Archive for January, 2009

Smart Business for Tough Times

Saturday, January 31st, 2009

By Dean Whittaker

Not talking about the economy would be like not talking about the 800 lb. gorilla in the room.  The global economy has gone through the equivalent of a myocardial infarction (heart attack), and we’ve been on life-support ever since.   Fear has taken over hearts and minds as we hoard cash (if we have any), fearful that things will get worse. Unfortunately, our fears often bring about the very things that scare us most.  The media-driven downward spiral has convinced consumers to postpone purchases, bringing about our greatest fear–loss of economic security.  I’ve written a lengthy article about where we’ve been, where we are, and where we may go.  Please click here to read the article.

In the meantime, we must do what the Harvard Business Review recommends for business planning–have three plans.  One plan is for conditions improving, a second for conditions staying the same, and a third for conditions deteriorating.

An SBDC (Small Business Development Center) in Montana gave me a wonderful idea–offer a program on the topic of managing your business in a recession.  I approached our local chamber with the idea and our first overview session will be offered Feb. 10th.  My intention is to turn it into a webinar to reach as many businesses as possible.  The purpose is to provide business owners with strategies and tactics to survive and even prosper during a downturn.   The key appears to be adapting quickly enough to changing economic conditions without overreacting–a tricky balance.

Lead with hope and confidence. Communicate factual information regarding the status of the local economy. All parts of the country are not experiencing the recession equally.  As I have said many times before, everything is cyclical. This too shall pass. We must avoid thinking in a linear fashion in a cyclical world.

Marketing in a Slow Economy

Saturday, January 31st, 2009

By Todd Smithee

Without a doubt, the economy is not booming these days.  Every day brings news of another government bailout plan designed to prop up another failing industry.  Record numbers of layoffs provide feature stories on news websites and cable news channels.  All of this doom and gloom can lead one to believe that cutting all costs to the bone—and this includes marketing expenditures–is key to weathering the storm.  But paring down your marketing agenda is not necessarily the way to go.

Sure, you will want to consider cuts in production when inventory is high.  But you should also take advantage of this opportunity to gain market share from your competitors.  First, focus on delivering excellent service to your existing customer base.  The last thing you need is to lose existing clients at any time, but especially during a time of economic distress.  Actively search out ways to help your clients protect their customer bases and increase their sales.  There is no better way to get on a client’s good side than to help them survive the downturn.

Once you’ve done that, maintain your marketing and sales activities.  The time to expand market share is now, while your competitors are cutting marketing and sales activities to the bare minimum.  This may not pay off immediately, but it positions you for expansion when the economy turns around.    A Pennsylvania State University Smeal College of Business newsletter, which refers to a newly relevant 2005 Smeal and University of Texas article in the International Journal for Research in Marketing, compares the best businesses to the best-trained athletes: “’athletes often choose times of stress to mount attacks: strong runners and bicycle racers may increase their pace on hills or under other challenging conditions’ to beat out weaker opponents during the most difficult leg of their race.”

So take a chance.  Be smart and measure your ROI on your marketing investments.  But don’t simply close up shop and wait for the storm to pass.  Your staff will appreciate your “take charge” attitude and you will position yourself well for the recovery, or possibly, for the present.

PSU Article http://www.smeal.psu.edu/news/latest-news/feb08/mktgrcsn.html

Philanthropy Today

Saturday, January 31st, 2009

By Jami Miedema

For many individuals, January is a month characterized by the hopeful promise of new beginnings and, perhaps, some resolutions for the year to come. For many businesses, this also holds true. Often, the New Year brings with it the close of a fiscal year, signaling the rush for year-end reporting and, usually, the implementation of a new budget. Although it may seem like a daunting task, budgeting is necessary for planning and controlling the allocation of funds, especially in today’s weak economy. Take a look at your company’s budget. How has the distribution of funds differed from years past? Where has the company cut back? One might think that the first place a company would constrain funds would be in its contributions to causes outside the firm, but a study conducted by the Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy (CECP) shows us that is not always the case.

