I no longer want to be the majority owner of any company

It is now much easier for me and for the people responsible for the company’s operations. When you are the majority owner, all important decisions, one way or another, end up with you. Now those decisions are no longer mine, and the business is developing well. My life is much easier and more pleasant.

Interviewed by: Jerko Gudić

Juroslav Buljubašić can today be called the shadow ruler of Split on many grounds. And not only when it comes to the infamous List of Velog Mista but also regarding his numerous companies. The process of withdrawing from a managerial role began with the shipping company Blue Line, which operates the international line between Split and Ancona, and continued through Split tours, SEM 1986, Kabel net, Splitsko-dalmatinska banka, ST invest. Buljubašić proudly emphasizes that he has just completed the third and most important entrepreneurial phase by separating the managerial function from ownership. Although he now lives very relaxed, often traveling the world, he is an active participant in all events and a fierce fighter for a better status of entrepreneurship. He has retained the position of regional vice president of the Croatian Employers’ Association and honorary consul of Chile.

• Was the decision to abandon managerial functions forced or did it mature over a longer period?
– After independence and the development of entrepreneurship in Croatia, there was a significant trend that founders of companies must also be majority owners in a hundred percent amount. All tendencies led in that direction for some time. I have been a private entrepreneur since 1983 and often say that my first million was thanks to Tito. Back in 1986, I founded one of the first contractual organizations according to the then law. It dealt with engineering and informatics, and later with cable television. After the nineties, everyone who entered the business emphasized ownership position as it was public proof of personal success. That was the time. It was not well known what a joint-stock company was, and ownership and management were not separated. In 2000, I decided to separate those functions and over a period of several years to withdraw from management. I withdrew to supervision in some places, to the assembly in others. I wanted to exit the majority status in all companies by 2007, and I completely succeeded in that.

• What is the essential difference?
– It is now much easier for me and for the people responsible for the company’s operations. When you are the majority owner, all important decisions, one way or another, end up with you. Now those decisions are no longer mine, and the business is developing well. My life is much easier and more pleasant.

• What are you currently engaged in?
– I am particularly pleased with capital investments in funds and other joint-stock companies in the former Yugoslavia, across Europe and South America.

• Do you consider yourself a tycoon?
– I have never been one nor have I ever wanted to be. There is no SEM group that would unite everything I have been involved in. There is no Buljubašić empire. There is only a series of companies that have developed according to a business model completely opposite to the one that dominated Croatian transformation and privatization, in a decade of wild and later improvised capitalism.

• Are you founding any new companies, like Marina Žnjan?
– We recently founded that company together with Zvonko Kotarac with the intention of building a marina for megayachts in Split with a luxury hotel. That company will leave a very deep mark as it has interesting and important jobs ahead of it. I will not deviate from the principle that I am a minority owner in all my companies, so a third, equal partner will soon be found for Marina Žnjan.

• What are the advantages of separating ownership and managerial status?
– First of all, the company and its fate are no longer tied to my name, which at one point became a limiting factor. Buljina’s company was a key that once opened doors but very often also closed them, tying the hands of managers. That burden was no longer necessary. On the other hand, the separation of ownership from management definitely bears fruit. Managers have gained space for proving and creating, and the owner’s shareholder position undoubtedly guarantees a more pleasant and higher quality daily life.

• What are the disadvantages?
– A disadvantage may be that the system becomes somewhat slower and less flexible. The owner is, logically, faster in decision-making, more rational.

• Since you have given up your managerial role, do you prefer flexible management or rigid and responsible directors?
– There are no rules here. The cases of Enron and Parmalat have shown that flexible managers without owner control can create real chaos. On the other hand, you have the example of Microsoft and other companies where founders manage and things go very well. Look at the cases of T-HT and VIP, Pliva, Podravka on one side and Magma, Atlantic Group, Dalkoning, Tommy on the other. There are no rules. The important thing is the relationship between managers and supervision; things must be well set there.

• What entrepreneurial motives have driven you to be the biggest, the best…?
– I have never aimed to be the biggest. I wanted to start and set up a company on healthy legs with partners in various fields. Later, I became increasingly convinced that after the initial momentum and success, it is necessary to let managers lead and develop the company. Entrepreneurs are not actually good managers; it is extremely rare for one person to have equally entrepreneurial and managerial skills.

• You are the regional vice president of the Employers’ Association. How do you assess today’s business conditions from that position?
– Since 1991, there has been considerable progress. There are still many problems with administration, but there are also many significant improvements. The state apparatus is more concrete, faster, the State Attorney’s Office has entered the battle against corruption. It is easier to work, although the administration still significantly complicates the lives of entrepreneurs. If the efforts being made at the highest state level succeed, Croatia will quickly become a country of success by strengthening entrepreneurship. Until now, we have mostly fought with the ghosts of the past, with the remnants of the system from which we have emerged after a long time. The same mindset has more or less shackled all parties; the memory of kulaks is still in people’s minds, and now it is just being transferred to new capitalists. Numerous problems related to the process of transformation and privatization have also fueled the fire. But things are moving; day by day, things are getting better. The generation of the 80s is taking matters into their own hands, and positive processes are tangible and inevitable.

