas, by requiring high school students to complete two semesters of study in personal finance and the elusive “soft skills” so necessary for success in the workforce. But “tons of pushback” from what he called the “education establishment” forced him to offer Plan B this year, a requirement that the equivalent of a full credit be incorporated into every student’s education between 10th and 12th grades.

Part of the education may wind up being taught in math classes, he said, and much of it may become part of the half-credit of economics education that has been required for the past eight years.

What high schools will be required to teach about personal finance is pretty ambitious — income and taxes, budgeting, checking and savings accounts, credit and debt management, insurance, charitable giving, home ownership, investing, long-term financial planning and many other concepts. One of my favorites: understanding paychecks.

On the job readiness side, the bill requires that students have the opportunity to learn about resumes and interview skills, communication, time management and “meeting basic employer expectations and requirements.”

Davis, a Republican from Little Rock, told me that his interest in making sure students were exposed to basic personal finance and job skills was “just a long personal education saga, and just based on my personal experience and my experience as a small business owner.”

Students, he said, “come out of high school, and to some extent college, without an idea of how to behave and how to dress and present themselves.”

Like his 2015 bill, similar bills by both Democrats and Republicans had languished in successive previous sessions, even though the gap in financial literacy is undeniable.

“People outside of politics in the real word, they recognize the importance of it… It doesn’t matter what you do, it’s part of life,” he said.

Last week I participated in a panel discussion at the the inaugural Women’s Financial Health Summit sponsored by the Arkansas 529 Plan, the college savings program administered by the state treasurer’s office. The audience was mostly female, as you would expect, and ranged in age from teens to geezers like me.

Among the questions from the audience were “What is a 401(k)?” and “What is a credit score?” I wouldn’t be alarmed if those were asked by a high school student, but anyone already in the workforce would be crippled by such ignorance.

The question that really slapped me in the face was “What is interest?” Since my mother showed me how a mortgage amortization worked when I was in junior high, I’m surprised that even a high school student wouldn’t know what interest is. Act 480 requires schools to introduce students to basic consumer finance, debt and credit management, and the need is obvious.

MetLife released last week the results of its 15th annual Employee Benefit Trends Study. In addition to interviewing 2,500 benefits decision makers, the life insurance company’s researchers interviewed 2,650 full-time employees at companies of all sizes. Surprise! Virtually half — 49 percent — of employees are “concerned, anxious or fearful about their current financial well-being.”

As noted by Quentin Fottrell, personal finance editor for MarketWatch, this could be because Americans have borrowed their way back to the same levels as in 2008. The New York Federal Reserve announced last week that total household debt in 2017 will reach $12.68 trillion, the peak it previously reached in the third quarter of 2008.

But the debt is different this time. Fully 10 percent of it is now student loans, which is one reason that less of it is mortgage debt.

I wish Act 480 specifically required schools to explain the pros and cons of student loans to the captive audience most likely to be making a decision they could be living with for decades. There’s no law against including it.

Gwen Moritz is editor of Arkansas Business. Email her at GMoritz@ABPG.com.

Turner Grain Merchandising Inc. co-owner Jason Coleman said he was in no condition to run his company in the months leading to its collapse in August 2014.

“I’ve had depression issues even up to years before that,” Coleman said during a deposition taken last month. He was questioned as part of lawsuit filed in Lonoke County Circuit Court by farmers who said they lost millions of dollars dealing with Turner Grain.

His father’s death in late 2013 and stress contributed to his losing some 60 pounds in 30 days, Coleman said under oath. He was offering above-market prices for rice, wiping out profits from other lines of business while continuing to create more financial obligations.

The deposition marked the first time attorneys were able to quiz Coleman about the Brinkley grain business that remains in Chapter 7 bankruptcy liquidation. In the bankruptcy, Turner Grain listed $13.7 million in assets and its list of debts totals $39.7 million — millions of which are owed to farmers who sold crops to Turner Grain.

Up until November, Coleman had asserted his right against self-incrimination and refused to be deposed in bankruptcy proceedings. His attorney, Lisa Ballard of North Little Rock, told Arkansas Business last week that Coleman no longer needs the Fifth Amendment protection because he’s no longer facing a criminal investigation.

More than 20 farmers in Lonoke County hope to recover the $5.5 million they said they lost dealing with Turner Grain. In addition to Turner Grain, the farmers have named 20 defendants including Coleman; Dale Bartlett, the former co-owner of Turner Grain; Coleman’s uncle, Neauman Coleman; several companies related to Turner Grain; and a company that did business with Turner Grain, K.B.X. Inc. of Benton.

