Tag Archive for 'wall street'

Wall Street’s sour grapes shouldn’t set Main Street’s teeth on edge

“The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children’s teeth are set on edge.”

When Jeremiah and Ezekiel so prophesied 2600 years ago, it was to offer hope for a time when the Children of Israel would stop having the sins of their fathers visited on them. As a student of the evolution of American capitalism over the past half century, recent observations have moved me to paraphrase the ancients with a new marketplace maxim that I pray will not become prophetic:

“Wall Street has eaten sour grapes and Main Street’s teeth are set on edge.”

Alas, my passage is not about hope for a sweeter time, but rather, a lament of concern for the opposite.  My perspective is informed by three periods of time: The Reagan Boom, post 2008 financial crisis, and post 2016 election. I’ll split the latter into bookends around the other two.

Post 2016 Election
When we awoke on Wednesday, November 9, 2016 to the shocking Electoral College tally showing Donald Trump had preempted the anointing of Hillary Clinton as president, the Dow Jones was already in record territory at 18,323.  By closing bell that day, the Index was up 265 points. Since then, the “Trump Bounce” has driven the Dow Jones through the once-mythical 20,000 level on the way to 21,000, the fastest 1,000 point run in history.

Meanwhile, out here on Main Street, the 44-year-old NFIB Index of Small Business Optimism reported its own historic spike in that sentiment since the election. But a small business can’t eat optimism, and my recent online polling indicates less than a third of our respondents are seeing customer enthusiasm actually ringing a cash register. After a tough decade, unlike investors, consumers are more measured than manic, so it’s likely to take months of sustained optimism to manifest as Main Street sales growth.

The Reagan Boom
Once upon a time, small businesses benefited from an exuberant stock market.

Beginning in the third quarter 1982, the Dow Jones caught a rocket to a 52% increase over the next four quarters, to 3071. And with the exception of a correction or two along the way, including the 1987 “Black Monday” crash, Wall Street didn’t look back until the turn of the new millennium when it closed at a record high of 11,722 on January 14, 2000.

Main Street businesses had much to be excited about because in those days it was an article of faith that “the stock market was a leading indicator of the national economy.” During that same period, as it had always done, the rising Wall Street tide raised Main Street boats too. Indeed, in that 18-year economic expansion, plus a shorter one from about 2002 to 2007, the old “leading indicator” dynamic between Wall Street and Main Street was made manifest during what has been called the “Reagan Boom.” As Wall Street reached new records, annual GDP growth, the favored indicator for small firms planted in the ground, averaged a beautiful 3.5%.

Post Financial Crisis
American macro-capitalism changed significantly beginning in 2007 with the Great Recession, which overlapped the financial crisis of 2008. In the process of surviving those two gut-punches, Corporate America and Wall Street shifted their business practices by focusing inward more than ever before. Inward, meaning investing less in the Main Street economy, to the extent that the once-dependable maxim, “Wall Street is a leading indicator of the economy,” morphed into my observation that Wall Street is now merely a leading indicator of itself – Main Street is on its own. Here’s my evidence:

  • While the U.S. economy was experiencing essentially a lost decade (2007-2016), with GDP growth averaging 1.4%, including barely 2% annually for the seven years following the end of the recession, the stock market spent the last five years setting new records.
  • For three years running, in the first quarters of 2014, 2015, and 2016, two things happened simultaneously that had only happened before in Bizarro World:
    • GDP went perilously negative in 2014 (-2.9%), 2015 (-2%), and achieved only .5% growth in 2016 (U.S. Dept. of Commerce).
    • The Dow Jones reached new record highs in all three first quarters.

Again I ask, what’s wrong with this picture?

Back to the future
There’s been no corporate earnings performance since November 8 to justify spikes of 15% for the Dow Jones and 11% for the S&P. Where’s the fundamentals evidence one would expect to cause equities to wander into unicorn territory? It’s true: The hope of a more business-friendly government is raising optimism in all sectors of the marketplace. But unlike Wall Street, a small business can only spend what it takes in by serving customers. Our top line manna falls from customers, not mania or manipulation.

