Rebuilding Your Wealth with Real Estate

              As our economy slowly recovers, many investors are concerned with recouping the money they lost during the crisis. Pulling your funds out of investments all together will do nothing to bulk up your savings, while sinking your money into risky funds can do further damage. So, with black-and-white options not offering solutions, where can investors put their money to work?

Many investors are turning to investments that they feel are safe, such as bank CDs or money market mutual funds. The problem with these “safe havens” lies in the low returns. “The average money market fund yields .05 percent, or $5 on a $10,000 deposit.” With rates of return this low, these investments may not be able to keep up with inflation, let alone fill the gaps left by the losses experienced over the last 24 months.

Another option is to do nothing. Yvon Chouinard, founder of the Patagonia sports outlets, says, “There’s no difference between a pessimist who says, ‘Oh it’s hopeless, so don’t bother doing anything’ and an optimist who says, ‘Don’t bother doing anything, it’s going to turn out fine anyway.’ Either way, nothing happens.” The idea of holding on to your portfolio “as is” and wishing for the stocks you currently hold to rebound may work in some instances. But, if time turns out to be your enemy, your retirement years will be funded only by the amount you currently have, minus the effects of inflation.

As investors actively search for ways to re-energize their portfolios, many are returning to real estate. The real estate market is hovering around the bottom, interest rates remain near record lows and a large inventory gives buyers an abundance of options. On the residential side, many foreclosures and bank-owned properties can now be purchased for a fraction of their value. The same opportunities are becoming available in commercial real estate as owners are unable to pay off or refinance their loans.

As I have mentioned before, real estate can help your portfolio win the battle over inflation. Real estate’s value will return at some point.

Shaking Our Stone Age Tendencies  

Letting our emotions dictate our investment decisions is a risky behavior. Out of instinct, we all get emotional when we earn or lose money. It is in our wiring to feel connected with the money we have accumulated. We tend to panic when our money is in jeopardy.

We make a connection between money and safety. Psychology suggests that we are programmed to protect our safety the same way our ancient ancestors were. Even though we encounter vastly different problems than our ancestors did, we still attempt to solve them in the same way. Moving with the herd used to be crucial to staying alive. Today however, moving with a herd of investors can weaken your portfolio. Pushing money into an investment simply because the majority of others are is usually the exact opposite of what you should be doing.

In the same vein as the herd behavior, is our tendency to make investment decisions based on past success. Just because a strategy worked in the past does not necessarily mean it will work in the present. Markets change dramatically from week to week. Strategies you used in the Dotcom boom of the late nineties may lead to an unpleasant outcome in today’s market. Sticking to market fundamentals is one thing, but taking on blind risk a second time because it worked out the first, is nothing more than a gamble. It is the same concept behind betting on red because the roulette ball fell in a red pocket the previous spin. No matter what your past performance, prudent due diligence is always necessary to gauge the current market trends, analyze risk and make sound investment decisions.

I have encountered a number of studies that suggest we remember the bitter feeling of losing money more acutely than the feelings we have when we earn the same amount in an investment. A few lousy investment decisions and an investor can be turned off indefinitely. It is important to learn from our mistakes and use the knowledge to our advantage. Our emotions can lead us to make decisions that, in hindsight, are horrible ideas. A bad decision is bad no matter what the outcome. Making money out of an emotional decision is lucky, but the decision itself was still the wrong one.

There is no way to completely escape our tendencies to invest based on emotion. But, by being aware of the negative impact our emotions have on our investment decisions, we can limit their influence. Wise approaches such as hiring investment professionals, practicing prudent due diligence and planning sound exit strategies can all help us become better investors. 

Bank Closures v. the FDIC 

Last week, federal regulators seized seven more banks- three in Florida and one each in Georgia, Minnesota, Illinois and Wisconsin. The bank failures brought the year’s total to 106, which is the most since the savings and loan debacle brought about 181 failures in 1992.  Plus, with 416 banks on the FDIC’s watch list, the number of bank failures is expected to rise before the end of the year. With bank closures quickly absorbing millions of dollars from the FDIC’s Deposit Insurance Fund, is it possible that our savings accounts are realistically still protected?

The FDIC operates like a basic insurance policy, except banks are the customers instead of individuals or groups of individuals. Banks pay insurance premiums to the FDIC in exchange for its commitment to protect their depositors’ money. In the late 1920s, when banks closed at an alarming rate, depositors had no protection from bank failures. Between 1929 and 1933, banks lost an estimated $1.3 billion of their customers’ money. Today, the FDIC protects several trillion dollars worth of deposits. But as of June, it only had $10.4 billion in its deposit insurance fund—down from about $45 billion earlier this year.