If the farmers prove their allegations, the defendants could have joint-and-several liability, meaning that the plaintiffs could collect the total damages from any of the defendants.

That trial is expected to start May 8 and last four weeks in front of Lonoke County Circuit Judge Sandy Huckabee.

K.B.X., Bartlett and Neauman Coleman have asked the judge to dismiss them from the case before the trial begins. Those requests are pending.

Neauman Coleman said in his court filings that he didn’t have anything to do with the purchase or sale of grains.

“The businesses I did have ownership interest in were used by Jason Coleman to prop up Turner Grain and cover some losses, but these entities created no losses and were not involved in any way in the activity that resulted in Turner Grain’s financial collapse,” Neauman Coleman said in a March 24 affidavit filed in the case. “The first I knew that Turner Grain had financial losses and inability to pay its contracts was in August of 2014, when I heard talk in the office about checks that had bounced.”

Meanwhile, Turner Grain’s bankruptcy trustee, M. Randy Rice of Little Rock, has filed more than 40 lawsuits since October alleging that farmers and other entities received improper payments from Turner Grain within 90 days of its bankruptcy filing in October 2014. He is trying to claw back those payments. Those cases are pending.

Rice also sued a number of Turner’s related entities — including Turner Commodities Inc., Ivory Rice LLC, Agribusiness Properties LLC and Brinkley Truck Brokerage LLC — in an attempt to recover $96.8 million that allegedly was transferred from Turner Grain a year before it filed for bankruptcy, according to complaints filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Helena.

Rice has also sued Gavilon Grain LLC of Kearney, Nebraska, for at least $14 million for allegedly failing to pay for corn that Turner Grain delivered. Gavilon has denied allegations of wrongdoing and said the dispute should be sent to arbitration. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Phyllis M. Jones denied the request and Gavilon appealed in March to U.S. District Court in Helena, where the case is pending.

The Company
In 2002, Turner Grain was founded by Bartlett and Jason Coleman, who named it after an unincorporated community in Phillips County.

Later, Neauman Coleman, a commodity futures broker who operates his futures business from his house in Brinkley, called Neauman Coleman & Co., also became a business partner with his nephew and Bartlett in businesses related to Turner Grain.

Neauman Coleman said in his affidavit that he learned that a piece of property in Brinkley was for sale — he didn’t say when — and suggested that his nephew and Bartlett buy it to put a grain elevator on the site.

The three men bought the property and started Agribusiness Properties LLC in 2004.

“Jason and Dale had a much greater knowledge of grain bins and elevators, while my expertise was with trading futures,” Neauman Coleman said. “Jason and Dale then realized the potential of using the facility as an adjunct to their company, Turner Grain Merchandising Inc.”

Using Agribusiness Properties “would give Turner Grain an opportunity to purchase grain directly from the farm at harvest, before it had been dried in on-farm storage,” Neauman Coleman said. “This aspect allowed Turner Grain another source of grain and ability to expand their operation.”

Still, Neauman Coleman said he didn’t have much to do with the business and said Jason Coleman “did most of the work associated with the operation of the facility.”

The lawsuits filed by the bankruptcy trustee said Turner Grain and the related companies were so intertwined that they shared money and other assets out of the Brinkley office.

According to Rice, the bankruptcy trustee, Turner Grain bought rice corn, grain and soybeans from producers and then resold them to major grain buyers. For example, Turner Grain might promise to deliver 300,000 bushels to a corn broker, and then Turner Grain would be responsible for finding the corn farmers to fill the order for 300,000 bushels.

The business model generated hundreds of millions of dollars of rice, corn, grain and soybeans on an annual basis, Rice said in his court filings.

By the beginning of 2012, Jason Coleman said, he didn’t exactly know the financial condition of Turner Grain.

“As for receivables out, … I was not aware of them on a day-to-day basis,” he said.

To continue to grow Turner Grain, Coleman said he used the profits from corn or freight contracts, or a combination of the two, to offer better prices to rice farmers. Coleman said he didn’t know what the average was, but in some cases it would go as high was $1 above market price per bushel.

Coleman said that the death of his father, Danny Coleman, who died at age 65 in December 2013, may have been the trigger for his inability to operate Turner Grain, citing “all the stress.”

By the time Danny Coleman’s death, problems were becoming evident at Turner Grain.

