Cherrytree Group LLC Blog

...by Warren Kirshenbaum

The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 is legislation which contains a number of tax incentives designed to encourage businesses to make investments in solar energy, including extensions of the business solar investment tax credit (ITC). The following is a brief summary of the provisions directly and indirectly benefiting the solar industry.

Provisions Directly Benefitting the Solar Industry:

The Business Solar Investment Tax Credit bill extends the 30% Income Tax Credit for solar energy properties for eight years through December 31, 2016. The bill allows the Tax Credit to be used to offset both regular and alternative minimum taxes and permits public utilities to directly invest in solar facilities and claim the Income Tax Credit. The five-year accelerated depreciation allowance for solar property is permanent and unaffected by the passage of the eight-year extension of the solar ITC.

Provisions Indirectly Benefiting the Solar Industry:

Extension of Energy-Efficient Buildings Deduction. Current law allows taxpayers to deduct the cost of energy-efficient property installed in commercial buildings. The amount deductible is up to $1.80 per square foot of building floor area for property installed in commercial buildings as part of:

•   Interior lighting systems,
•   Heating, cooling, ventilation, and hot water systems,
•   The building envelope.

Expenditures must be certified as being installed as part of a plan designed to reduce the total annual energy and power costs with respect to the interior lighting systems, heating, cooling, ventilation, and hot water systems of the building by 50 percent or more in comparison to certain established standards. The bill extends the energy efficient commercial buildings deduction through December 31, 2013. (This is section 179D in the Internal Revenue Code).

Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds. The bill creates a new category of tax credit bonds, "Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds" to finance State and local government initiatives designed to reduce greenhouse emissions. QECBs can be issued to finance capital expenditures incurred for:

•   Reducing energy consumption by at least 20%;
•   Implementing green community programs;
•   Rural development involving the production of electricity from renewable resources.

The bonds can also be used to finance research facilities and provide research grants for, among other things, technologies to reduce peak use of electricity. There is a national limitation of $800 million, allocated to States, local and tribal governments.

...By Warren Kirshenbaum

Renewable energy is not yet able to be produced in quantities that will satisfy global energy demand, and renewable energy is more expensive than energy produced from fossil fuels, but great strides have been made in recent years in these areas. Furthermore, the costs that the production of fossil fuels are imposing, both on our environment, and financially on the companies producing oil and gas are not factored into the cost per gallon or kilowatt hour of energy production, and perhaps this is a line item that we should start to factor into the cost of the production of energy from fossil fuels if we are going to make a push toward serving the world’s energy needs with renewable resources.

This year, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill (which was both the biggest oil spill in U.S. history and the largest accidental marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry) released 185 million gallons of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico for about three months and has inflicted devastating environmental and psychological damage on the coastal communities in the Gulf, affecting tourism, fishing and drilling, as well as subjecting residents to ongoing restrictions on fishing and shrimping that have affected the livelihoods of thousands of people. BP’s Gulf Oil Spill resulted in the deaths of 11 workers on the rig and injuries to 17 others. BP’s financial expenditures from the oil spill have so far reached $3.12 billion, excluding the $20 billion compensation fund they have set up to reimburse residents and businesses for their losses. Also this year we endured the Copiapo mining accident in Chile, which occurred when the copper/gold mine owned by San Esteban Mining Company collapsed and 33 men were trapped 2,300 ft below ground for 69 days. Fortunately, all of the 33 men were rescued with only one man suffering from pneumonia, and a few others experiencing dental problems. The cost to rescue the men was $20 million. The San Esteban Mining Company has allegedly violated mining regulations previously, and 8 of its employees have died at the mine in 12 years. Adding to the year’s disasters at fossil fuel production sites is the Pike River Mine accident in New Zealand where an explosion at the coal mine has left 29 miners trapped 4,900 feet from the mine’s entrance. The miners are still trapped in the mine and may not be alive. Gas sampling is being tested to ensure that any accidental spark will not ignite the mine when search and rescue operations are undertaken. The Gulf Oil Spill, Copiapo mining accident, and Pike River Mine accident were stark reminders that our pursuit of energy derived from fossil fuels is causing an irreversible deterioration of our planet, its natural resources, our environmental balance, and is subjecting us to unacceptable losses in human life.