In their 2007 survey of 155 companies, the CECP gathered information regarding the firms’ corporate-giving practices, which included both cash and non-cash gifts. It was found that despite the slowing economy, 66% of firms increased their corporate-philanthropy budgets, while 34% decreased their giving.  Firms increased their philanthropy budgets due to greater profits, excess inventory, greater emphasis from top management as well as increased employee involvement, and an increase in charitable requests from customers. Decreased giving was a result of the weakened economy, tighter inventory controls, and other factors unique to each company (pp 8-9).

The CECP also researched total giving by area to see which sectors received the most support. Health & Social Services and Education lead the way with 28% of cash and non-cash giving in each sector. Community & Economic Development received approximately 12% of total giving in 2007 (pp 32). This includes contributions and grants to economic development councils, minority businesses, community-based groups, and urban renewal. For those familiar with the economic development sector, we know these funds reach well beyond the 12% given, as the creation of jobs and income in communities produces a multiplier effect. Among the other sectors that received aid are Culture & Arts, Civic & Public Affairs, Environment, and Disaster Relief.

The publication of the CECP’s results advises business leaders to support their communities during difficult economic times. Some steps that can be taken include setting a corporate philanthropy budget and maintaining corporate giving as a vital part of company culture. Executives can also work to create a foundation or build relationships with other firms to pool funds for a community in need. The CECP also stresses that contributions of products or services, space, and supplies are of equal importance.

As corporate-giving information is continuously being collected, it will be interesting to see the impact of the economy on last year’s results. As Harold McGraw, III, chairman of the CECP, says in the Giving by Numbers publication, “Now more than ever, it is critical…to step up and invest in the health and well-being of the institutions that keep our communities strong” (pp.12).

Source: Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy (2008). Giving by Numbers: 2008 Edition. Retrieved from http://www.corporatephilanthropy.org.

Proposed Stimulus Package Summary

Saturday, January 31st, 2009

By Jim Bruckbauer

Given the current state of the economy, Whittaker Associates has found that many companies are postponing major business decisions until the Economic Stimulus is passed and major economic action is taken. For this reason alone, it can be assumed that the package will have a very important impact regardless of how, when, and why it is passed.

Below, I have summarized the lengthy proposed stimulus package to concisely show what sectors would benefit from the spending.

Energy
$32 billion: Funding for “smart electricity grid” to reduce waste
$16 billion: Renewable energy tax cuts and a tax credit for research and development on energy-related work, and a multiyear extension of renewable energy production tax credit
$6 billion: Funding to weatherize modest-income homes

Science & Technology
$10 billion: Science facilities
$6 billion: High-speed Internet access for rural and under-served areas

Infrastructure
$30 billion: Transportation projects
$31 billion: Construction and repair of federal buildings and other public infrastructure
$19 billion: Water projects
$10 billion: Rail and mass transit projects

Education

$41 billion: Grants to local school districts
$79 billion: State fiscal relief to prevent cuts in state aid
$21 billion: School modernization ($15.6 billion to increase the Pell grant by $500; $6 billion for higher education modernization)

Health Care

$39 billion: Subsidies to health insurance for unemployed; providing coverage through Medicaid
$87 billion: Help to states with Medicaid
$20 billion: Modernization of health-information technology systems
$4.1 billion: Preventative care

Jobless Benefits
$43 billion for increased unemployment benefits and job training
$39 billion to support those who lose their jobs by helping them to pay the cost of keeping their employer provided healthcare under COBRA and providing short-term options to be covered by Medicaid
$20 billion to increase the food stamp benefit by over 13% in order to help defray rising food costs.