The FDIC’s reserves have quickly depleted as the cost of bank failures outpace the fees the corporation collects. Last month, as bank closures continued to mount, the FDIC’s board of directors considered four ways to bulk up the insurance fund. The options considered were: borrow from healthy banks, borrow from the treasury, levy a special fee on banks or collect regular premiums early.

Borrowing from healthy banks would reduce the amount of money available to the private sector. Borrowing from the Treasury could send the wrong message to the public and have adverse effects on the banking industry. Levying a special fee on banks could push those on the edge into failure. The last option, albeit not particularly attractive either, is to collect regular premiums early. Deciding to follow through with this option, the FDIC stated it “adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would require insured institutions to prepay their estimated quarterly risk-based assessments for the fourth quarter of 2009 and for all of 2010, 2011 and 2012.” The press release indicated that the FDIC estimates prepayments will total approximately $45 billion.

Once approved, the proposed prepayments could give banks a bill for three years of premiums by the end of this year. While the requirement would put banks in a tough situation, the FDIC does not seem to think banks will find it too cumbersome. The FDIC believes that “the banking industry has substantial liquidity to prepay assessments.” As stated in the press release, “As of June 30, FDIC-insured institutions held more than $1.3 trillion in liquid balances, or 22 percent more than they did a year ago.”

The FDIC does have the capability to protect our deposits. However, initiatives that charge banks three years’ worth of premiums at once could help the FDIC weather an onslaught of bank closures without requiring the government to print more money…I hope.

All My Best,

Thomas J. Powell 

Reno’s ELP Capital Seeks OK for Investment Vehicles

BY JOHN SEELMEYER

ELP Capital Inc. of Reno seeks regulatory

approval for two investment funds that will

target well-heeled sophisticated individual

investors.

Thomas Powell, the chief executive officer

of ELP Capital Inc., says the funds mark an

effort to jump-start the northern Nevada economy

by channeling local investment dollars

into local projects.

The company last week filed a notice with

the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

that it believes the two funds are exempt from

securities regulations because they will be sold

to a limited number of investors or to buyers

who meet the SEC’s standards for accredited

investors. (Those standards include net worth

and annual income for individual investors.)

The ELP Strategic Asset Fund LLC has

raised $450,000 so far, the company said in an

SEC filing. There’s no maximum size on the

fund, and minimum investments are set at

$250,000.

A second fund, ELP Opportunity Fund 1—

GBLL LLC, is planned to raised $2.3 million.

So far, $100,000 has been raised.Minimum

investment in the fund is $50,000.

ELP Capital, incorporated in 2004, has

managed debt and equity financing of real

estate. The company traces its beginnings to

IntoHomes LLC, a residential mortgage lender

launched by Powell in 1999.

Along with Powell, its board includes Jesse

Haw, president of Hawco Properties of Spanish

Springs, and Bob Barone, chairman of Ancora

West Trust Co. in Reno.

Powell, who’s also an author of books and

articles, has argued recently that private

investors can play a major role in getting the

construction and development markets moving

again if they’ll fund stalled quality projects.

“This recession … left a stockpile of quality

real-estate projects to collect dust.Without

proper funding, the projects remain undeveloped,

unproductive and severely underemployed.

Placing our private capital into quality

projects will bolster the number of available

jobs in our communities and get people

behind a meaningful cause,” he wrote in an

essay this month.

ELP Capital expects to charge an annual

management fee of 1 percent of the funds’

assets, and it also may collect a performance

fee.

Along with the two investment funds, ELP

Capital last week filed SEC paperwork for

exempt offerings of securities in two real estate

funds.

One of the filings covers ELP Mortgage

Fund III — The Ridges LLC. The company

said $2.1 million of the $2.5 million fund has

been sold to accredited investors.

The second filing covered ELP Acquisition

Fund—Citi Centre LLC, which has raised

about $3.28 million of a $4.5 million offering.

