Corporations: Unveiling the Shocking Hidden Disadvantages

The corporate structure is a cornerstone of modern business, facilitating large-scale operations and driving economic growth. But behind the facade of success and widespread adoption lies a complex reality, one riddled with often-overlooked disadvantages that can significantly impact a company’s performance.

While corporations offer distinct advantages, a closer examination reveals potential pitfalls that businesses must carefully consider.

What is a Corporation? A Brief Overview

At its core, a corporation is a legal entity separate and distinct from its owners, the shareholders. This separation provides several perceived benefits.

Perceived Advantages

These advantages include:

• Limited Liability: Protecting personal assets of shareholders from business debts and lawsuits.
• Easier Access to Capital: Through the issuance of stocks and bonds.
• Perpetual Existence: Ensuring business continuity beyond the involvement of its original founders.

These factors have contributed to the popularity of the corporate structure, particularly for businesses seeking significant growth and investment.

The Unseen Drawbacks: A Thesis

However, the advantages of incorporating often overshadow a set of significant drawbacks. These disadvantages, impacting profitability, control, and operational efficiency, are critical to understand for any business owner or investor considering this structure.

While corporations offer distinct advantages, they also present challenges that can hinder success.

Navigating the Disadvantages: An Overview

This article will explore these often-overlooked disadvantages, focusing on their impact on the bottom line and the overall effectiveness of the organization. The following challenges will be explored in detail:

• Double Taxation: A significant financial burden on corporate profits.
• Regulatory Burden: The costs and complexities of compliance.
• Erosion of Control: The dilution of authority for founders and original owners.
• Agency Problems: Conflicts of interest between management and shareholders.
• Bureaucracy: Inefficiencies arising from complex organizational structures.
• Financial Reporting Costs: The expenses associated with rigorous transparency.
• Corporate Governance Issues: Difficulties in managing stakeholder expectations and board accountability.
• Legal and Administrative Fees: The high cost of operations.

By understanding these disadvantages, businesses can make more informed decisions about their organizational structure and implement strategies to mitigate potential risks.

The Taxing Reality: Navigating Double Taxation

The advantages of the corporate structure, such as limited liability and easier access to capital, can often overshadow a significant drawback: double taxation. This financial burden can significantly impact shareholder returns and the overall attractiveness of incorporating.

Understanding how double taxation works and exploring available mitigation strategies is crucial for any business considering or operating within the corporate framework.

The Mechanics of Double Taxation

At its core, double taxation refers to the phenomenon where corporate profits are taxed at two distinct levels.

First, the corporation itself is subject to income tax on its profits.

This is similar to how any business, regardless of its structure, pays taxes on the revenue it generates.

The complexity arises when these after-tax profits are distributed to shareholders in the form of dividends.

These dividends are then considered income to the shareholders and are taxed again at the individual level.

Effectively, the same pool of money is being taxed twice: once at the corporate level and once at the shareholder level.

Impact on Shareholder Returns and Corporate Attractiveness

The double taxation mechanism has a direct and often detrimental impact on shareholder returns.

The reduced after-tax profits diminish the dividends shareholders receive.

This decreases the overall return on their investment.

It also makes the corporate structure less attractive compared to other business entities, such as partnerships or S corporations.

These alternative structures generally allow profits to pass through directly to the owners without being taxed at the entity level, avoiding double taxation.

Consequently, double taxation can affect a company’s ability to attract and retain investors.

This is particularly true in sectors where competition for investment is fierce.

Strategies for Mitigating Double Taxation

While double taxation is an inherent feature of the traditional C corporation structure, there are strategies companies can employ to mitigate its impact.

Salary and Compensation Strategies

One common approach is to distribute profits through salary and compensation to employees who are also shareholders.

These payments are tax-deductible for the corporation, reducing its taxable income.

However, this strategy is limited by reasonable compensation standards, as the IRS may reclassify excessive compensation as dividends.

Retained Earnings and Reinvestment

Another approach involves retaining earnings within the corporation for reinvestment in the business.

Instead of distributing profits as dividends, the company uses them to fund growth initiatives, acquisitions, or research and development.

This strategy can increase shareholder value over time through capital appreciation, which is only taxed when the shares are sold.

Stock Buybacks

A company can also use its cash to repurchase its own shares from the open market.