There are a multitude of renewable resources, but this post will focus on solar and hydro energy production, as these methods of renewable energy production are, in my opinion, poised to experience significant growth in the next few years.

Solar energy production is significantly more expensive than hydro, due to the cost of the solar panels themselves. Hydro has languished for decades as a method of creating renewable energy, mainly due to the environmental objections that a hydro project creates, and the expensive federal regulatory requirements of such projects. However, both forms of renewable energy are attractive. Solar projects, unlike wind projects do not create a danger to birds, cattle, and other animals, solar fields are not large and aesthetically displeasing, and do not generate loud whirring sounds that intrude on people’s quality of life. Consequently, as solar installations have very little negative environmental effect, they are generally easy to permit. Solar energy is, however, expensive to produce, as the technology that underpins the solar panels have traditionally made the installation of solar fields expensive enough to impede their development as a commercial enterprise. As with all technology, as solar technology develops, its cost has begun to decline, which should make solar projects more viable. Hydro, is very clean and unobtrusive to the environment, and is relatively safe to produce, but it can affect the migratory pathways of fish, and a dam breach could be detrimental to downstream human habitats. Consequently, new dams have not been constructed in many years. In fact, the stock of dams has decreased over the decades. Moreover, the prospect of new dams being built is relatively slim (due to the environmental challenges and the time period involved in getting Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approval). Inorder for hydro production to increase, the capacity of existing facilities would need to be expanded. Legislative changes that limit environmental objections to the process of FERC approval, renewal, and re-licensing would need to be implemented to help to stimulate hydro production, this will require intensive lobbying, but it can be done.

Nevertheless, the point being made here is that, despite the higher cost of producing renewable energy, the cost of energy production from fossil fuels is enormous,not only the monetary cost, but the environmental cost as well as the cost of human life. This is more of an IOU being tagged to the planet than a current cost, which leads to the conclusion that we have no choice but to pay the higher monetary price for renewable energy now and retire the bigger IOU that future generations will inherit.

By Warren Kirshenbaum

The Federal Reserve's plan to purchase $600BN in US Treasuries has wide ranging consequences, including the devaluing effect that the influx of such a large amount of dollars will have on the dollar itself. A devalued dollar makes US produced goods cheaper, causing exports to rise. As a deficit nation, the US benefits from an increase in exports, but it comes at the expense of other countries. Therefore, this plan has been roundly criticized by many countries who claim that the US is manipulating its currency, and as the issuer of a global reserve currency such as the dollar the US has a responsibility to keep the dollar fairly valued. It is certainly an interesting position for currency manipulating countries like China to take, but nonetheless this is the position they are taking, and as we will discuss below their influence on our domestic interest rate environment is significant.

So, what effect will the Fed plan have on mortgage rates? As the Federal Reserve's monetary policy has been to keep the Federal Funds rate at less than 1% for some time now, long term interest rates have remained low. Mortgages are generally priced off the 30 year Treasury bond, which is currently yielding 4.25%. Average 30 year fixed mortgages are pricing at 4.625%. In that a bond's yield increases as the price of the bond decreases, if the prices of US Treasuries decline, then yields will increase. Bond prices have been trending higher for several days now on concerns of inflation and uncertainty about the Fed's plan to buy treasuries.

So let us analyze this situation. As a deficit nation, we spend more than we receive. The only way to sustain such behavior is to borrow funds to finance the shortfall. Many nations have large stockpiles of US dollars from trading with us, and many more hold their reserves in dollar denominated assets. These dollars need to be put to work, and the value of dollar denominated assets need to remain steady for these countries to continue to run surpluses which are need to finance their economic growth, provide infrastructure and provide basic services for its citizenry. Therefore, there are a large number of countries buying US debt in the form of US treasuries. If other countries, like China decide that the US economy is shaky and they reduce their purchases of treasuries, or even begin to sell off the treasuries they currently own, bond prices would fall and yields will increase. That would mean that other countries would be unwilling to finance our debt at the same levels as they have been. In that case, with the Fed itself buying US treasuries, there will not be an excess supply of treasuries, which will keep their prices steady, or even cause an increase in bond prices. It would appear, however, that if we were in a deficit to begin with, the only way the Fed could buy treasuries would be to print more money to do so, which will improve the cash position of the US but deflate the dollar, and obligate us to greater borrowing costs. An increase in the US cash position, together with an increase in exports could have a formidable effect on our current account surplus and reduce our deficit, but clearly we are devaluing the dollar and annoying our trading partners whose point is well taken. They say that the US should be able to increase its exports by improving its competitiveness not devaluing its currency. Nevertheless, this seems to be a short term plan on the part of the Fed. Basically, increased export production can lead to the creation of jobs, and a lowering of the unemployment rate, which leads to a rise in consumer confidence. Mortgage rates and other borrowing costs could increase, which would lead to manufacturing price increases and, therefore, an increase in the prices of consumer goods, i.e. inflation.