Smarter people than I are forecasting a stock market correction if, for example, there’s no tax reform this year. My “sour grapes” concern is that having already “clipped its coupons” on the post-election exuberance, a correction this year for any reason it will set the economy back abruptly, derailing Main Street’s bounce before it ever happens.

No one on Main Street begrudges the success of Wall Street. But right now the disconnect between the two once-symbiotic sectors is at once illogical and unsustainable. When the irrational exuberance of Wall Street ultimately reconciles with reality, that event should not cause Main Street to become collateral damage before the latter ever gets to play in the game.

Write this on a rock … When Wall Street eats sour grapes, it should not set Main Street’s teeth on edge.

Revealing the dangerous disconnect between Wall Street and Main Street

Decades ago I worked my way through college selling big-ticket merchandise on commission for Sears.

In those days — when a salesperson’s technology was a ballpoint pen and carbon paper — if I had a prospect on a $500 out-of-stock item, management permission was required to make a $1.23 long-distance call to check availability at a regional warehouse.

Approval had to come from one of two types of managers, each with a different philosophy about the impact of my request:

  • An Operator — hard-wired to squeeze profit out of expense control.
  • A Merchant — hard-wired to increase profit by growing sales.

If I asked an Operator, usually the assistant store manager, to approve my call, he saw a profit-eating $1.23 expense and often turned me down with a cost-control lecture.

But to a Merchant, the same request looked like a buck-and-a-quarter investment worth risking to get a potential $500 sale.

Back then my disdain for the Operator perspective, and attraction to that of the Merchant, was transactional and directly connected to the content of my pay envelope on Friday. In time I would learn that these two forces are in fact the yin and yang of any successful operating unit.

But what if the Operator philosophy were to become dominant in the marketplace writ large? What if Operator dominance became so pervasive it created an imbalance with Merchant influences that not only negatively impacted the economy, but the social fabric as well?

Well, I believe that’s what has happened.

When Operators Reigned

Fast-forward to 2009, post-financial crisis: Leadership of businesses large and small necessarily reverted to the Operator philosophy, literally for survival. Give them their due, Operators have a fish-eyed focus that’s especially handy when revenue is challenged by circumstances internal or external.

But more than a half decade since the financial collapse, Operators continue to dominate Corporate America, and the case can be made that, with regard to the greater economy, they’ve overstayed their welcome.

Indeed, it’s time to ask the question: Are Operators still dispensing essential management medicine, or can a portion of the not-so-great recovery be attributed to being over-medicated by their parsimonious prescriptions? (In referring to Corporate America, I primarily mean big banks, publicly-traded companies that kowtow every 90 days to Wall Street analysts with absolute fealty to share price, large corporations taken private and run by private equity firms, and corporate raiders who call themselves “shareholder advocates”.)

Prior to the financial crisis, Merchants had prevailed in Corporate America since the mid-1980s, a period of low economic volatility that former Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke referred to as the Great Moderation, which managed to weather two stock market crashes and two recessions. But now, six years into a moribund, not so great recovery, it’s not a coincidence that while Operators have controlled Corporate America, small-business optimism has never been lower for this long in the 42 years of NFIB’s Small Business Optimism Index.

Why This Matters

When long-distance phone calls cost $1.23, the marketplace dynamic was largely between Corporate America and consumers. For most of the last half of the 20th century, small businesses were predominantly local retailers, suppliers and service providers.

But simultaneous with the Great Moderation was the Great Downsizing, during which Corporate America converted non-core competencies from being managed and performed by employees to outsourced relationships with contractors — small business contractors. As a result over the past 25 years, Corporate America became more efficient and profitable as their new outsourcing strategy manifested in at least three ways for small businesses:

  1. No longer merely backwater mom and pops, increased contracts with Corporate America for deeper operational involvement caused millions of existing small businesses to evolve and grow from local supplier to integrated vendor-partner.
  2. Millions of new small businesses have been created to take advantage of the new corporate downsizing contracts by filling niches of niches.
  3. Small business numbers, sophistication, employment, and contribution to national GDP has increased significantly.