This reduces the number of outstanding shares, potentially increasing the earnings per share and driving up the stock price.

Shareholders who choose to sell their shares back to the company receive capital gains, which may be taxed at a lower rate than dividends.

S Corporation Election

For smaller businesses that meet certain requirements, electing S corporation status can be a viable option.

S corporations are pass-through entities, meaning that profits and losses are passed directly to the owners’ individual income tax returns, avoiding double taxation.

However, S corporations have restrictions on the number and type of shareholders, as well as the classes of stock they can issue.

Dividend Reinvestment Plans (DRIPs)

While not eliminating double taxation, Dividend Reinvestment Plans (DRIPs) allow shareholders to automatically reinvest their dividends to purchase additional shares of the company’s stock.

This can provide a tax-advantaged way to accumulate wealth over time, as the reinvested dividends compound and generate further returns.

Navigating the complexities of double taxation requires careful planning and consideration of the various strategies available.

By understanding the mechanics of this tax burden and implementing appropriate mitigation techniques, corporations can improve shareholder returns and maintain their attractiveness in the competitive business landscape.

The Compliance Maze: Regulatory Burden and Its Implications

Having considered the financial implications of double taxation, it’s important to recognize that the costs associated with running a corporation extend far beyond tax liabilities. The modern corporate landscape is heavily regulated, demanding significant resources to navigate a complex web of compliance requirements.

This regulatory burden can be a substantial disadvantage, impacting profitability, operational efficiency, and strategic decision-making.

Navigating the Regulatory Labyrinth

Corporations, unlike smaller business entities, face a significantly more intricate regulatory environment. This includes federal, state, and sometimes even local regulations, covering a broad spectrum of activities.

These regulations can encompass everything from financial reporting and environmental protection to labor laws and data privacy.

Navigating this complex web requires a dedicated effort to stay informed about evolving regulations. It also means understanding how these regulations apply to the specific industry and operations of the corporation. Failure to do so can expose the company to significant risks.

The Costs of Compliance: A Financial and Operational Drain

Meeting regulatory compliance standards is not merely a matter of adhering to rules. It also involves significant financial and operational costs.

These costs can be categorized into:

• Direct Costs: These include expenses related to reporting, audits, legal counsel, and the implementation of compliance programs.
• Indirect Costs: These are less obvious but can be equally substantial. They include the time and resources diverted from core business activities to focus on compliance-related tasks.

The financial reporting requirements alone can be a considerable burden. Publicly traded companies, in particular, are subject to strict reporting standards mandated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

These standards require detailed financial disclosures, regular audits, and adherence to specific accounting principles. Preparing these reports demands the expertise of qualified accountants and auditors, which can be costly.

Beyond financial reporting, corporations must also comply with industry-specific regulations. For example, companies in the healthcare sector must adhere to HIPAA regulations regarding patient privacy, while manufacturers must comply with environmental regulations aimed at reducing pollution.

This breadth of regulatory oversight necessitates a proactive approach to compliance, involving investment in robust compliance programs, training for employees, and ongoing monitoring of regulatory changes.

The Price of Non-Compliance: Penalties and Reputational Damage

Failure to comply with regulations can result in severe penalties, ranging from monetary fines and legal sanctions to reputational damage and even criminal charges.

The severity of the penalty often depends on the nature and extent of the violation, as well as the corporation’s history of compliance.

Monetary fines can be substantial, potentially impacting the corporation’s profitability and financial stability. Legal sanctions may include court orders, injunctions, or even the revocation of licenses and permits.

Reputational damage can be equally devastating, eroding customer trust, impacting brand value, and hindering the corporation’s ability to attract investors and talent.

To mitigate these risks, corporations must prioritize building and maintaining robust compliance programs. These programs should include:

• Clear policies and procedures: Detailing the corporation’s commitment to compliance and outlining the steps employees must take to adhere to regulations.
• Regular training for employees: Ensuring that employees understand their responsibilities and are aware of the relevant regulations.
• Internal audits and monitoring: Regularly assessing the effectiveness of compliance programs and identifying areas for improvement.
• A culture of compliance: Fostering an environment where compliance is valued and prioritized at all levels of the organization.

By investing in these measures, corporations can reduce the risk of non-compliance, protect their reputation, and ensure the long-term sustainability of their business.

