Cherrytree Group LLC Blog

...by Warren Kirshenbaum

Just a few years after eliminating a state historic preservation tax credit, Rhode Island lawmakers are considering reviving it as an economic development tool.

Reinstituting the incentive to rehabilitate abandoned mills and empty warehouses would create work for construction companies and trade workers while protecting the state's historic character.

"It will mean jobs for architects, engineers, craftsmen," said Martha Werenfels, a Providence architect who has worked on several historic preservation projects. "Right now projects are not moving forward. They're going to Connecticut and they're going to Massachusetts because there are tax credits available."

The proposal would award tax credits equaling up to 25 percent of the cost of rehabilitating historic buildings for commercial use.

Lawmakers voted to stop giving new credits to commercial preservation projects in 2008. The program cost taxpayers $300 million since it was enacted a decade ago, but supported 237 projects worth more than $1.2 billion, according to the state's Historical Preservation & Heritage Commission.

Local government officials support the tax credit as a way to spur redevelopment in the state's many old mills and commercial buildings. Supporters noted that several companies have turned vacant warehouses and mills into modern corporate headquarters. East Providence Planning Director Jeanne Boyle cited the multimillion-dollar redevelopment of a former industrial site in her city as proof the tax credit works.

"Without the historic tax credit that project never would have happened," she said.

Original article by By David Klepper – Boston.com

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

It is my opinion that banks really do not have much incentive to lend money. Banks can borrow money from the Fed at rates that approximate zero, and they can then purchase US Treasuries and return a 3 point spread with little to no risk. Accordingly, why would they be willing to incur the time consumption of due diligence, the transaction expenses, and the inherent risk of loaning money to consumers and businesses when they can be profitable borrowing from the Fed, lending to each other, and engaging in hedging transactions. Nevertheless, as their apparent mandate is to take in deposits and then loan those funds out to borrowers while maintaining a reserve of funds to maintain net capital requirements, they need to put some money out to work in loan transactions but their documents, loan covenants, underwriting requirements, equity requirements, and debt-service coverage ratios are very restrictive, and in some cases are either unprofitable for borrowers or are putting businesses in the position of having to run business decisions by their bankers prior to accessing necessary working capital or credit line funding. I have been promoting for some time now that businesses need to create their own sources of funding, in order to decrease their reliance on bank financing, which is fast becoming a scarce resource. Private equity or corporate debt issuance is a viable option in these economic times, and I urge businesses of all sizes and levels of growth and development to formulate a plan to tap their non-bank resources for capital funding.

Interestingly, a midterm election that changes the majority party in Congress, such as the 2010 Midterm elections did can have a profound effect on the business plans of many different types of companies. For example, those businesses that supply the defense industry may find that under a Republican controlled Congress there are more dollars appropriated to defense spending, and will benefit from such a political change. Those businesses that are non-unionized may find that a Democratic Congress or state administration would be more favorable to union labor and open-shop employers may find that the cost of labor would dramatically increase, effectively turning a company’s cash flow upside down. Any of these factors would cause a company to need to seek financing to smooth out the edges while it re-formulates its business plan and carves out new market niches for itself.

My message is that if you are hoping to seek bank financing, you should add to your quiver of options the possibility of raising funds using private equity, or by issuing corporate bonds or debt instruments. As you are setting the terms of the offering or issuance you are in more of a position to control and accept provisions, terms, covenants and this will be beneficial to your business interests, and that will spur, and not hamper or restrict growth. We, as small business people are in need of capital and funding to execute many, if not most of the objectives of our business plans, but the sources of capital have become restrictive, unwieldy, and stifling. It is time to change the terms of this game, and look for alternate sources of funding.

... 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?