Consequently, during The Great Moderation the small business sector achieved enough critical mass to be responsible for more than half of the U.S. non-farm GDP, employ more than half of all private sector workers, create most of the net-new jobs and 55 percent of innovations (NFIB, U.S. Small Business Administration).

Those who wonder why the economy has been stuck at the 2 percent annual GDP range since 2009, instead of the 4 percent expansion that was the hallmark of past recoveries, need look no further than the current investment philosophy of Corporate America Operators. Investment restraint by Corporate America since 2010, a period of sustained profitability, has contributed to the failure of the recovery to become an expansion.

Of course, their first steps were cost cutting. Deep cost cutting. Later, with balance sheets brimming with cash, instead of investing in the economy, Operators have been more likely to buy back stock to support the share price. More recently, still looking for new ways to operate their way to profit and grow share price, Corporate America used their cash for acquisitions, as industry after industry consolidated.

This practice has resulted in several conditions that will only increase the disconnect between the financial economy of Wall Street and the real economy on Main Street:

  • Consolidation typically results in net job loss.
  • Consolidation reduces competition.
  • Industry consolidation reduces contract opportunities for small businesses.
  • Wall Street is happy and Main Street is left out.

Many experts recognize that the economy in the current post-recession period has performed at half the rate of past recoveries. In a recent interview on my radio program with Martin Wolf, internationally recognized chief economic commentator for The Financial Times, London, we discussed the causes of a recovery that won’t become an expansion.

When I mentioned my thoughts about the current dominance of Operators, he agreed, saying, “When Corporate America spends less than its income and is accumulating cash while not investing, then someone else in the economy has to spend more than their income, and there isn’t anyone else out there who can do that.”

In responding to the October 2014 announcement by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the chairman of the Congressional Economic Committee, Representative Kevin Brady (R) said, “Business investment continues to fall below expectations and remains the missing ingredient to strong and sustained job creation.”

What’s Wrong with this Picture?

In Q1 2014, two things happened simultaneously that has never happened before:

  1. The Dow Jones reached a new record high (16,570), growing more than 2.5 times and 10,000 points higher than the 2007 low of 6,470, and the S&P 500 reached a record high (1,877) almost tripling from the 683 low in 2009.
  2. The economy went negative, with GDP descending to a breathtaking -2.9% in the first report, later upgraded to a still frightening -2.1%.

Incredibly, the same scenario happened in Q1 2015: Wall Street set new records, including a record high for NASDAQ, while GDP was initially barely above ground at 0.2 percent, but later downgraded to negative.

So Wall Street is euphoric while Main Street continues to reel from what is approaching a lost decade, in an economy that two years in a row is still dangerously close to double dip territory. What’s wrong with this picture?

Many factors led to this unprecedented run-up of equities, not the least of which was the most accommodative Fed monetary policy in the history of monetary policies, keeping interest rates historically low and equities above fundamentals. Unfortunately, that fiat money stayed very close to home, which is to say, on Wall Street, while the Main Street economy received scant little benefit.

In December 2008 no employer knew how bad things were going to get, causing companies large and small to take drastic cost-cutting steps. Admittedly in hindsight, the case can now be made that the shock-and-awe of the financial crisis caused Corporate America to cut payroll deeper than was necessary. But once done, Operators found a way to get Herculean production out of remaining employees, scared of losing their jobs.

In any given month since, five economic indicators have been reported that reveal the results of Operator dominance in Corporate America, and the impact of fealty to share price.