Erosion of Control: When Founders Lose the Reins

The allure of incorporating often overshadows a critical consideration: the potential dilution of control for the original founders and owners. While the corporate structure offers numerous advantages, it inevitably entails relinquishing a degree of autonomy. This transition, from sole proprietor or partnership to a corporate entity, represents a fundamental shift in power dynamics.

The initial visionaries, who may have conceived and nurtured the business from its inception, find themselves increasingly accountable to external stakeholders. This shift can be a jarring experience, particularly for entrepreneurs accustomed to making unilateral decisions.

The Inevitable Dilution of Power

The very nature of a corporation necessitates the diffusion of control. To attract investment and facilitate growth, companies often issue shares, granting ownership stakes to individuals and institutions beyond the founding team.

This equity dispersal, while beneficial for raising capital, inherently diminishes the founders’ individual influence. As the shareholder base expands, decisions become subject to the collective will of the owners, often expressed through voting rights.

Answering to Shareholders and the Board

The Board of Directors, elected by the shareholders, assumes a pivotal role in governing the corporation. The board’s responsibilities are to oversee the company’s management, ensure ethical conduct, and protect shareholder value.

While ideally aligned with the founders’ long-term vision, the board may prioritize different objectives, particularly when representing the interests of external investors. This can lead to conflicts regarding strategic direction, resource allocation, and risk tolerance.

Founders must adapt to operating within a framework of shared governance, where their decisions are subject to scrutiny and approval by the board. This requires a willingness to compromise, negotiate, and justify their actions to a diverse group of stakeholders.

The transition from being the sole decision-maker to a participant in a collective decision-making process can be challenging. It demands strong communication skills, the ability to articulate a compelling vision, and the willingness to accept dissenting opinions.

The Influence of Outside Investors

Venture capitalists, private equity firms, and other institutional investors often play a significant role in shaping corporate strategy. Their financial contributions come with expectations of returns, influencing key decisions such as expansion plans, acquisitions, and divestitures.

Outside investors may advocate for strategies that prioritize short-term profitability over long-term sustainability or social impact. This can create tension with founders who are passionate about maintaining the company’s original mission and values.

The pressure to meet quarterly earnings targets or satisfy investor demands can lead to compromises that deviate from the founders’ initial vision.

It is imperative for founders to carefully consider the potential implications of accepting external funding. They should seek investors who share their values and are committed to supporting the company’s long-term goals.

Negotiating clear terms and establishing strong governance mechanisms can help mitigate the risk of losing control to outside investors. Founders should also maintain open communication with investors, fostering a relationship of mutual trust and respect.

While the corporate structure can lead to a loss of absolute control, it also provides access to resources and expertise that can accelerate growth and create long-term value. The key is to navigate the complexities of corporate governance with foresight, transparency, and a commitment to protecting the company’s founding principles.

Principal vs. Agent: The Challenge of Agency Problems

Having explored the potential erosion of control that founders face when transitioning to a corporate structure, it becomes crucial to examine a related and equally significant challenge: agency problems. These problems, inherent in the separation of ownership and control, can significantly impact a corporation’s efficiency and overall success.

Defining Agency Problems

Agency problems arise when the interests of a corporation’s management (the agents) diverge from those of its shareholders (the principals). This divergence is a natural consequence of the corporate structure, where day-to-day operations are delegated to managers who may not have the same financial stakes or long-term vision as the owners.

In essence, agency problems represent a conflict of interest, where the agent (management) may act in their own self-interest, even if it’s detrimental to the principal’s (shareholders) interests.

Conflicts of Interest: A Breeding Ground for Inefficiency

The core of the agency problem lies in the potential for conflicts of interest between management and shareholders. Managers, for instance, might prioritize short-term profits to boost their bonuses, even if it harms the company’s long-term prospects. They might also pursue empire-building strategies, acquiring other companies to increase their power and influence, even if those acquisitions don’t generate significant returns for shareholders.

Another common conflict is excessive risk aversion. Managers may shy away from potentially lucrative but risky projects for fear of jeopardizing their positions, even if those projects could significantly increase shareholder value.

These actions can lead to inefficient decision-making and a suboptimal allocation of resources within the corporation.