The Great Recession is not over

While Wall Street celebrates the apparent passing of systemic financial failure, there is a different reality on America’s streets. The Great Recession is not over. Millions of jobs have been lost, and most people’s incomes have fallen. So has America’s ability to consume and pay down debt. Because consumption is the most important component of GDP in America, without shoppers filling stores, production, income and job growth will remain weak.
A side effect of reduced incomes is falling prices. When consumers feel financially pinched, they become more frugal. Wariness to spend forces businesses to lower prices in an effort to entice shoppers. Rents, too, will continue to fall as massive home and commercial real estate supply compete for available renters.
For years, the answer to every income short fall was credit. Want some new $250 jeans – Charge it! Don’t have cash for the big ticket item? – Put it on an adjustable rate payment plan. Trillions of dollars were pulled out of homes as prices soared, with the money spent on improvements, trips, and a multitude of consumer goods. Now, this debt is coming due, and incomes are falling!
In short, the great boom of the last twenty years was a story of debt expansion. As long as credit kept growing, more money could be spent. Easy money created a multi decade spending boom, which created an illusion of affluence. But, the credit party is over. The only way out is to spend less and pay off debt. Unfortunately both society and our political process are in denial. History has shown that every debt bubble ends the same way – prices fall until existing incomes can support them. All of the debt spending in Washington only delays the inevitable deflationary pain, and that new debt weakens us as an international economic power.
To finish the story, lower income will, along with tight credit, push down a buyer’s ability to support high rents. Lower rents make real estate less enticing as an investment until the property prices fall far enough to align with the new lower rent levels. Here in Nevada, this saga continues.
On the bright side, many are rediscovering the simple things in life. Family and friends are more important than weekends in Las Vegas! Perhaps this reality check will bring us back to what made this country the greatest in the world, namely, hard work and entrepreneurship.
Matt Marcewicz
Robert Barone, Ph.D.
Robert Barone and Matt Marcewicz are Investment Advisor Representatives of Ancora West Advisors LLC an SEC Registered Investment Advisor. They are also a Registered Representatives of Ancora Securities, Inc. (Member FINRA/SIPC). Mr. Barone is a Principal of Ancora West Advisors and a Registered Principal of Ancora Securities.

Robert’s Blog

Cambridge AMDP Newsletter

Check out my recent entry in the AMDP Alumni Newsletter.
Cambridge AMD Alumni Newsletter

Best Wishes,

Thomas J. Powell

Too Big To Learn

With a bad habit of ignoring profound systemic problems, Federal Treasury officials are now securing a system that encourages the same careless risk-taking that originally got us into this mess. With this week marking the one-year anniversary since Lehman Brothers imploded, it is only appropriate to discuss the faulty system that protects and rewards failing financial institutions.
The talking heads in charge of the world’s financial practices are on path to deliver more of the pain and suffering we have been experiencing over the past 20 plus months. The Lehman Brothers’ collapse last year showed us how brutal a large bank failure can be. Now, because of the mess caused by Lehman’s demise, it is unlikely that our government would again allow an institution of similar size to fail. This essentially gives big banks a free pass to misbehave. If you owned a business that was referred to as “too big to fail,” and you knew the government would do all they could to keep your doors open, would you not be inclined to take risks? It is like giving a six year old the keys to a candy factory and a set of cavity-resistant teeth. All risk is stripped away, so why not have some fun?
By receiving government funds, big banks are allowed to carelessly take on high degrees of risk, knowing that there is a safety net underneath them. This recession has been gut-wrenching. It has badly battered our economy and exposed wounds that will not heal in our lifetimes. No one wants to experience a downturn of this size again. But, if officials continue to foster an environment that rewards carelessness by major financial institutions, we will inevitably get more rounds of the same. While we should be demanding big banks to practice prudent due diligence, we are instead enabling them to write off any level of accountability. This recession should have been a major wake-up call for all businesses, but those institutions deemed “too big to fail” have also been allowed to be “too big to learn.”

Top Five of the Bad, Bottom Five of the Good

Ravaged by the bursting of the real estate bubble, Nevada is among the states with the deepest wounds. Historically, our state has been in the top or bottom five of the most-unappealing statistically-compiled lists put out by major media. Unfavorable, sure, but we all choose to live here for one good reason or another. For instance, our tax structure keeps Nevada among the most business-friendly states in the country. For this reason, we have highly-competitive local markets and capitalism thrives here. Our state officials are somewhat handcuffed because of our demand to keep government out of our businesses as much as possible. By adopting and supporting this system, Nevadans have agreed to take on more personal responsibility when it comes to providing our own financial security—and we are now being put to the test.
Across our country, state officials are scrambling for ideas that will simultaneously better their state’s situation and put them in the position of being quality leaders. In Nevada, our elected officials have considered bringing in a pricey third-party consultant to advise them on how to progress the state. This means not only are the individuals we put in office to make vital decisions not carrying out their duty, but now we will also foot the bill for a new position. We elected these authorities to represent us; not lead us, by way of expensive consultation, in an undesirable direction. With that said, when we elect them we do not, in turn, remove ourselves from the equation. We are not reduced to waiting on our state leaders to be proactive.
These are extremely trying times for our country. The recovery is going to be led by us via our private capital and our private enterprise. The government does not have a weapon in its repertoire that comes close to matching the power of our collective private resources. Across the U.S., and particularly in our state, there is an abundant supply of quality projects that have been postponed due to insufficient capital. Because success requires both money and knowledge, every successful idea struggles with acquiring adequate funding at least once throughout the process. Every successful venture has to be properly backed and the majority of the backing comes from private capital. At the end of the day we, the people, are the engine that runs our country.
Nevada is riddled with quality projects that could be going forward with proper capital and qualified management. We now have to be proactive in matching the two. Being among the top five states in the country in foreclosures, troubled institutions and bank closures does not mean we cannot also be among the top five states to emerge from this recession.