  1. Record levels for stocks.
  2. Dysfunctional employment metrics. Never mind the useless U-3 household rate, chronic under-employment (U6), continues at over 10 percent. Plus we’re experiencing the lowest employment participation rate — below 63 percent — in 37 years (when Carter was president), which seems to have become entrenched.
  3. Small business performance at historic low levels. The NFIB Small Business Optimism Index, tracking this sector for 42 years, reported the March 2015 survey showed all 10 Index elements were negative for the first time ever.
  4. According to the National Association of Counties’ 2014 County Economic Tracker, only one in 50 U.S. counties has fully bounced back. Just 65 of the nation’s 3,069 counties have met or surpassed prerecession levels in four measured categories: jobs, unemployment rate, economic output and home prices.
  5. Growing income inequality, especially among the middle class, which includes essentially all small business owners.

More recently, income inequality has been prominent in the news. It’s true. Middle class income has been declining for some time. But one of the more recent contributing factors is lack of investment in the economy by Corporate America, especially contracts with small businesses.

When Corporate America invests in growth, small businesses benefit. When small businesses get contracts from big customers, they don’t buy back shares or acquire competitors, they hire employees and make capital purchases. That churn grows the economy and, good times or bad, small business churn represents half of U.S. GDP.

Prior to 2008, one out of three Americans (more than 100 million) were directly connected to small business, including owners, employees and family. And when you understand the income levels for small business stakeholders, it’s easy to see that in 21st century America, small business represents a big chunk of the middle class.

Alas, due to factors identified herein, plus loss of access to capital due in large part to over-regulated banks, especially community banks, small business numbers have been decimated in the past decade.

In 2009 when many said, “Just wait until the startups get going, they’ll bring this economy back,” I predicted this recovery period would be a bad time for startups, because the two classic sources of startup capital — personal credit and home equity — were both essentially wiped out with the 2008 financial crisis.

In a recent comprehensive report by Goldman Sachs Global Market Institute, titled “The Two-Speed Economy,” the authors confirm my points about pressure on existing small businesses and startups. Their research found that in the five years since 2008, there are “an estimated 600,000 ‘missing’ small companies, and six million jobs associated with these firms.”

The report also found a 20 percent and growing gap in wages between big firms and small ones.

“This suggests that small businesses continue to struggle, and that their employees may be paying an ongoing price in the form of lost wages,” the authors concluded.

Meanwhile, Corporate America and Wall Street are thriving. Again, what’s wrong with this picture?

Everybody Isn’t Getting Paid

Many people are reporting the sad evidence of income inequality, but few have solutions. I propose that income inequality could begin to correct itself within one year if leadership of Corporate America were returned to Merchants who are predisposed to grow profits by business investment. More contracts would flow to small businesses, and virtually all of those dollars would accrue to the middle class in the form of increased investment, more paychecks, and bigger paychecks for all participants.

Consider this classic Wall Street maxim: “When a deal is done on Wall Street, everybody gets paid.”

Indeed, the reason Wall Street has worked so well for so long is because dealmakers made sure every contributor got their piece of the pie. And historically, that scenario also extended to participants in the greater marketplace.

In fact, there once was such a symbiotic relationship between Wall Street and Main Street that another maxim prevailed: “Wall Street is a leading indicator of the economy.”

When this maxim was valid, if the stock market went up the economy followed within a few months, and vice versa. But today, as Wall Street flourishes and Main Street languishes, these two maxims are now romantic notions from bygone days. Deals are being done and the rich are getting richer on Wall Street and in Corporate America, while Main Street isn’t getting paid because it’s not being allowed to participate.

Consequently, I’ve coined a new maxim: “The stock market is now merely a leading indicator of itself.”

Main Street Has Never Been Jealous Of Wall Street

When capitalism worked for everyone, small-business owners didn’t look at the compensation of Wall Street deal makers or corporate CEOs with any level of jealousy. They understand how capitalism works; everyone has a role to play and they’ve chosen theirs.

