Growth and risk often move together in trucking, but using protective family assets to sustain an expanding carrier can eliminate the margin of safety needed when freight and credit cycles turn.
As I described in “Built, Broken, Rebuilt,” my family’s trucking history included both extraordinary growth and a Chapter 11 filing. The next lesson concerns the assets we used to support that growth.
Every expansion cycle brings what I think of as a hungry dragon. Sometimes the dragon is opportunity, sometimes ego, and sometimes the conviction that one more risk will make the company stronger when the market recovers.
From 1980 through 2000, deregulation reshaped trucking. Carriers rose and failed quickly, capacity was inexpensive, margins were thin, and scale was widely seen as the route to survival. My family believed we could build a durable company through that turbulence.
Building the War Chest
After selling O.N.C. and its LTL terminal network, our family placed the proceeds in commercial real estate. The properties appeared to offer safety, stability, and predictable returns.
By the mid-1990s, however, the freight cycle seemed ready to turn. We believed the strongest carriers after the recession would be those that already had capacity, customers, and cash flow in place. We decided to invest aggressively before the recovery.
The Growth Run
We acquired carriers that added lanes, customers, and terminals. The list included Altruk Freight Systems in Oldsmar, Florida; RTC in Forest Park, Georgia; Donco Carriers in Oklahoma City; Rising Fast Trucking in Batesville, Arkansas; TWX in Denver; Joseph Land in Charleston; Schreiber Foods’ private fleet in Green Bay; and Goodway in Harrisburg.
We also moved into logistics technology by acquiring Consolidated Traffic Management Systems, an early provider of inbound freight routing for receivers. In retrospect, CTMS anticipated what later became managed transportation and supply-chain visibility.
Each purchase had a business rationale. Together, they created a national network with integrated logistics capabilities. They also created an organization that constantly required more capital, liquidity, and management time.
When the Dragon Got Hungry
To keep the growth strategy moving, we began using the family’s real estate. Some properties were sold to generate operating cash. Others became collateral for loans funding acquisitions, working capital, and daily operations.
The logic was straightforward: use passive assets to carry the trucking company through the downturn and emerge as a dominant carrier when the market recovered.
For a period, the plan appeared to work. Freight improved, rates stabilized, and the company became stronger. Then the cycle turned faster and harder than expected.
Interest expense rose, lenders became cautious, and expansion consumed the company’s cash flow. By the time ROCOR entered Chapter 11, nearly every property had been sold or pledged. The growth strategy had consumed the assets originally intended to protect the family.
What Time and Distance Have Taught Us
I do not regret the ambition as much as the imbalance. Investing when competitors retreat can create an advantage, and the strategy might have succeeded under different timing.
The industry culture also rewarded bold acquisition strategies. Leaders who played it safe were rarely celebrated. Many believed they could outwork risk until the market turned in their favor.
Trucking eventually reminds every operator that freight cycles, credit conditions, and confidence are outside management’s control. When family wealth and corporate capital are tied to the same downside, the consequences become generational.
The Lesson I Learned
Today’s market again combines compressed margins, limited capital, and pressure to innovate faster than cash flow permits. The temptation to make one large bet remains familiar.
Feeding the dragon can create a significant company, but survival requires knowing when to pull back. Growth builds; preservation makes it possible to remain in the game and build again.
The enduring lesson is that not every asset should serve the operating business. Some assets exist to protect the people who created it. Leadership requires distinguishing between the two.