Survival of the Government-Backed Banks

Even the banks that did not become entangled in the shaky investment strategies of Wall Street during the boom still indirectly had their knees taken out from beneath them throughout this meltdown. According to CNBC.com, 92 banks have failed in the U.S. through the first nine months of 2009; including three here in Nevada. As a comparison, in all of 2008 only 25 banks closed.
In any meltdown, the government’s focus is on the big banks that have the potential to buckle our country’s financial system if they go under. But, that focus leads to a distinct advantage for big banks over their competition. Having government support allows the bigger banks the power to go out and collect the majority of the available capital, while smaller banks are forced to scavenge. This crisis has presented terrible obstacles for banks to raise the capital lifeblood needed to remain in business. Without liquid capital, smaller banks are consumed by their debts. With losses on commercial real-estate loans rising, the smaller banks that feed credit into our communities are drowning.
When governments support the behemoth banks and allow the smaller banks to sink, they essentially help eliminate the competition needed to improve our financial system. Without intervention, smaller banks are generally able to pose a competitive threat to the large firms because they are more apt to find ways to be faster, smarter and more strategic. It has always been a staple in American capitalism to save a place in our economy for smaller businesses because they push against the bigger corporations and keep them honest.
Competition in the banking industry leads to a financial system that operates more efficiently. By helping to eliminate competition, our government is essentially allowing the largest banks to monopolize the industry. By supporting the large and abandoning the small, our government is positioning us to face a much weaker economic recovery than if the innovative smaller firms were allowed to compete fairly. We are essentially heading in the same direction as Europe, which has long had its bank assets heavily concentrated in massive firms. The tactic may make it easier for governments to regulate financial systems, but it also eliminates the capitalistic nature that has made our banking industry the strongest in the world.

NEXT WEEK: Banks as Intermediaries

All my best,

Thomas J Powell

Recession and Recovery- Mixed Signals

Today’s news from the Fed has been optimistic. Bernanke says the recession might be over, but what does that mean for us? In technical terms, a recession is two consecutive quarters of zero growth. It looks like we are beating that trend. So what? Cheer the administration, forget about the troubled financial industry and move on right? Wrong. Krugman points out that, although the recession is technically ending, we’re not out of the woods yet. Unemployment, as expected, will remain high for years to come. Compared to where we were two years ago, the US faces an enormous output gap, something around a trillion dollars a year. According to Condgon from the IMF, the broader monetary base has been shrinking. The Fed’s insistence on boosting capital ratio’s may be back firing here: if banks are required to increase capital ratio’s there is less to lend, and subsequently a decreased capacity to grow. Despite decent news from Bernanke, a shrinking money supply points to deflation. Instead of recovery, we may be looking at a double-dip recession. That’s when we start to recover, only to fall flat again.
How do we avoid another, possibly deeper recession? Krugman argues for more stimulus. Condgon expects monetary easing. I must reiterate my core values here. The recovery will come when smaller firms have adequate access to capital. Private capital will pull us out, not more stimulus. Quantitative easing has brought us to near-zero interest rates with no affect on output. How exactly is monetary policy going to work if money continues to contract? As for fiscal stimulus, wouldn’t that bring us back to where we are now, a slow recovery with continued high unemployment?
Let’s get away from big government bail-out schemes and let capitalism do its job. In today’s WSJ, Cochrane and Zingales argue against the too-big-to-fail doctrine. If banks don’t fail, bankers have no incentive to react to risk. It’s called moral hazard- tails I win, heads you loose. The too-big-to fail doctrine flies in the face of a hundred years of economic theory. One of capitalism’s grand fathers, Joseph Schumpeter, argued for “creative destruction,” a process that enables the most efficient distribution of capital. If banks cannot fail, the industry cannot correct itself. The system has forgotten Schumpeter. It no longer rewards the most productive enterprises. Instead, the government has transferred trillions of dollars to failed enterprises. The result isn’t capitalism, but some corrupt form of corporate banditry.