But that perspective has begun to erode as those at the top of the deal have gained new and sometimes artificial leverage that allows them to prosper without adding value to the economy, which by definition leaves Main Street out. For example:

  • The Fed’s unprecedented Quantitative Easing policy with Wall Street as the primary beneficiary.
  • Several new financial devices that create wealth for the innovator/manipulator without adding value to the product or economy. Moreover, these devices have produced systemic hazards on a macro-economic scale, like those that contributed to the financial crisis of 2008 when some assets were leveraged by a factor of 70:1.
  • Flash/digital trading. In an interview on my radio program I once asked a respected financial expert if a retail investor had a fair chance on Wall Street today. His answer was short: “No.”
  • Taxable income designations that provide billionaires with a tax rate below the average rate of a Main Street business owner.
  • Fraud at the structural level of capital formation, such as the LIBOR scandal

A Reckoning Is Coming

In recoveries past, conversion from Operator dominance to Merchant leadership would have already occurred and investment in growth opportunities would already be happening. But a combination of the previous points, plus drastic payroll cuts under cover of the financial crisis, have contributed to Operators’ ability to maintain profits and share price levels for an unusually extended period.

Stock analysts are the only players more fish-eyed than Operators, so they will always demand share price performance. And with limited opportunity left for Operators to squeeze profit out of their budgets, Corporate America will have to pass the helm to Merchants to take back control and invest the estimated $2.5 trillions of cash on hand and look for ROI and share price support from the marketplace.

When that happens, everyone connected to the Main Street economy will win.

Corporate America and Wall Street are not the only factors causing disruptions for Main Street and middle-America these days. Anti-business policies (taxes, regulations, executive orders) and rhetoric coming out of Washington are creating a level of uncertainty not seen for generations, a cataloging of which would justify a separate essay, if not a book.

But regardless of assignment of blame, the current relationship between Corporate America/Wall Street and Middle Class/Main Street is approaching the boiling point. If adjustments aren’t made so that everyone participating in the economy gets paid, I believe there will be a revolution that will have three kinds of implications:

  1. Economic for Corporate America
  2. Financial for Wall Street
  3. Electoral for the Washington political class

Capitalists at the top of the heap have the tools and resources to quickly take advantage of disruptions and, as long as it’s legal, we shouldn’t expect anything different. But Americans will not continue to tolerate prolonged advantages by those who have found a way to manipulate their own prosperity without adding value and without allowing everyone in the economy to participate and get paid.

The reckoning I’m predicting will address the moral adjustment many believe Corporate America should incorporate into their long-term strategies.

Another maxim says, “Wall Street makes money when the market goes up or when it goes down, but not when it doesn’t move.” My greatest fear, as I warned in a 2012 article, is that when the equities correction happens, which could begin any moment, Wall Street and Corporate America will have profited enough from the run-up to not only weather that storm, as many did prior to the 2008 crisis, but also benefit from the correction.

Meanwhile, out here on Main Street, where we’re seven years into a lost decade, a stock market correction will create an economic downturn that will hit small businesses right between the eyes. When you’re undercapitalized and planted in the ground, hedging is less of an option.

In Conclusion

We’re currently in what I’m calling “The Great Agitation,” a period that began no later than 2008 during which Corporate America and Wall Street became the tail wagging the economy’s dog.

The American dream, America’s classic form of free-market capitalism, and American exceptionalism — all unique in the world and from which the world has benefited — cannot long survive if the sector benefiting the most from the economy is adding the least value to it. It’s time for Merchant leadership in Corporate America. It’s time for Corporate America to use executive compensation metrics that include factors outside their four walls and beyond Wall Street.

“What are the markets doing?” is a question asked constantly during any trading day by Wall Street stakeholders. The reason is because the digitization of Wall Street has produced the mother of all hyper-markets with millions of trades every second. Today, stocks are more trading instruments than investments, with the average stock ownership period measured in seconds. No capitalistic economy or the society it serves can sustain itself with fealty to the metrics of a hyper-market.