On Jan. 2, 2014, Turner Grain took out a $1 million line of credit from Rabo Agrifinance Inc. of St. Louis.

Within days, Turner Grain had received $900,000 from Rabo, Bartlett said in earlier court proceedings. He said the money was supposed to be used for milling equipment, but the equipment was never purchased.

Bartlett said he decided to leave Turner Grain in February 2014. “There were decisions being made that I wasn’t aware of,” he said.

He said Coleman’s management decisions involved “a significant amount of money,” such as spending more than $30,000 on a software package used for tracking grain.

Bartlett said he continued working for Turner Grain while taking no salary. In July 2014, Bartlett said he asked Coleman about a Turner Grain check to a farmer that was returned for insufficient funds.

The next day, Bartlett said, Coleman fired him.

Bartlett asked what was going on and Coleman “said he had been sick and not able to go to the office.”

Coleman said in his deposition that around that time he lost 60 pounds in 30 days.

“I just was overloaded with work,” Coleman said. “My father died and then I was having some health problems and just was headed downhill.”

Still in July 2014, Turner Grain needed more rice to sell.

Coleman offered K&K Farm Service Inc. in Carlisle a price of $7.25 a bushel, which was above market price, resulting in a loss of 65 cents a bushel for Turner Grain. K&K Farm sold 840,000 bushels at a loss to Turner Grain of $546,000.

Little Rock attorney Kendel Grooms, representing K&K, asked how Turner Grain was going to make up for that loss?

“I can’t answer,” he said.

“Is that even possible?” Grooms asked.

“I can’t speculate on what the contracts were and what we were making or losing,” Coleman said.

Collapse
Turner Grain was forced into receivership in September 2014 and then filed for bankruptcy protection a month later. Its bankruptcy attorney, Kevin Keech of Little Rock, discovered that accounts for Turner Grain were intertwined with the other companies that Bartlett and Coleman operated.

In the year before Turner Grain filed for bankruptcy, it transferred nearly $100 million to it related companies, according to Rice’s court documents.

Coleman and Bartlett “were paying for grain, and they were losing money somewhere in that process,” attorney Gregory Bevel of Rochelle McCullough LLP of Dallas, who is working for the trustee, told Arkansas Business in November. “And because they had multiple businesses and multiple bank accounts, somehow they were floating money that they didn’t have.”

In his motion to be dismissed from the civil case, Bartlett said last month that the businesses related to Turner Grain also have suffered.

They “were forced out of business, left with significant debt and the members and shareholder who guaranteed the debt of these entities have filed bankruptcy or may soon file bankruptcy,” according to the filing by Bartlett’s attorney, Sammie P. Strange Jr. of Little Rock.

Strange said that Bartlett, who is a shareholder in the companies, was forced into bankruptcy in 2014 as a result of the loans and lines of credits the companies had outstanding.

“Not only did he lose his value of his investment, but he was left with significant debt as a result of his membership or shareholder interest” in the related companies.

In the deposition, Jason Coleman said he, too, is struggling financially. He said he isn’t working now, but is willing to do so.

“If your yard needs mowed, I’m ready,” he said. “I ain’t got enough money to file bankruptcy, if you want to know the truth.”

He agreed that it was it was wrong that the farmers didn’t get paid.

Coleman said he hasn’t apologized to anybody about what happened with his company.

“I haven’t spoke much of Turner Grain,” he said.

Matt Buchanan has joined Bank of the Ozarks as senior vice president and commercial lender, and he will work out of the bank’s headquarters office on Chenal Parkway at Rahling Road in Little Rock.

Buchanan has a bachelor’s degree in economics from Lyon College at Batesville and an MBA from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. He has more than 12 years of experience as a commercial lender in Little Rock.

He serves on the boards of the Centers for Youth & Families Foundation and Tanzania Wesley Education Foundation and is a member of Rotary Club 99.

Zeke Dixon has joined Petit Jean State Bank of Morrilton as assistant vice president and loan officer.

Dixon is a 2006 graduate of Morrilton High School. After deploying to Iraq with the Arkansas Army National Guard in 2008, he completed a degree in agriculture business at Arkansas Tech University in Russellville.

See more of this week's Movers & Shakers, and submit your own announcement at ArkansasBusiness.com/Movers.

Jay Barber has quietly built a national business as an energy banker in Searcy, but he’s not completely hush-hush.

The president and CEO of Southeast Capital & Finance won’t discuss rates or specific projects, but the words gush out as he describes his mission. He provides commercial clients with 100-percent financing for energy efficiency projects, then watches as electric-bill savings pile up for the customers.