Taxes

Individuals:
$500 per worker, $1,000 per couple tax cut for two years, costing about $140 billion.
Greater access to the $1,000-per-child tax credit for the working poor
Expansion of the earned-income tax credit to include families with three children
A $2,500 college tuition tax credit
Repeal of a requirement that a $7,500 first-time homebuyer tax credit be paid back over time

Businesses:
An infusion of cash into money-losing companies by allowing them to claim tax credits on past profits dating back five years instead of two
Bonus depreciation for businesses investing in new plants and equipment
Doubling of the amount small businesses can write off for capital investments and new equipment purchases
Allowing businesses to claim a tax credit for hiring disconnected youth and veterans

Batteries Powering America’s Future

Saturday, January 31st, 2009

By Vidhan Rana

We have witnessed such a flurry of bad economic news in the last few months that many of us are becoming skeptical about our economic future. However, there are still sectors within our economy that remain active and are experiencing massive growth. Over the next few months, Whittaker Associates will be analyzing some of these sectors in our monthly newsletter.

During his first week in office, President Barack Obama reemphasized his campaign commitment to reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil. A law passed by Congress in 2007 required that by 2020, new cars and trucks meet a standard of 35 miles per gallon, a 40-percent increase over the status quo. President Obama plans to introduce regulation that will force auto manufactures to begin implementing changes as early as 2011. Battery technology will play a central role if these fuel-efficiency standards are to be met.

Currently, most of the batteries we see in advanced hybrid cars like the popular Toyota Prius are manufactured in Asia. Toyota has made numerous advancements to its nickel-metal hydride battery packs since they were first introduced in 1997. American manufacturers are far behind Asian manufacturers in developing battery technology. However, with oil prices hitting record highs last summer and concerns about global climate change rising, auto manufacturers in the United States are finally making some headway into this sector.

In early January, Governer Granholm of Michigan signed a new $335 million tax-credit program to help companies develop and manufacture advanced batteries in Michigan. If battery manufacturing expands in the state, the Michigan Economic Development Corporation predicts that over 50,000 jobs may be created in the state. Later in the month, General Motors announced plans to build a lithium-ion battery plant in Michigan to assemble battery packs for the 2011 Chevrolet Volt, the company’s highly anticipated plug-in electric hybrid.

A Massachusetts-based battery company, A123 Systems, asked for a $1.8 billion government loan to build a factory in southeast Michgan to produce lithium-ioin batteries for hybrids. A123 expects to build an additional plant beyond the Michigan facility, and combined, the two plants are expected to create more than 14,000 jobs. In another development, Ricardo, Inc. annnouced that it has opened a $2 million battery technology center that will help automakers develop hybrid and electric powertrains for future vehicles. The center, located in suburban Detroit, already employs 32 engineers. Ricardo will receive almost $1 million over 10 years from the state through the tax-credit program signed by the Governer earlier in the month. These are welcome annoucements for a state that has seen a string of bad news over the last few years.

Late last year, 14 U.S. technology companies joned forces to seek $1 billion in federal aid to build a plant to make advanced batteries for electric cars in the country. Such developments are encouraging and will certainly help American manufacturers catch up with their Asian rivals.

Whittaker Associates has identified over 50 companies that are directly involved in advanced battery manufacturing. The combined revenue of these companies stands at around $17 billion. Additionally, a review of battery-related capital investments and expansions in the United States revealed over $750 million of investment in the country since 2003. The industry has already created over 3,000 new jobs over the last five years.

The map below shows the 58 project announcements Whittaker Associates observed in the United States in the last five years. A large proportion of the announcements are centered around southeast Michigan and northern Ohio, as most of the batteries are intended to be used in cars.

Map

One company, California-based Tesla Motors, is already producing cars that will spur excitement about battery-powered vehicles.  Skeptics argue that battery-powered cars are not as powerful and “fun” to drive as gasoline-powered cars, but Tesla is proving them wrong. The Tesla Roadster, the company’s first production model, is an all-electric sports car. The car has a range of 221 miles and can accelerate from 0 to 60 mph in less than 4 seconds. By May 2008, the company had sold more than 800 cars and had another 400 buyers in its waiting list. Its current model, the Roadster Sport, will sell for  around $128,000. The company plans to unveil a sedan in 2010 that will be comparable with the BMW 5 Series and Audi 6, at a price tag of around $60,000. There are also plans for a more affordable sedan priced at around $30,000 by 2012.