Unfortunately, no one ever asks, “What’s happening on Main Street today.” Because that market — the original one — uses metrics based on investment and labor, as well as 21st century digital innovations. Those resources are planned, budgeted and committed over months and years, not traded and manipulated in nanoseconds. And also not subject to the short leash of a 90-day conference call with stock analysts, or the schizophrenic kneejerk reaction to some “Breaking News” from global markets or geopolitics.

In a 1970 interview with The New York Times Magazine, the venerable Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman said something many in Corporate America use to justify their current investment practices: “There is one and only one social responsibility of business — to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud.”

Friedman died in 2006, before the financial crisis. If I could talk with him today I would ask him:

  1. Since Wall Street is no longer a leading indicator of the economy, and with the unprecedented influences of globalization, digitization and Fed monetary policy, have the rules of the game changed?
  2. Is it free and open competition if one sector of the economy acquires the ability to increase their internal value while adding little or no value to the rest of the economy?

Whether Friedman agreed with me or not, I believe he would appreciate the validity of the questions.

In his 2002 book, “Managing in the Next Society,” management guru Peter Drucker weighed in on this: “I believe it’s socially and morally unforgiveable when mangers reap huge profits for themselves but fire workers. As societies we will pay a heavy price for the contempt this generates.”

In his seminal work, “The Wealth of Nations” (1776), Adam Smith described one of the pillars of modern capitalism. With only a slight paraphrasing, here’s Smith’s legendary Invisible Hand theory: “By pursuing his own interest a business owner frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.”

I believe Smith’s context was that the agnostic invisible hand was at least in the proximity of that society. Today, on Main Street, there is a missing hand.

Seven years after the financial crisis and six years since the end of the Great Recession, it’s time to address my initial proposition: A portion of the not-so-great recovery can be attributed to the cash-hoarding and investment practices of Corporate America, and their short-sighted commitment to share price over investing in the economy. The Friedman school of corporate behavior proposes devotion to the shareholder.

After all that has transpired since 2008, it’s time for Corporate America to take a page out of the small business merchant’s playbook — the one that shows long-term performance for the shareholder can only be sustained when prime fealty is to the customer and other operating stakeholders.

It’s time for all sectors to invest in an economy where all marketplace participants get to play and get paid.

Every day that Operators run Corporate America, and Wall Street is merely a leading indicator of itself, is a day closer to the end of America’s Golden Goose: the middle class and Main Street small businesses.

If that happens, I’ll leave what happens to America to your own imagination and foresight.

The greatest challenges of small business owners today

Ask any small business owner how business is and even those who honestly report, “It’s great!” will also likely say, “But we can always use more.”

Knowing this about the heroes of Main Street, to find out what’s really going on you have to ask the way we did recently in our online poll: “What’s the greatest challenge for your business right now?” Below are five options we provided, the responses, and my thoughts.

It was surprising to learn that less than 10% reported “Finding qualified people” was their big concern, which was down from past surveys. Some sources estimate there may be 4 million positions going wanting for qualified candidates, so my speculation is that this change has more to do with the economy than talent supply.

And it was interesting that less than 10% of our sample were troubled by Obamacare impacting their HR strategy, also down from past polls. Perhaps the fear factor has diminished since the president delayed the employer mandate to 2015. We’ll see if this response changes next year.

According to Dr. Bill Dunkleberg, Chief Economist for the NFIB, who’s polled small business owners for 40 years, their single greatest concern over this period has been taxes and regulations. But when we offered this option in our poll, only one-fourth of our folks chose it. Since taxes and regulations have actually increased in the past five years, the next response represents what it took to knock these perennial pains off the top.

The big number in our poll came in at 58% for, “We need more sales.” This response has to be juxtaposed over another response we’ve received for the past five years, which is that consistently three-quarters of small businesses feel they’re operating in a stagnant economy. At this stage of a recovery, the economy should be growing at 4%. But when you see this response from the sector that creates over half of U.S. GDP, it’s not difficult to understand why the economy has barely averaged 2% growth per year.