• Do you think that retrograde forces in Croatia have no chance?
– Although the media and politicians pander to the masses by creating a negative image of everything around us, nothing and no one can stop liberal capitalism anymore, regardless of how power is arranged. The opposition is there to complain, lament, warn, work on nuances, control to avoid damage, and push society forward. It is important to be as constructive as possible, to propose solutions, and not just criticize. For example, grumbling about the construction of the Pelješac Bridge. It is easy to say: ‘We are against the bridge; we don’t need it,’ but say what the alternative solution is, what is good to do if we don’t want the bridge. Everyone must be in the function of finding solutions, not blocking development and projects.

• Where is entrepreneurship more hindered, at a higher or lower level of government?
– It is easier to work at a higher level; there are more problems at the local level. Investors will find it easier to obtain necessary papers in Zagreb than in Split. Here you have the spatial plan of the county that hinders thousands of entrepreneurs in their intention to invest money and do something. It is a syndrome of the past, resistance from those who were in a position to solve things until yesterday but did so poorly and now resist the solutions of those who know better. Some projects in Split related to traffic are contested by those who created the existing traffic studies, which are proving to be very poor every day.

• Is this problem in Split more pronounced due to mentality or are there other reasons?
– The problem is more pronounced in Split because those who hinder may have a bit more public space than in other environments. Energy is wasted on empty discussions about irrelevant things.

• The influential Slobodna Dalmacija is now in private hands. Has this improved the treatment of entrepreneurs?
– There are no changes; the local media climate remains the same. Perhaps this is normal for these people in Split who often resist power but also success. It is easy to fuel that, and even easier to pander to it. Criticize everything, offer this and that, but at the same time defend your little oases from any change.

• You wanted to buy Slobodna Dalmacija; you have a local cable TV station. Are you still interested in the media due to this change in social climate?
– I primarily view the media as companies, from a business perspective. And when it comes to the possible impact on changing the social climate and way of thinking, you cannot achieve much if you have one media outlet and lack a hundred others. The media are still interesting to me as an important aid to the development of democracy and a means to achieve profit. I would always gladly enter such businesses.

• What do you think about Glas Dalmacije, which is currently announced as a portal and soon as a daily newspaper as an alternative in Split and Dalmatia?
– Glas Dalmacije has a quality person at the helm who can develop this attempt into a very quality story. It is an interesting project.

• There is speculation about the owner of that media, often with your name?
– I am not the owner. After all, that would contradict my principle of not being a majority owner anywhere. In that project, I could only be one of the shareholders.

• You prefer to negotiate with funds rather than banks. Why?
– We prefer to talk to funds because our previous experience has shown that funds and owners have a common interest in raising, better organizing, and strengthening the company and at a certain moment finding a partner and selling it. With some funds that have entered our companies, we have developed cooperation and together ventured into some foreign markets, such as Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, and Bulgaria.

• How much does an excellent, friendly relationship with the president and prime minister mean to you?
– Personally, it means a lot to me, but in business terms, the state apparatus and administration still largely create life for us.

• You recently lost the concession for the shipping line, although everyone thought it would easily belong to your company.
– This is an excellent example of how things still stand with us. We made the best offer, but we did not get the concession. Jadrolinija has the advantage because the assistant minister of maritime affairs sits on its Supervisory Board. When they could not legally defend that Jadrolinija should receive the concession, they canceled the tender. It is a painful and difficult struggle with monopolists, but that too will pass one day. There is no market competition while there is a monopoly. And ministers must finally leave the supervisory boards. It is clear that the state must protect ownership, but that can also be done through some company. We suggested this to both this and that government, but they did not listen to us and now they regret it.

• You are a bitter opponent of monopolies, one of the loudest in Croatia?
– Since my entrepreneurial beginnings, I have been clashing with monopolies. When I started with Kabel net, together with a partner, it was a pioneering venture of the first breaking of the monopoly in fixed telephony. HT only managed to postpone the process of demonopolization. Today, we are fighting the biggest battles with Jadrolinija, which is, along with HEP, the most resilient monopolist.

• When we talk about the influence of politics on business, which government, in your opinion, is more successful, the current or the previous one?
– From an entrepreneurial perspective, I always give preference to the numbers. I am interested in gross domestic product, unemployment rate, and other economic parameters. I believe that according to these indicators, it is indisputable that the advantage is on the side of the current government.

• How should the future government look, in your opinion?
– The best combination for Croatia would be cooperation between Čačić and Sanader. Both are exceptional personalities, operators who feel both politics and entrepreneurship, with Sanader being somewhat stronger in politics and Čačić in economic topics. This tandem would be the best solution for Croatia.

• Is it possible?
– Everything is possible when things are well arranged, when the goals and powers are clear.

• And if Jurčić jumps in with his luxury and capital gains tax?
– I have nothing against the tax on luxury property, on villas and yachts that are not in the function of development. However, I believe it is still too early for a tax on shares because that is not good for development, considering that the domestic market of funds and shares has only just started to seriously move.