All my best,

Thomas J Powell

Too Big to Fail? Here We Go Again…

Today marks the one year anniversary of the collapse of Lehman Brothers, one of the worst financial disasters of our time, as it nearly brought down the international financial system. Yesterday I was reading an article about how the big banks are showing signs of life with their actions and things are starting to move, signalling a possible economic recovery. This makes me wonder about the adage of being “too big to fail.” What is the right decision in this situation?

It appears to me that after the latest cycle, quite possibly and hopefully the worst we will see in our lifetimes, people are hoping that this time things will be different. That once we actually do reach a point of recovery, we won’t make the same mistakes that were recently experienced. This cycle has been painful; it has been gut-wrenching; it has been a lesson I surely don’t want to repeat, as I get it and don’t need to learn it again.

I am very nervous about this thought process. As the saying goes, history repeats itself, and that did not become a quote we all use without good reason. For generations, for decades, for centuries, the animal in human nature causes us to make the same decisions and choose the same paths as before.

Some of our largest banks, which the government determined were too big to fail, received billions in taxpayer TARP funds. Our money kept these institutions afloat and I understand the reasoning behind keeping their doors open, especially using the Lehman example. I am dismayed, however, at the actions of these institutions. By receiving government funds, they are able to continually take on high degrees of risk, knowing there is a safety net underneath them. Prudent due diligence has gone by the wayside with the knowledge of someone is there to catch them. I liken this to the casino industry. If you could borrow $1 Million dollars and gamble it, knowing you would get it back if you lost it PLUS knowing you would get to keep any winnings you made, why wouldn’t you do it? This is exactly the system we have allowed to be established.

And, what about the outrageous salaries and bonus payments we still continue to hear about? I am all for the entrepreneur earning as much as he or she can based on value and return to society, but I am not about taking from you and me, putting a chokehold on getting capital back into circulation while cutting off small business, and then handsomely rewarding the big bank players in the process.

The veritas, the truth, as I see it, is that nothing has really changed, that we are repeating ourselves and that we will all pay the price of the failure to learn what could be a valuable and useful lesson. As we continue through this cycle, which I believe still has more pain to come, I hope for and have faith in the success of the small business, for the will of the entrepreneur, and for the recovery of our great land.

Too big to fail? Ok, I’ll give the government that. But what about keeping the backbone of American capitalism healthy? I’m not saying the answer is in government bailouts for small business, as anyone who knows me knows I believe in complete personal responsibility. I’m only asking for the same access to capital for small business so that it can keep its doors open, giving it time to make the changes and adjustments necessary for its own success. In short, allowing business to help itself.

I have thoughts on how I believe this can be done without the banks, allowing history to repeat itself in the manner I believe will lead to our recovery. I will write more in the coming days, but in short I believe in private capital + private enterprise = economic recovery.

I look forward to sharing more of my thoughts and receiving your feedback.