Batteries are classifed by the material they use to store energy. Common battery types include lithium-ion; nickel-metal hydride; hydrogen fuel-cell; zinc-bromine; and lead-acid. Lead-acid batteries have been around for more than a century and we use them every day as starters in our cars. While much of the buzz centers around lithium-ion and nickel-metal hydride batteries, lead-acid batteries are making technological advances of their own. Axion Power, a Pittsburg, Pennsylvania-based firm, has invented a lead-acid battery that powers a car for about 45 miles or 70 kilometers. The company replaced a normal negative electrode in the battery with a plate made from activated carbon, a material used in supercapacitators.

Axiom Power is not only developing its battery technology to power cars, but is also experimenting with a mobile energy-storage system that can supply up to 1MW of power for 30 minutes or 100KW for ten hours. If this technology is developed successfully, it may help answer the problem of matching the supply of power generated by solar and wind energy to the demand of energy.

In 2007, Congress passed the U.S. Energy Storage Technology Advancement Act, which may provide up to $100 million a year from 2009 through 2014 to set up four energy storage research centers in the U.S. Currently, battery power storage is very costly compared to other storage options such as pumped hydro storage – over $1,000 per kW installed compared to 2 cents per kW. However, storage application companies expect that battery storage costs will decline as the technology is developed and volume production kicks in.

Developing advanced battery technology here in the United States will not only revive its sagging economy but help it regain its position as the leader in innovation. In his most recent book, Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution—And How It Can Help Revive America, Tom Friedman argues that America should embrace clean energy and green technology solutions and regain its economic and political stature in the world. Developments in battery technology are going to play a huge role in this revolution, and will hopefully bring us closer to the goal of energy independence we have been pursuing for over three decades.

An Economic Heart Attack

Saturday, January 31st, 2009

By Dean Whittaker

In the past few months, the living body that is our economy has suffered a massive heart attack. The circulation of blood (currency) has ceased, and permanent damage has begun to occur in the form of foreclosures and bankruptcies.  The first signs—subprime-mortgage defaults–began a few years ago. But we turned away, as one does from the first twinge in the chest, the shortness of breath, hoping the body of our economy was not really sick, and, if it were, that it would magically heal itself.

Sub-prime mortgages were provided to home buyers with questionable credit and little or no down-payment.  The mortgages had complicated and confusing documentation that hid the rapid increase in payments that would occur after the first few years.  These sub-prime, risky mortgages, which paid a high interest rate, were packaged by investment banks into securities that were AAA rated, guaranteed by the borrowers’ homes, and insured against default by an insurance company.  Trillions of dollars of these “good as gold” securities (stock) were sold to banks around the world, who bought them because of the “guaranteed” high interest rate they paid. The banks used them as part of their required reserve capital, which they must keep in order to be allowed to loan money.

Banks are allowed by law to loan more money than they have in their capital reserve. In fact, banks can loan 10 times as much, resulting in “leverage.” This leverage means that they can have $1 on deposit and loan out $10. Banks are formed when wealthy individuals buy stock in the bank, giving it the capital it needs to make loans.  Rather than let the required $1 sit not earning interest, banks invest the reserve in Triple-A rated securities, especially ones that pay the highest rate of interest, which the asset-backed, triple-A rated, insured securities based on the risky real estate loans did.

As the sub-prime borrowers failed to be able to pay their ever-increasing monthly payments, their homes went into default and eventually into foreclosure.  The insurance companies that had insured these homes against default were overwhelmed by the size and scope of the defaults and quickly ran out of capital to reimburse the banks for their losses.   The Federal Reserve, our bankers’ bankers, saw the first signs of the “house-of-cards” starting to fall and attempted to prop it up by loaning the insurance companies billions of taxpayer money so the insurance companies could make good on their promises to pay when the borrower defaulted on their mortgages.