The Impact on Resource Allocation

Agency problems can have a tangible impact on how a corporation allocates its resources. When managers are incentivized to prioritize short-term gains, they may underinvest in research and development, employee training, or long-term capital projects. This underinvestment can stifle innovation and ultimately harm the company’s competitiveness.

Conversely, managers might overspend on perks and benefits for themselves, diverting resources that could be used to enhance shareholder value. These perks may include lavish corporate retreats, extravagant office spaces, or excessive executive compensation packages.

Furthermore, agency problems can lead to misallocation of capital in the form of poorly considered mergers and acquisitions or investments in projects with low returns. These decisions can drain the company’s resources and reduce its overall profitability.

Ultimately, the challenge of agency problems requires careful consideration of incentive structures, monitoring mechanisms, and corporate governance practices to align the interests of management with those of the shareholders, ensuring that resources are allocated efficiently and effectively.

The Weight of Process: The Inefficiency of Corporate Bureaucracy

While agency problems represent a significant challenge, they are not the only internal drag on corporate efficiency. The very structure of large corporations can foster a dense and often debilitating bureaucracy, impacting everything from innovation to operational costs.

The inherent bureaucracy that often plagues large corporations is a critical disadvantage that can significantly hinder performance and adaptability.

Understanding Corporate Bureaucracy

Corporate bureaucracy refers to the complex systems, processes, and layers of management within an organization.

These are often implemented to maintain control, ensure compliance, and standardize operations as companies scale.

However, these systems can easily become overly complex, leading to inefficiencies and stifling the very agility that is essential for success in today’s dynamic business environment.

The essence of bureaucracy lies in its rigid adherence to rules and procedures, hierarchical structures, and formalized communication channels.

The Stifling of Innovation and Slowed Decision-Making

One of the most significant casualties of excessive bureaucracy is innovation. In highly bureaucratic organizations, new ideas often face a gauntlet of approvals and reviews, requiring justification at each level of the hierarchy.

This can be a slow and discouraging process, particularly for employees who are not in senior management positions.

The result is that potentially groundbreaking ideas are often watered down, delayed, or even abandoned altogether.

Moreover, bureaucracy inherently slows down decision-making. Every decision, no matter how minor, may need to pass through multiple layers of management, each with its own set of considerations and potential objections.

This protracted approval process can make it difficult for corporations to respond quickly to changing market conditions or emerging opportunities.

In today’s fast-paced business world, this delay can be a critical disadvantage.

The Escalation of Operational Costs

Bureaucracy also contributes to increased operational costs. Excessive layers of management mean more salaries to pay, more office space to rent, and more resources dedicated to administrative tasks.

Complex processes also require more time and effort to complete, leading to higher labor costs and reduced productivity.

Furthermore, bureaucratic organizations often have a higher incidence of errors and rework, as employees may be less empowered to make decisions and take ownership of their work.

This all leads to increased operational costs, decreasing the bottom line.

Examples of Bureaucratic Inefficiency

Consider a large manufacturing company that requires multiple levels of approval for even minor changes to its production process.

This can delay the implementation of efficiency-improving modifications, resulting in higher production costs and a slower response to customer needs.

Or imagine a financial institution where loan applications must pass through numerous departments, each with its own set of requirements and checkpoints.

This not only frustrates customers, but also increases the bank’s administrative costs and potentially drives business to more agile competitors.

Another common example is the creation of overly complex reporting procedures.

Companies that require employees to fill out numerous forms and reports, often duplicating information, are wasting valuable time and resources that could be better spent on more productive activities.

These examples illustrate how excessive layers of management and complex processes can significantly hinder efficiency and negatively impact a corporation’s bottom line.

Transparency at a Premium: The High Cost of Financial Reporting

The bureaucracy inherent in large corporations can significantly impede innovation and decision-making. However, this is not the only area where the corporate structure demands a high price. A less obvious, but equally impactful disadvantage lies in the stringent financial reporting demanded of corporations.

The need for transparency, while ultimately beneficial for investors and the overall market, translates into substantial direct and indirect costs, as well as heightened scrutiny and potential legal ramifications.

Navigating the Labyrinth: The Rigorous Reporting Landscape

Corporations, particularly publicly traded ones, operate within a complex web of financial reporting requirements. These requirements are dictated by regulatory bodies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in the United States and equivalent organizations globally.