So we are trading deficit reduction and job creation for inflation and higher borrowing costs. What all of this will do for our businesses and economic outlook is anyone's guess, but it is certainly shaping up to be a challenging time period.

By Warren Kirshenbaum

In the recent election, Question 2 on the Massachusetts ballot asked whether voters should “repeal the law allowing developers of projects that include low- or moderate-income housing to apply for a single comprehensive permit from a city or town’s zoning board” The law in question is M.G.L. Chapter 40B, which is an expedited permitting statute. Chapter 40B creates an expedited permitting procedure for those developers that include an affordable component to their development. Specifically, in order to receive a permit under 40B, 25% of the housing units to be built must be considered affordable housing. The towns in the Commonwealth that are subject to 40B are those towns whose affordable housing stock does not exceed 10% of their total housing inventory. 40B subjects the Zoning Board to a streamlined procedure greatly reducing the time and cost of the permitting procedure, and limiting the ability of the town to deny the permit.

On Tuesday, November 2nd, Massachusetts voters, in a decisive victory of 58% to 42% voted not to repeal 40B.

This trend in the voting patterns comports with conversations that I had with people, in which it seemed that there was a lot of non-information, and even misinformation on this issue, and as this movement to repeal 40B could resurface again, I am hoping to shed some light on the issue in this post.

The main underlying issue that I sensed is the NIMBY one. Not in My Back Yard is understandable, and is a concern about falling property values and the denigration of a neighborhood when some of the housing is affordable. Declining property values is indeed a fallout of affordable housing, as the financing options discussed below are very favorable to developers or affordable buyers and, therefore, their properties. These affordability factors lower the market value of a single family home, or a multifamily property, and, therefore, affect the comps of other sellers in the area. This effect is a micro-economic effect, and a relatively minor one at that, as lower comps would affect a financing appraisal in small part, and the market value of a sale with even less consequence. In any event, 40B historically has mostly been used for multi-family construction, and 95% of the projects permitted under 40B are multi-family apartment complexes or condos.

Practically speaking, if a condo development were built near your home, whether it was affordable or market-rate your property value and property enjoyment would decline, so this is not an affordable housing, or 40B issue, as much as it is a land-use or urban planning issue.

Secondly, people I spoke to understood 40B to be a financing statute, and assumed that it gave developers funding to pursue their affordable housing projects. 40B is an expedited permitting statute that allows an override of municipal zoning authority to promote affordable housing. It is not a financing statute. There are forms of financing that are available to developers of affordable housing, such as the Federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit, HUD insured mortgages, tax-exempt bonds, Community Block Grants, and other state and federal sources of funding, and developers use these sources of funding once they are permitted, whether pursuant to 40B or otherwise. 40B is not a preamble to these sources of financing.

While realizing that concern over retaining a leafy suburban lifestyle, or holding on to a paper appraisal of a home value may be important to some in the micro-economic sense, it is not a positive economic trend in the big picture that justifies the repeal of a statute such as 40B. Consider this: a community is more than just our home values; it is a collection of individuals, families, homes, stores, houses of worship, and so forth. While we are happy when we see a fire truck scooting off to tame a brush fire near our neighbor’s yard, we would be foolish to attempt to exclude the possibility that the first responders on the fire-truck also be given the opportunity to live among us in our community by creating affordable options here, and not force them to be relegated to living in a far-off town for affordability reasons.

It should also be pointed out since its enactment, 40B has been credited with spurring upwards of 80% of the new development in Massachusetts, and there are several new developments, as well as many ongoing ones that would not have been built, or will not now be completed were 40B to be repealed, or if it didn’t exist in the first place. This construction has created jobs, spending, and economic activity that we rely on for our stability, and, particularly in our economic malaise, we can little afford to repeal a statute that has created such substantial growth and employment.