All my best,

Thomas J Powell

Taking Control of the Things We Can

Earlier this week, after wrestling with the spate of painful economic news provided by major media, I recognized that I had no immediate control over any of the massive economic concerns. The stock market zigged when I hoped it would zag. Unemployment numbers, often reported differently, moved at different paces in the undesirable direction. Our federal deficit grew, which increased our individual debt responsibility. The problems were not confined by the pages of the newspapers. When I peered through my office window I saw quality real-estate projects continuing to sit lifeless because they lacked funding. After a few moments of reflection, I recognized that I, and certainly the majority of us, am being forcibly weighed down by all of the negative. Instead of dwelling on the uncontrollable, we should be manifesting the positive by taking hold of the reins on those things in which we can have significant influence.
I decided to start anew with more refreshing thoughts. So, I turned to a medium in which I had some control over the information that was presented to me: Google. Two main pages topped the list when I searched for the words “Economy: We Are the Answer.” The first was an informal Yahoo Answer Board on which the following question was raised: “Is there hope for the American economy or should we just drastically change the way we live?” The user went on to define “drastically change” by giving up our private houses and cars. The second most-popular page that appeared was BarackObama.com, which suggests no one within Google’s reach really believes we the people have the capacity to be the answer to our economic problems. According to my Google search, the answer either rests in the hands of President Obama or we will all be forced to live in communal frat houses without automobiles.
When our economy is running smoothly, we all welcome the opportunities to be part of a do-it-yourself world. We bag our own groceries, scan our own documents, rent our own movies and print our own boarding passes. On a weekly basis, we all most likely take it upon ourselves to deposit, track, clean, swipe, dry, spray, refill, bus, organize, pour, dispense and scan in the presence of other do-it-yourselfers in the vast public. As long as the tasks are minimal and the goal is clearly in view, we are encouraged to do everything ourselves. The responsibilities we used to let others handle, we now do ourselves (I cooked my own meal at Melting Pot earlier in the month). About half of the times I visit a gas station, there is no reason for an attendant to be present—unless I am in Oregon or New Jersey, where state officials prohibit me from pumping my own gas. But, when an issue has options that are more complex than selecting diesel or regular, our individual accountability takes a vacation. Why do we turn our focus to other superpowers to take control and eliminate ourselves from the equation?
The Problem is Passivity
This economic downturn is nothing more than a collection of intertwined problems. Although financially painful and physically overwhelming, there is no reason for any of us to hide underneath our desks and wait for the shaking to end. Think about the steps we all take when trying to overcome a timely problem—for an example, a clogged drain. We take a short period of time to analyze the situation. We look at all the factors involved and ask ourselves crucial questions: Is the water draining at all? Is the clog causing the pipes to leak? How severe is the leak? Is it causing immediate damage? Next, inevitably, it is human instinct to search for the quickest fix. We switch on the garbage disposal and rub our lucky rabbit’s foot. When we are forced to take real action we must recognize the weapons we have to combat the problem (a plunger, a drain snake, Drain-O). After we extinguish our resources, we then consult the knowledge of an expert.
Now consider the enormity of our current economic struggles. The formula for dealing with the problem is much more complex, but it should still follow the basic fundamentals. Why then have droves of investors been complacent to listen to long-winded “experts” before analyzing their situation and deducing what it is that they can do for themselves? The formula is flip-flopped when we let ourselves believe that any given problem is too big or too complex. Remember the old adage, “We can only eat an elephant one bite at a time”? Many of the intricacies of this recession are out of our control, but the sooner we take control over the issues we can influence, the sooner the complex problems begin to untangle.
If the severity of the problem is directly proportionate to the amount of time we take to analyze it, then we only need a brief moment to stare into a clogged drain. In that same vein, our economic crisis is much more complex and has required a longer period for analysis. I argue we have passed this stage of the process and action is required now. This summer brought about a number of signs that suggest we are now slogging around somewhere near the bottom. With home-improvement projects, summer vacations and outdoor entertainment, consumers typically spend more in the summer months. We are now entering what is destined to be a difficult autumn. Unemployment will continue to strain on families, foreclosures will mount and consumers will tighten the belts they let momentarily loosen over the summer.
On the other hand, as the leaves turn and nature gets stripped of its color, a buckled economy will continue to present opportunities for us to take action. It is time for all of us to stop viewing ourselves as helpless observers and again consider ourselves part of the equation. In some ways we already are important variables, but we rely on the inadvertent action we take to be sufficient. How many times have you heard an angry citizen blurt out something along the lines of “I do my part, I’m a taxpayer”? The somewhat-passive action of paying taxes funds many integral economic systems in which our country balances itself. Just as we hire plumbers to help unclog our drains and keep them running smoothly we elect (read “hire”) officials to help unclog our economy and keep it running smoothly. With our plumbers, we are responsible for paying the bill to enable them to do their job. The same is true for the officials; by paying our taxes, we essentially all pick up our share of the bill and expect them to do their share of the work. Without our capital, their positions would not exist; but this hardly means we have positioned ourselves as active parts of the recovery.
Investing to Make a Difference
To be an important cog in the recovery machine, we must put our money to work. Our money does not do any good stuffed in a mattress or buried underneath the deck. Private capital built this country and there are few economic problems that private capital cannot solve, if allocated effectively. During the Great Depression, a time when the economy constricted and the majority of construction projects were put on hold, the entire construction of the Empire State Building was completed. Thanks to funding from its principle backer, an automobile tycoon aiming to one-up a major competitor, the Empire State Building was constructed with staggering momentum. During the Depression, building materials were cheaper and workers were eager to earn a wage, much like today. The construction put people and money back to work in dire times; not to mention the mystique the building has given our country for nearly eight decades.
A project as grand as the Empire State Building might only come around once a century, but that does not rule out the need for quality projects in our own communities. When private capital teams with quality-managed projects, the outcomes can be extraordinary. But, you need both. Whereas quality projects cannot get off the ground without capital, poorly-managed projects get ran back into the ground even with all the capital in the world.
This recession has torn through our communities and left a stockpile of quality real-estate projects to collect dust. Without proper funding, the projects remain undeveloped, unproductive and severely underemployed. Placing our private capital into quality projects will bolster the number of available jobs in our communities and get people behind a meaningful cause. There are loads of individuals that could be taking charge and becoming part of this recovery. We will show great resilience when we, on our own, come out of this strong, super-charged and feeling part of something.
We have to put the days of excuses behind us. We should be searching for any project that someone says “can’t be done” and aim to defy. When the newspapers have stopped reporting stories that highlight economic blemishes, our unemployment numbers are approaching all-time lows and our government takes a permanent vacation from bailouts; we will only vaguely remember our current doubts. We will, however, remember the period of time when we all did our part to restore communities. We will remember the turning point when we took action to pull ourselves from the painful times and regained our spot as part of the equation.

