Normally, I am a proponent of buying small businesses. 

The data shows they make the world go ‘round. The U.S. Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy, which defines a small business as a firm with fewer than 500 employees, states that there are over 30 million such enterprises in the U.S.

 But a convergence of factors have made the economic environment less favorable to small businesses, and I would hold off on buying one at the present time. Here are a few reasons why:

• Volatility. Change is everywhere. Along with the disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, a change in the nation’s political leadership means there could be more regulation. The possibility of more business interruption exists. Unless you own a strong, established business in an area that has survived the first shutdown and your business is considered somewhat essential, the volatility of operating a company with interruption in cash flow means the business may not make it.

• Continuing supply-chain issues. This remains an issue nine months into the pandemic. Shelves in stores are still not fully stocked. Furniture stores and other types of businesses are waiting months to get the necessary components to build inventory. Supply-chain disruptions can affect small businesses in numerous ways: reduce revenue, cause issues with production, and inflate costs.

• Changing buying habits. Some buying habits have been permanently altered, and a vaccine for COVID-19 won’t substantially change those habits. There will be more online shopping and more “contactless” shopping. Anything that involves interacting with people will be affected, especially retail. 

• Changing business strategies. Buying a business is about buying a cash-flow stream, but what companies are going to be around in the next five years? Disruption in how a business operates can change its core strategy and render it no longer viable when up against the dominant business models and companies of the day. Think of Blockbuster versus Netflix, or your local enclosed mall shops versus no-contact shopping with Amazon.

• Lightening loans. Money is probably never going to get much cheaper to borrow than it is now, but lenders are more cautious, too. It may be easier to get a home loan for your personal residence but getting a commercial loan to buy a business is a different ballgame, and lenders are concerned about the unknown in small business going forward.

 The solution is to slow down and really do your homework. Research and study the marketplace. What kinds of businesses have not been affected dramatically by the pandemic? Which ones won’t have additional regulation imposed on them in the future? 

 There are lots of businesses to choose from, but be selective. If you find a business that meets your criteria with good cash flow and a promising future, there is a good chance you may get a discount due to the unknowns of regulation and another pandemic. Not all business owners have the luxury of taking their time to sell; some have an urgency to sell. So in that scenario, there is a good chance you could leverage the reasons I mentioned to not buy a small business. Those same reasons could get you a discount on the purchase of the business.

 Timing is everything in life, and with proper due diligence and good timing, you may get yourself a good business at a good price.        

Terry Monroe (www.terrymonroe.com) is founder and president of American Business Brokers & Advisors (ABBA) and author of “Hidden Wealth: The Secret to Getting Top Dollar for Your Business” with ForbesBooks. Monroe has been in the business of establishing, operating, and selling businesses for more than 35 years. 

Every year right after an election, I would find a small pile of requests waiting for me from journalists. They wanted some sort of comment on what it all meant. “What are the voters telling us?” they’d ask.

 It’s human nature to want to make sense of such a complex picture — to draw conclusions from many millions of individual decisions. But it is also politically important, because how elected officials interpret the results — or seek to convince others to interpret the results — goes a long way toward shaping the impact of the election.

 The key thing to recognize in the wake of November’s voting, and this will not come as news, is that we live in a sharply divided country. When the votes are all counted [and certified], projections suggest Joe Biden will wind up with about a [7 million-] vote, [more than] 4 percentage-point lead, hardly a landslide but still a decisive margin. At the same time, Republicans retain a narrow margin in the Senate [pending the results of two runoff elections in Georgia], and made gains in the House, [leaving Democrats with a narrow majority there.]

 What all this adds up to is a governance challenge. Without Republicans and Democrats agreeing to find common ground, it will be hard for the U.S. to exert strong influence around the world and to get ambitious things done. When voters are as on edge as they still appear to be, building a broad and sustainable consensus in favor of difficult policy decisions is arduous.

 It’s also worth remembering that our election is watched all over the world, and not casually. Ordinary citizens and political leaders in country after country pay close attention. Because the U.S. plays such a critical global role, they worry when they see us conducting an election that the losing side characterizes as corrupt or in some way faulty. That’s why the statements of the outgoing president and his Republican allies have been damaging. They feed into the false narrative Vladimir Putin has been trying to peddle about our system, that it is falling apart. 

 In the runup to the election, my chief concern was about efforts to suppress votes. Yet despite the obstacles thrown in their way, millions more Americans voted this time around than ever before. Their determination to make their voices count despite long lines and other inconveniences was inspiring.

 Similarly, the remarkable efforts by state and local elections administrators of both parties to hold a free and fair election in the middle of a pandemic with more turnout than they had ever experienced ought to be recognized and celebrated. It was a heartening display of dedication to American values. It is not a perfect system; we always have islands of misconduct. But I used to spend election day going around to visit precincts, and always was deeply appreciative of the seriousness of election-day workers from all walks of life and backgrounds. They understood what was at stake and wanted to make sure our system worked and was fair and honest. 

 So, to see one party mounting an all-out attack on the integrity of the countless Americans who view running elections as a sacred trust is, to put it mildly, disturbing. We’re all pleased or disappointed with the results of elections, depending on our preferences, but win or lose, our civic duty as citizens is the same. We should take pride in our country and its ability to conduct these elections fairly. The dangerous game of questioning the validity of the vote could have reverberations for years to come, and sow even more division than we already face.

 The point is, a lot of candidates lose in an election. Half of them, roughly. A vital part of our democracy is how we and they come out of it — that we accept the result and continue to support and improve the system, always working toward a more perfect union. 

 This is what makes it possible for us to govern in this great and diverse country. Americans can accept differences of opinion and not condemn the people who voted for a different candidate. We accept the results of the election and move on. To behave otherwise is to weaken our democracy, perhaps beyond bearing.      

Lee Hamilton, 89, is a senior advisor for the Indiana University (IU) Center on Representative Government, distinguished scholar at IU Hamilton Lugar School of Global and International Studies, and professor of practice at the IU O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs. Hamilton, a Democrat, was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years (1965-1999), representing a district in south central Indiana.