The Citizens Housing and Planning Association (“CHAPA”), a prominent Massachusetts non-profit that plays a decisive role in encouraging the production and preservation of affordable housing claimed that this vote evidenced the largest victory margin of any ballot campaign. CHAPA claimed that, “over 1.2 million voters and 80% of cities and towns affirmed their support for protecting the affordable housing law for seniors and working families in urban, suburban, and rural communities all across the state.” While this is true, an analysis of the voting results shows that the larger urban centers voted strongly in favor of not repealing 40B, constituting the largest slice of the 16% victory margin, while the voting in many towns was closer than this 16% victory margin suggests. Many towns actually voted in favor of repeal. Cities and towns such as Worcester, Somerville, Quincy, Arlington, Boston, Brockton, Lawrence, New Bedford and Cambridge opposed repealing 40B in large numbers, and they were joined by the suburban bastions of Newton, Needham, Lexington, Brookline, and Milton, which all together carried the NO vote on this question. Significantly, however, there were also several towns that voted to repeal 40B, such as Abington, Amesbury, Billerica, Bridgewater, Sudbury, Stoughton, Wilmington, Westford, Chelmsford, Tewksbury, Walpole, and Canton.

... by Warren Kirshenbaum

I was meeting with a commercial tenant representative today over coffee, and during our discussion about what trends he was noticing in business, he said that he had been accumulating leads more rapidly over the past few months. His view was that people were starting to consume more, or at least entertain thoughts of consumption and expansion efforts in business. They’re not feeling more confident because the economy is on an upward trajectory, they’re just tired of being depressed. I think he’s absolutely correct. When you get hammered by a lot of bad news, eventually you don’t care anymore. It gets to a point that you become sensitized toward bad news, and you just start moving forward with plans, and loosening the purse strings for no other reason than you become tired of the ways things are.

This is the new normal.

Thinking about this, I realized that, although my set of circumstances differ, and my perspective is shaped by the view from my seat, my conclusion is the same.

Things changed in the Fall of ’07, and have not been the same since. 2009 was an improvement, challenging but good. Business in 2010 is different to the way it was in 2009 — things are changing rapidly. There’s more activity, but not greater volume; clients are focused on cost cutting, do not have the ability to risk their remaining resources, are being smarter about their spending, and are less likely to ride with a project for as long as they had done in earlier years. These factors are pressuring the market for services to change from the a la carte delivery of specific services to a more all-encompassing pre fixe. Clients are demanding the delivery of those services in a way that adds value to their projects. This is leading to more price stability for buyers of services, more specialization and niche building by sellers of services, and a movement away from the traditional ways in which services were priced and delivered.

Once again, a new normal.

Naturally, the question of whether we “are at the bottom” and “when is the economy going to return to normal” will be asked. Well it isn’t going to — there’s a new normal.

Our economy has lost millions of jobs during this recession, and even if we could replace them, it would take many years to do so. Current business conditions, however, discourage small businesses from adding new workers. Specifically, health care costs, taxes, data privacy concerns, payroll costs and employee benefits are a major discouragement to hiring new employees. At the same time, new technology has made it easier to outsource job functions than to hire more employees. A company that needed 8 employees 10 years ago, can now achieve the same output with only 3 employees. It’s possible now to bank online and make deposits from the office; bookkeeping and accounting are easily outsourced as online software programs download banking, billing, revenue and expense data and process the data into registers and reports; billing and accounting information can be accessed from the internet by an outsourced independent contractor; printing, copying, marketing, advertising, internet strategy, as well as informational technology are all outsourced, and administrative and secretarial services are shared between companies that have co-located in larger office space, with any excess services needed being handled by virtual assistants.

My point being that the old jobs lost are not going to come back, big companies will shrink, and small companies will try to remain small. Jobs are being created, and will continue to be created but they are being created by new businesses, not existing businesses. The new jobs are in different fields, and workers will need new skills.

Once again, this will be the new normal. The new normal is to adapt or die. Adaptation will need to be done quickly, and will require one to be nimble. Large entities are by their nature not nimble and cannot adapt quickly enough to create significant opportunities in the new normal. It’s up to us little guys to do that. I’m up to the challenge, are you?