The goal is to provide stakeholders with a clear and accurate picture of the company’s financial health.

This necessitates the preparation and dissemination of various financial statements, including the balance sheet, income statement, statement of cash flows, and statement of changes in equity.

Beyond these core statements, companies must also provide detailed disclosures regarding their accounting policies, significant risks, and other material information that could impact investment decisions.

These disclosures are often extensive and require a significant amount of time and expertise to prepare accurately.

The Price Tag of Transparency: Direct and Indirect Costs

The preparation and auditing of financial reporting documents represent a considerable expense for corporations. Direct costs include the salaries and benefits of accounting and finance staff, the fees paid to external auditors, and the cost of software and systems used to manage financial data.

Indirect costs are often less visible but equally significant. These include the time and effort spent by management in reviewing and approving financial statements, the cost of training employees on new accounting standards, and the potential opportunity cost of diverting resources from other value-added activities.

Furthermore, the need to comply with increasingly complex regulations can necessitate the hiring of specialized consultants and advisors, adding further to the financial burden.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), for example, introduced stringent internal control requirements that have significantly increased the cost of compliance for many companies.

These escalating costs can disproportionately affect smaller corporations with limited resources.

Under the Microscope: Scrutiny and Legal Liability

The increased transparency demanded of corporations also comes with heightened scrutiny from regulators, investors, and the public. Financial statements are subject to rigorous audits by independent accounting firms, and any inaccuracies or misstatements can have serious consequences.

The potential for legal liability is a significant concern for corporate executives and directors. Inaccurate or misleading financial reporting can lead to lawsuits from shareholders, investigations by regulatory agencies, and even criminal charges.

The reputational damage resulting from such incidents can be severe, eroding investor confidence and impacting the company’s ability to attract capital.

To mitigate these risks, corporations must invest in robust internal controls, hire competent accounting professionals, and maintain a strong ethical culture.

However, even with these safeguards in place, the potential for errors and omissions remains, highlighting the inherent risks associated with the high cost of financial reporting.

Guiding the Ship: The Double-Edged Sword of Corporate Governance

Having navigated the complex world of financial reporting and its associated burdens, it’s time to turn our attention to the framework that ideally should guide these and all other corporate activities: corporate governance. While often touted as a hallmark of responsible business, corporate governance presents a nuanced landscape, capable of both propelling a company to success and contributing to its downfall. Its effectiveness hinges on a delicate balance of power, transparency, and ethical conduct.

The Core of Corporate Governance: Accountability and Expectations

At its heart, corporate governance is the system of rules, practices, and processes by which a company is directed and controlled. It essentially involves balancing the interests of a company’s many stakeholders, such as shareholders, management, customers, suppliers, financiers, government, and the community. A key function is ensuring accountability, particularly of the Board of Directors and senior management, to the shareholders who own the company.

Effective corporate governance seeks to align the goals of these different groups.
This alignment is achieved through clearly defined roles and responsibilities.
It ensures transparency in decision-making, and a strong ethical framework.

The Board of Directors plays a crucial role.
They are responsible for overseeing the company’s strategy, risk management, and financial performance.
They must also hold management accountable for their actions.
Shareholders, in turn, exercise their influence through voting rights and the ability to elect or remove directors.

The Upside: Enhanced Decision-Making and Profitability

When implemented effectively, corporate governance can significantly improve a company’s decision-making processes.
A well-structured board, comprised of independent and experienced directors, can provide valuable oversight and guidance to management.
This can lead to more informed and strategic decisions.

Transparency and accountability fostered by strong governance practices can also enhance a company’s reputation and build trust with investors.
This, in turn, can lower the cost of capital and attract new investment, ultimately boosting profitability.

Furthermore, effective risk management, a key component of corporate governance, can protect the company from potential financial losses and reputational damage.
By identifying and mitigating risks proactively, companies can ensure long-term sustainability and success.
This can also create a culture of compliance and ethical conduct throughout the organization.

The Downside: Ethical Failures and Business Collapse

Conversely, ineffective corporate governance can have devastating consequences.
When boards are weak or dominated by management, they may fail to adequately oversee the company’s activities.
This can lead to unethical behavior, financial mismanagement, and ultimately, business collapse.