Treasury Signals Pull Out, Good News for Entreprenuers

In a recent USA Today post, Rhonda Abrams compared entrepreneurship to whitewater rafting.  My favorite tip is number six, “keep paddling…you’ve got to navigate your way through tough challenges.”  In a recession like this one, you must navigate your own course.  We cannot rely on the government to get us out of this mess

Policy makers are beginning to signal the same sentiment. The Treasury Department announced today that it would be scaling back government intervention in the financial markets. They’re sending an important message- mainly, the bail-out will not last forever- just long enough to stabilize lending so the markets can take over.

Though Treasury warns of continued lack-luster performance in the short-term, today’s news isn’t all bad.  Oil production is to remain constant and trade data shows growth in both imports and exports as demand increases on international stimulus spending.  Remember, the stimulus spending is a temporary fix.  The real rebound will come from the private sector, the entrepreneur. 

So I agree with Abrams, make your own plan, get the advice you need, and hold on in troubled times.

Thomas J. Powell – Reasonable Regulation: That’s Allstate’s Stand

Reasonable Regulation: That’s Allstate’s Stand

            Many companies involved in financial services cower when an official of any stature mentions the threat of national regulation, but Allstate has decided to embrace it. Since late April, Allstate has been pushing an advertising campaign that is rooted in support for creating a national regulation agency for all players in the financial industry, including insurance companies. Each ad in the four-part series, which runs in major magazines such as The Atlantic, touts the common theme of calling on “Congress to act boldly and quickly in drafting strong, comprehensive and clear federal regulation.”[1]

             Under the current system, insurance companies are regulated on a state-by-state basis, something that Allstate CEO Tom Wilson thinks needs be changed. In a national press release, Wilson argued:

 The American consumer is burdened with a patchwork of insurance regulatory systems that are cumbersome and ineffective in managing risks in an era of rapid change and innovation. American families need better protection from systemic risks and access to products and services that will help better manage their financial futures.[2]

 

            Allstate’s push for a national regulation system is bold. The campaign appears to be having an impact as the Obama administration has started tackling a number of vital decisions that could ultimately lead to national regulation for all financial services. President Obama himself may not have been directly affected by Allstate’s campaign, but according to PRnewswire.com at least one Congressperson has received more than $20,000 in campaign contributions from Allstate over the past four years. Clearly Allstate has identified the potential benefits that would come bundled with national regulation.

            One group that stands to be trapped and bound by the regulatory net of a national system is the stock brokers on Wall Street. The Obama administration has proposed a plan that would hold brokers to the stricter fiduciary standards of registered investment advisors. Under this plan, brokers would be required by law to act in their clients’ best interests, not their own. Also, with each piece of investment advice, brokers would be obligated to disclose what they stand to gain personally. A plan to implement a complete regulation overhaul is sure to be cumbersome and will take time to be implemented effectively. The Obama administration would be wise to have patience with this reform and comb through all of the complexities before attempting to have anything signed into law.

 At the end of the day, the federal regulatory overhaul will aim to force those in the financial system to be more transparent, something the Allstate campaign clearly addresses: “Only when there is transparency around valuing the risk in the financial system—including the role of insurance to help mitigate that risk—will we regain confidence in the economy.”[3]           

To view all of the Allstate advertisements in their entirety, visit allstate.com/fedreg.

 

 

Commercial Real Estate’s Role in the Next Bailout

            Banks have had little to celebrate over the past 20 plus months. Still dizzy from the debacle caused by residential real estate, banks nationwide fear the devastation that could soon be unleashed by the rising number of foreclosures in commercial real estate.