“These commercial and industrial energy efficiency projects are revenue-producing propositions,” Barber told Arkansas Business, noting that efficiency savings go hand-in-hand with rebates offered by utility companies. “That’s one of the main market drivers. In some markets, utility rebates can amount to 50 to 60 percent of total project costs.”

While Barber has been financing energy projects throughout the country, most of his Searcy neighbors and fellow Harding University alumni have been in the dark about it. “They ask where have you been? What have you been doing the past few years? I tell them I’ve had my head down working.”

He was a more traditional banker for two decades in Arkansas and Tennessee before finding the energy niche. He worked for Reynie Rutledge at First Security Bank of Searcy and then Larry Wilson at First Arkansas Bank & Trust of Jacksonville, mentors that he says he owes “a great debt of gratitude to,” before going out on his own.

The venture paid off, and in the last two years, more than $241 million of financing proposals have gone through Southeast Capital, which has regional offices in California and New York City. “That may not sound like a lot of money to some people, but it is significant for us,” said Barber, who has four employees who fund projects ranging from $10,000 or $15,000 up to about $25 million. LED lighting sales alone feed a $14 billion-a-year market in the United States and Canada, he said.

Working with top electrical equipment distributors like Rexel, Gexpro and Consolidated Electrical Distributors, Southeast Capital facilitates the funding of projects for commercial, industrial and government customers.

“Together they make up the vast majority of our business,” Barber said. “We work with the distributors’ sales teams to train and educate them about finance, and that way they can make the financing a major part of their sales pitch.”

The arrangement has helped Southeast prosper since 2009 without creating a lot of overhead or making a lot of noise. “We are very automated and have really good programs and procedures that allow us to run lean,” Barber said. “We don’t call on clients and we don’t advertise much. It’s our key relationships with distributors that allow us to reach out and get broad penetration. We like it that way, because we’re privately held and we don’t talk about clients, rates or deals.”

Asked if he could point to some projects that he has financed, perhaps even a few in Arkansas, Barber held firm.

“We do not discuss customers, but I can tell you we see proposals weekly on all types of commercial, industrial and municipal projects. We have closed on all types, from municipal street lights to grocery stores to warehouses.”

The Bottom Line

Barber says the big selling point for energy efficiency retrofits, in addition to the 100-percent financing, is the bottom line. Energy savings are immediate and significant, and utilities routinely offer rebates and incentives to cut upfront costs of lighting projects. These inducements improve payback time by as much as 20 to 25 percent, according to Brightswitch, an organization that helps businesses to identify utility rebates and tax incentives across the United States and Canada.

Barber offered an example. “Not only are businesses getting rebates from their utilities, but take the case of a client whose energy bill was $7,000 a month,” he said. “The energy efficiency retrofit lowered the bill to something like $4,000 a month, which is $3,000 a month in direct savings. Those savings cover the monthly payment, so it’s cash-flow positive.”

Along with retrofits, Southeast Capital finances solar energy projects and a relatively new market: battery systems that store energy.

“That’s where we think the future is headed. It’s rare to have the opportunity to pick and choose the markets you want to be involved in. But we understand these things; we get it. We don’t touch anything residential whatsoever.”

Energy storage can benefit both utilities and their customers, Barber said.

“This commercial customer in California was paying the regular price per kilowatt-hour, but times of peak demand were driving up the price,” Barber said. “So they buy an energy storage system from one of our vendors and install it on their premises. That lets them capture some of their own energy and store it for use at peak periods, saving substantial amounts of money. And at some point, the market is going to allow excess power to be sold back onto the grid.”

For utilities, he said, energy storage systems allow handling peak loads without the expense and time of building generation plants. “Battery storage fixes a couple of problems for utilities: It reduces carbon emissions, an important thing these days, and reduces the cost of energy.”

Matt Golden, an entrepreneur and energy efficiency advocate based in California, told Arkansas Business that utility rebates are not a giveaway, but rather a recognition by utilities that they reap big benefits from efficiency projects.

“From a utility standpoint, it’s far cheaper to store energy or change the shape of the load on the grid than it is to build new generation and distribution.”

A founder of Efficiency First, a national trade association for the home retrofitting industry, Golden says rebates are only fair.

“Value is being created for the utilities, and building owners shouldn’t be expected to take out a loan on an efficiency project without rebates or inducements. Otherwise they’d be giving this benefit to the grid away for free,” he said.