The securities that the commercial banks had purchased to cover the capital reserve requirement became worthless, as there were no buyers who wanted to purchase them. Banks, which normally loaned each other money at the end of the day to balance their books, lost confidence in each others’ ability to repay these short-term loans and stopped making them.

The Wall Street investment banks that created the sub-prime-backed securities kept some of the asset-backed securities for themselves, and they soon found themselves in the same dire straits as the commercial banks.  Once again, the Federal Government bailed them out, with the exception of one large investment bank, Lehman Brothers.  When Lehman Brothers went into bankruptcy, a domino effect was set in motion.

Other Investment banks, such as Goldman Sacs, transformed themselves into commercial banks in order to be eligible for “bail-out” money from the Federal Government or were bought by commercial banks.

Bankers, fearing the insolvency of their fellow bankers, continued to refuse to provide the overnight loans used in common practice to balance their books at the end of each day.  As a result, shock set in at the sudden loss of circulation, and the credit markets froze. The circulation of currency suddenly stopped.

The sudden loss of access to borrowed capital triggered a series of responses.  The housing sector, which was most dependent on the easy flow of borrowed money, felt the lack of circulation first. Through speculation aided by easy access to capital, the housing sector itself had become over-built.  Multiple-home ownership created a false sense of demand as homes became speculative stock bought on margin to be sold in a few years before balloon payments became due. The true value of these speculative properties became clear when there were no buyers (and thus no value) when the circulation of currency stopped.

The financial sector, which had securitized the mortgages of the real-estate speculation, began to feel the reverse effect of their high-yield leveraged positions, which amplified the effect by the degree to which they were leveraged (in some cases 30 to 1 or more). As highly leveraged hedge funds began to have their margins called, financial organizations were forced to begin to sell their stock portfolios, triggering a downward spiral of stock prices. As the value of their portfolios fell further, financiers were forced into selling even more of their stock at whatever price they could get, causing a massive drop in value as no buyers appeared. Knowing that the passage of time would result in yet lower stock prices, short selling was the new game, and major bets were made that tomorrow’s stock price would be lower than today’s.  These bets became a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Other parts of our economic body began to shut down. The manufacturing sector, in particular automotive (which is highly dependent on the consumers’ access to borrowed money), felt the demand for their products suddenly stop.  The ripple effect of the loss of demand for automobiles triggered major cash flow issues for the “big three” in the older automotive sector.  Their union contracts, which demanded near-full pay even for idled workers, created high fixed costs. In addition, these unionized auto companies have the legacy cost of the generous retirement benefits owed their ever-increasing ranks of retired workers.

After the government tried and failed to re-start our economic heart with the $700 billion shock from the paddles of the defibrillator, our economy has gone into cardiac arrest.  It now waits in the intensive care ward for open-heart surgery for possible multiple bi-pass operations or heart replacement.  Our newly elected President has lined up a team of the best economic surgeons to do the operation.  If our economic heart cannot be repaired because the damage is too great, a heart replacement may be necessary.  Massive public works projects, along with expenditures in alternative energy and other efforts to jump-start the economy may be necessary. A whole new economic system, which would provide a more equitable distribution of income among all classes of society, may be required. No one on our surgical team has had experience replacing an economic heart.  The procedure has never been done before.

Regardless of whether the heart can be repaired or must be replaced, our economic recovery will be long and slow.  Economic cardiac rehabilitation will require a change in life-style, exercise and diet.  We will need to lose weight to reduce the work load on our heart and take extremely good care of our economic body to allow it to heal itself.   While drugs can artificially control our blood pressure and aid in healing, the natural markets need to be allowed to work in order to heal our economy.  Time, patience, and compassion will see us through to new economic health based upon sustainability. A time of innovation is at hand, and we will re-invent ourselves and the economic system on which our prosperity is built. This too shall pass, and we will learn from the experience and be stronger (and hopefully wiser) because of it.  With change comes opportunity, and as economic developers, we have our work cut out.