            The banks which provided the money to build endless numbers of commercial buildings originally did so because they, like so many others, believed occupancy and rent rates would always consistently rise. But, many owners of commercial buildings are now fueling another wave of foreclosures because they are not able to generate enough cash from tenants to cover their principal and interest payments. Because the loans have also been bundled and sold on Wall Street as commercial-backed mortgage securities (CMBS), the foreclosed buildings spark a ripple effect. Anticipating the severe consequences this could have on our economy, the Federal Reserve is struggling to contain the situation and prevent the need for a second wave of bank bailouts.

            According to Deutsche Bank, about $153 billion in loans that make up CMBS will come due by the end of 2012. The vast majority of these will not be eligible for refinancing through their lenders because the values of the properties have dropped so dramatically.[4] The losses will potentially cripple not only the owners of the commercial properties, but also anyone holding CMBS. Furthermore, because CMBS typically help drive pension and hedge funds, the pain will be widely spread.

            The only positive side of this mess will be the number of affordable investment opportunities for those looking to get into commercial real estate. Commercial real estate does perform in the long haul. But, because of the onslaught of new commercial buildings that sprouted in recent years, we are now experiencing an uncomfortable rebalancing of the industry. Loans that were made on loose credit and then bundled by Wall Street into dicey investment vehicles are all being exposed. However, the underlying properties are not rotten; they still make for sound investments.

            Like the residential market, the commercial real-estate industry was saturated with quick deals that turned sour because they were not thought through. Now, because the consequences stretched so far, the commercial real-estate industry has to be turned upside down and untangled. Although the untangling process will be turbulent, it will also be exposing an array of investment possibilities. Commercial real estate provides the venues for consumer spending. As the economy slowly recovers, so too will the demand for prime commercial real estate—something that will be readily available and reasonably priced in the immediate future.  

 

Keep Health Care in Our “Best Interest”

            I have been reluctant to bring the argument of national health-care reform to the Powell Perspective because it does not necessarily pertain to real estate, finance or investing. But, national health-care reform has the potential to have drastic impact on our economy, and for this reason I believe it deserves attention here.

            I have been convinced to raise this issue after overhearing a 20-something at the gas pump discuss the issue with someone of similar age. “Man, the whole thing is no big deal, I mean how often do we really go to the doctor anyway?” he said. As I drove off, I realized that the young man, healthy and probably feeling somewhat resilient, was simply not interested in the topic. He wanted to be able to disregard the topic so he could have more attention to focus on the issues that had a more immediate impact on him.

            This week will bring an important turn in the debate over national health-care reform. The Obama administration has committed itself to rethinking the plan before the President is scheduled to address Congress on September 9^th. President Obama is now going to be leading the arguments that he has been able to mostly sidestep thus far. What has me concerned is that the administration will recognize what I did while pumping my gas: The youth do not care. If the Obama administration addresses this and rebrands the issue to somehow get the youth behind it, then the approval rating for health-care reform could skyrocket. The same demographic that helped the President win the office, could now help direct a national issue that they may not be truly interested in for another 20 years. On the other hand, maybe it is time to address the demographic who will still be paying for this change long after we are gone. After all, the people that currently have a vested interest are at a standstill after becoming equally heated on both sides of the issue.

            Since its appearance in the Obama administration’s limelight, health-care reform has done nothing but become more complex. The plan is unclear. No one knows what it will look like, we only know what the media reports: We’re currently 37^th in the world in health-care quality. Death panels will dictate how long we live. The President will personally pull the plug on our grandma. If there are details to this administration’s plan, then they have all been shadowed by heated talk show hosts’ attempts to get the public screaming about something no one knows about.

            On September 9^th President Obama is going to be forced to add some structure to his administration’s plan. Thus far, no one has been able to dissect and discredit the plan because it has only taken shape through various town hall meetings and informal gatherings. In his first address to Congress since February, President Obama will be talking exclusively about health care. This national issue is going to take rigid leadership from the President. If he wants to make any progress he is going to have to involve the nation by getting the young to care and the old to stop shouting at one another and listen.

           

 

 

---

[1] See http://www.allstate.com/about/advoc-insurance-fed-charter.aspx

[2] See http://allstate.com/content/refresh-attachments/Advoc_FedCharter.pdf

[3] See http://www.allstate.com/content/refresh-attachments/FedREg_Pool.pdf

[4] See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125167422962070925.html?mod=rss_whats_news_us