Response to the next option supports the previous one. Only 3% said, “We need a bank loan.” For five years small businesses that survived the Great Recession did so by de-leveraging and learning how to operate more efficiently. Bank loans are the primary source of small business growth capital, but when the economy isn’t growing so goes business loans.

Wall Street, once the leading indicator of the economy is now merely a leading indicator of itself. The new leading economic indicator is Main Street. If you want the economy to grow, create conditions that foster small business growth

If the economy is the chicken, small business is the egg.


A community bank is not a little big bank

Wall Street’s too-big-to-fail banks were the parents of the 2008 financial crisis. But one-size-fits-all reform reaction to the crisis by Congress and regulators is turning Main Street banks into collateral damage, as if they were too-small-to-matter. Here’s why anything that unnecessarily burdens community banks should concern every small business owner.

At the end of 2012, there were 7,092 banks insured by FDIC, of which 6,201, or 87%, were community banks with less than $1 billion in assets. Banks are classified by asset size, and the average community bank has just over $200 million in assets. By comparison, two big banks – Citigroup and Wells Fargo – are each the size of all 6,201 community banks combined.

Small business owners don’t care much about a bank’s asset size. But they care very much about certain bank characteristics that manifest uniquely in a community bank as its special sauce – relationship banking. To a small business owner a community bank…

… is locally owned and managed.

… takes into account a business owner’s character when making loan decisions.

… decides small business loans by a local committee, not credit scoring by a computer.

This definition is important because, by definition, all small businesses are undercapitalized. How this translates out on Main Street is that sooner or later, and more often than not, small business owners will need to avail themselves of a community bank’s special sauce.

According to the Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA), even though community banks have only 20% of all bank assets, and hold less than 20% of total deposits (FDIC), they make almost 60% of small business loans. This tracks closely with our own research. In a recent online poll we asked small business owners about their banking relationship and 53% told us their primary bank, including for loans, was a community bank.

A recent FDIC study confirmed that community banks serve all Main Streets: Of the more than 3,000 counties in the U.S., about 20% are represented only by community banks.

Bank loans are the largest source of growth capital for America’s small businesses, which just happen to create over half of the U.S. economy and employ over half of its workers. Consequently, regulating Main Street banks the same as Wall Street’s too-big-to-fail banks puts in jeopardy America’s small businesses and the economy.

Small businesses and community banks are the twin pillars of America’s Main Street economy.

Check out more of Jim’s great content HERE!

Take this week’s poll HERE!

Watch Jim’s videos HERE!

More Fed QE won’t help small business

In the fall of 2008, one of the entities charged with helping the U.S. economy avoid a full financial collapse was the U.S. central bank, the Federal Reserve Board.

The Fed has many monetary tools to infuse liquidity into a weak economy, including buying securities with money it creates, literally from thin air. So when the 2008 financial collapse happened, the Fed initiated a plan it called “quantitative easing” (QE), and bought hundreds of billions of dollars of securities from banks and other financial institutions. Most experts consider this step to have limited the depth of the crisis.

When economic recovery remained tepid more than a year after the end of the Great Recession, the Fed launched QE2 in 2010, buying billions more of various securities from Wall Street entities. And even though two years hence a still-languishing economy seems to demonstrate that liquidity is no longer our problem, the Fed recently announced yet another round of accommodation called, wait for it … QE3.

We wanted to know what small business owners thought about this recent Fed step, so in our online poll, we asked this question: “What do you think about the Fed’s third round of liquidity infusion (QE3)?” Here are the results.

Only 2% of our sample said, “This is good economic policy,” while 11% admitted they “Don’t understand it.” The big group – 86% – reported they thought this move was “Not good economic policy.”

So why are small business owners so anti-QE? Perhaps it’s because they aren’t feeling the love from the Fed.