Golden also doesn’t expect the Trump administration’s emphasis on fossil fuels to have much effect on efficiency efforts and other clean initiatives. “The decarbonization of the electric grid is going to continue regardless of what’s happening in Washington, D.C.,” he said. “These efforts will continue to be driven on the state and local levels, and by consumers and businesses recognizing the benefits.”

Looking Forward

Beyond simple business interests, Barber sees an image advantage for companies investing in efficiency. He also holds a long view that includes promoting the environmental and economic benefits of emerging technology.

“I have two boys at Harding, and I’m looking forward to creating energy efficiency and creating jobs, all while helping customers. There are so many benefits, and I want to give back in some sense,” he said.

It was that attitude, and a tip from a business contact, that led Barber into a partnership with the federal Department of Energy and its Better Buildings Challenge program. Southeast announced last month that it had committed $25 million for this year to the program, which connects building owners and facility energy managers with financiers to make efficiency projects happen.

“We’ve seen the financing community make tremendous progress,” said Kathleen Hogan, the Energy Department’s deputy assistant secretary for energy efficiency. “Now more than ever, we can bring these smart financing solutions to the market and move forward more rapidly.”

One key to Barber’s success has been his cooperation with distributors, and particularly with their sales staffs.

“We’re often calling on distributors and training their staffs,” he said. “Just recently, I was involved in a training webinar with 18 sales representatives and a sales manager from Oregon and Washington.

“We tell sales staffs that we’re not training them to be bankers, and that we don’t know their business of selling lights. But we think that financing can be something in their arsenal. Some sales reps lead with a pitch about financing.”

Southeast Capital is “zeroed in” on what it does, Barber said. “Energy financing has always intrigued me. I realized that there was a need there, and I had some great contacts early on among the distributors who trained and mentored us.”

Mentors in banking were also crucial, said Barber, who never would have become an energy banker if he hadn’t first learned at the side of Rutledge and Wilson.

“Reynie Rutledge taught me how to be a banker, how to run a business.” Barber said, referring to the First Security Bancorp CEO and president. “But Larry Wilson was also a tremendous mentor, one who helped me hone skills and gave me tons of responsibility. He also may have been the best boss I ever had.”

It was while he was a senior vice president at First Arkansas that he was an Arkansas Business 40 Under 40 honoree in 2006.

Barber, who grew up outside Bald Knob on Barber Road, credits his parents with teaching him about “hard work, the importance of God and doing right,” but he said that in business, he uses the lessons Rutledge and Wilson taught every day. “Without them, I wouldn’t be where I am.”

Out-of-state acquisitions by publicly traded banks pushed total assets reported by Arkansas charters up by almost 17 percent to more than $88 billion at year-end 2016.

Net income reported by 101 charters grew by 22 percent, to pass the $1 billion mark for the first time. A quarter of that profit was posted by Bank of the Ozarks of Little Rock.

BOZ nearly doubled its assets last year, to almost $19 billion, by acquiring Community & Southern Bank of Atlanta and C1 Bank of St. Petersburg, Florida.

Simmons Bank of Pine Bluff, No. 4 on the list the largest banks in Arkansas as ranked by assets, reported double-digit asset growth in 2016, in part because of its acquisition in October of the Citizens National Bank of Athens, Tennessee. Since then, Simmons has announced three more out-of-state acquisitions, in Tennessee, Oklahoma and Texas, that are still pending.

(Get the List: The Largest Arkansas Banks by Assets)

The same trend that allowed the largest banks to grow has continued to whittle away at the number of separate bank charters. The total dropped from 104 at the end of 2015 to 101 as of Dec. 31, 2016. Since then, two more charters have been absorbed, putting the total at less than 100 for the first time in living memory, and one more merger is pending.

The Arkansas State Bank Department confirmed that the acquisition of No. 86 Pinnacle Bank of Rogers by No. 73 Central Bank of Little Rock was completed on March 31. The value of the deal, involving some common ownership and in the works since September, has been estimated at $3.4 million.

No. 71 Twin Lakes Community Bank at Flippin, was rolled into sister charter Anstaff Bank of Green Forest on March 4. The two banks had combined assets as of Dec. 31 of about $565 million.

Regulatory approval is pending on the announced acquisition of Farmers Bank of Hamburg, the third-smallest bank in the state, by No. 11 Southern Bancorp Bank of Arkadelphia.

Arkansas Banks Ranked by 2016 Net Income