Perhaps one of the most significant risks of poor corporate governance is the potential for agency problems to fester.
When management’s interests are not aligned with those of the shareholders, they may make decisions that benefit themselves at the expense of the company.
This can lead to inefficient resource allocation, excessive risk-taking, and even outright fraud.

Moreover, a lack of transparency and accountability can erode investor confidence.
This will result in a decline in the company’s stock price, making it difficult to raise capital.
In extreme cases, it can lead to bankruptcy and the loss of shareholder value.

High-profile corporate scandals, such as Enron and WorldCom, serve as stark reminders of the importance of robust corporate governance.
These failures highlight the devastating consequences that can occur when ethical standards are compromised and accountability is lacking.
Ultimately, corporate governance is not merely a compliance exercise but a critical element of long-term sustainable success.

The Price of Operations: Legal Fees and Administrative Overhead

Having steered through the complexities of corporate governance, it’s important to acknowledge the tangible, often substantial, costs associated with simply being a corporation. These aren’t abstract figures; they are real-world expenses that directly impact the bottom line. Legal fees and administrative overhead represent significant financial burdens that can erode profitability and strain cash flow. Understanding the nature and magnitude of these costs is essential for effective financial management and long-term sustainability.

Understanding the Landscape of Legal Fees

Legal fees are an unavoidable aspect of corporate existence, spanning a wide range of services and situations.

These costs can be categorized into several key areas:

• Compliance: Corporations face a constant barrage of regulations, requiring legal expertise to ensure adherence to laws and standards.

• Contract Negotiation and Disputes: Drafting, reviewing, and enforcing contracts, as well as resolving disputes, inevitably involve legal counsel.

• Intellectual Property Protection: Patents, trademarks, and copyrights demand legal protection to safeguard a company’s innovations and brand.

• Litigation: Defending against lawsuits, whether from competitors, customers, or employees, can incur significant legal expenses.

The specific amount a corporation spends on legal fees will vary based on its industry, size, and risk profile. Companies in highly regulated sectors, or those engaged in frequent litigation, will naturally face higher legal bills.

The Weight of Administrative Overhead

Administrative overhead encompasses the costs associated with managing the day-to-day operations of a corporation.

These are essential for smooth functioning, but can quickly escalate if not carefully controlled. Key components include:

• Salaries and Benefits: Compensation for administrative staff, including HR, accounting, and IT personnel, constitutes a major expense.

• Office Expenses: Rent, utilities, supplies, and equipment contribute to the overall cost of maintaining a physical workspace.

• Technology Infrastructure: Investments in hardware, software, and IT support are necessary to facilitate communication, data management, and operational efficiency.

• Insurance: Coverage for various risks, such as property damage, liability, and employee health, is a crucial but costly aspect of administrative overhead.

Inefficient processes, redundant roles, and outdated technology can inflate administrative overhead, placing a drag on profitability.

Impact on Profitability and Cash Flow

Both legal fees and administrative overhead directly impact a corporation’s financial health. These expenses reduce net income, the key indicator of profitability.

High legal costs or excessive administrative spending can deter potential investors and negatively impact stock valuation.

Cash flow is also affected, as these expenses require immediate payment, potentially straining a company’s ability to invest in growth opportunities or weather economic downturns.

Careful management of these costs is therefore crucial for maintaining a healthy financial position.

Strategies for Cost Management

While legal fees and administrative overhead are unavoidable, corporations can implement strategies to manage and reduce these expenses:

• Proactive Legal Compliance: Investing in robust compliance programs can prevent costly legal disputes and penalties.

• Strategic Vendor Selection: Negotiating favorable rates with legal firms and administrative service providers can significantly reduce costs.

• Process Optimization: Streamlining administrative processes and eliminating redundancies can improve efficiency and lower overhead.

• Technology Adoption: Implementing automation and cloud-based solutions can reduce labor costs and improve data management.

• Outsourcing: Consider outsourcing non-core functions, such as payroll or IT support, to specialized providers who can offer economies of scale.

By actively managing legal and administrative costs, corporations can improve their profitability, strengthen their cash flow, and enhance their long-term competitiveness. Ignoring these expenses is not an option for any company seeking sustained success.

So, what’s the takeaway? Running a corporation isn’t all sunshine and rainbows – there’s a real disadvantage of a corporation to consider. Hopefully, this gives you something to think about. Now go forth and make informed decisions!