Remember, when the Fed buys securities that money goes to Wall Street, not Main Street. Since 2009 the Dow-Jones index has risen 1000 points each year and the NASDAQ has doubled. Meanwhile the Main Street economy continues to languish barely above recession levels, contributing to extremely weak small business loan demand from their only direct connection to Fed liquidity: banks.

Furthermore, since many economists believe hyper-inflation will eventually result from the Fed’s QE strategy, small businesses – which have not benefited from QE – will be hurt by the inflation. Plus, unlike Wall Street, small businesses don’t operate with buy/sell limits or hedging strategies that allow them to make money regardless of which direction the market is going. They’re planted in the ground, on Main Street.

Small businesses need Fed policies that grow the economy, not just the stock market.

Small businesses need MC (more customers), not more QE.

#####

Recently on The Small Business Advocate Show  I had conversations with Mike Menzies and Ray Keating on validity of using quantitative easing to stimulate the economy and it’s impact on small businesses. Mike is President of Easton Bank & Trust in Easton, Maryland, and Ray is Chief Economist of the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council. Click on one of the links below to download or listen.

The Fed’s QE3 plans aren’t what the economy needs with Ray Keating

The Fed’s QE3 plans will hurt small businesses with Mike Menzies

Check out more great SBA content HERE!

Watch Jim’s videos HERE!

Take this week’s poll HERE!

Differentiating between users and customers

Social media platforms have rocked the online world in just a few frenzied years by introducing new community building possibilities for people, and customer connection opportunities for business.

These are heady times for social media visionaries who have created a wave of viral excitement. This is the realm of entrepreneurs who worship at the throne of possibilities, where mistakes successfully identify what doesn’t work and fun is a best practice.

Now, like Gates and Jobs before them, social media entrepreneurs are following the path of past high-growth enterprises by hitching their wagons to Wall Street’s star through an initial public offering (IPO) of stock. But in doing so, companies like Facebook enter the world of very sharp pencils.

This is the realm of fish-eyed bankers and fickle fund managers who worship at the throne of results. They demand fealty, and an audience every 90 days to explain why actual operating numbers from the real marketplace missed – by one cent – what green-eye-shade analysts had divined with their theoretical financial models. And faster than you can “Like” a photo on Facebook, it becomes clear that mistakes in this realm come at a high cost, possibilities are not possible and fun isn’t in the budget.

Unlike Microsoft and Apple, which actually create products customers pay for, social media patrons aren’t paying customers, but users. And the only thing more fickle than a fund manager is an Internet user, which is why so many jaundiced eyes are being cast on social media IPOs.

We wanted to know what our small business audience thought about Facebook’s impending IPO, so we asked: “As Facebook makes plans to go public, do you think its stock will be a good investment?” Here’s what you told us.

On one end, less than one-in-ten of respondents said, “Facebook stock will do well short and long-term,” while at the other end, 16% believe, “Like other social media stocks, Facebook stock will be a loser.” The big group in the middle, 75%, allowed that “Facebook stock may do well for a year or so, but not long-term.”

Such skepticism isn’t about social media activity itself. Because what individuals and businesses are really doing on these platforms is creating communities, and online communities are here to stay.

But small business owners, like Wall Street, know there’s a difference in projecting the value of a customer and that of a user. One pays you money and the other pays you a visit.

Monetizing a user is not the same as monetizing a customer.

Recently on my radio show, The Small Business Advocate, I talked more about whether Facebook would be a good investment with Gary Moore, former SVP of Investments at Paine Webber and founder of The Financial Seminary. Take a few minutes to listen or download and let us know what you think.

Check out more great SBA content HERE!




Warning: fsockopen() [function.fsockopen]: php_network_getaddresses: getaddrinfo failed: Temporary failure in name resolution in /var/www/wordpress/wp-includes/class-snoopy.php on line 1142

Warning: fsockopen() [function.fsockopen]: unable to connect to twitter.com:80 (Unknown error) in /var/www/wordpress/wp-includes/class-snoopy.php on line 1142