Archive for July, 2008

Hmmm – Inconvenient Facts

July 31, 2008

Excerpted from WSJ “Where’s the Outrage? Really.” Arthur Brooks,  July 31, 2008

According to an emerging journalistic narrative … ordinary Americans are outraged. The anger is simply assumed to exist. Ironically, this assumption is questionable, and is not supported by the data.

In May 2008, the Gallup Organization asked 1,200 American adults how many days in the past week they had felt “outraged.” The average number of angry days was 1.17, and 54% of those surveyed said none. … Despite the litany of horrors presented to us daily by campaigning politicians, most of us appear to be doing really quite well managing our anger.

Indeed, we are less angry today than a decade ago… (in) the glory days of the 1990s, when — according to the media narrative — we enjoyed uninterrupted peace and prosperity. In 1996, the General Social Survey asked exactly the same “outrage” question of 1,500 adults. Then, only 38% had not been outraged at all in the past week. The average number of angry days was 1.5 per week, 29% higher than at present.

Virtually every group in the population is less angry in 2008 than in 1996 … only one major group in the population has gotten angrier: people who call themselves “very liberal.”  …  Today, very liberal people spend more than twice as much time feeling angry as do political moderates. One in seven is outraged seven days a week .

Most Americans recognize that, while gas is expensive and our grocery money doesn’t go as far as it did last year, we are still an enormously prosperous and fortunate nation.

Most …  are reasonable people, and can see the difference between correctable problems within a strong system of democratic capitalism and the kind of catastrophic failure that justifies real outrage.

* * * * *

Mr. Brooks is a professor at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Public Affairs.

* * * * *

For the full article (worth reading):
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121746010408198765.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
 
Click link =>  The Homa Files Blog

* * * * *

Dogbert for President – His Tax Plan

July 30, 2008

A few years ago I stumbled on a Dogbert cartoon.  At the time it made me smile. 

Today, the cartoon makes me nervous — very nervous.

Of course, the source of my angst is the Obama tax plan.  But, my specific concerns aren’t the ones that most pundits dwell on.

* * * * *

Buying Votes

True, Obama did hijack Dogbert’s campaign strategy and plans to raise tax rates on the top 3% of income earners (individuals and  couples earning over $250,000 annually) and to redistribute the “savings” via a new tax credit of $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family.  

Cynics point out that in the good old days, Mayor Daley’s Chicago political machine could deliver a  vote for a the price of a pack of cigarettes.  Apparently the price of a vote has gone up more than the price of gasoline.  At least votes are now  “marked to market”.  The Obama plan clearly sets the price at $500 (cash) per vote, with a perpetuity value of about $10,000 @ 5%.

* * * * *

Buying Old Folk’s Votes

And, Obama promises zero Federal taxes for seniors over 65 on income up to $50,000 . 

Mark Penn, Hillary Clinton’s former chief strategist says: “The Obama camp hit a bull’s-eye with this proposal, which has little economic justification but is great politics.” http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/12117.html

* * * * *

Upping High Bracket Marginal Rates

In a WSJ op-ed, Stanford economics professor Michael Boskin opines that despite the rhetoric to the contrary,  Obama’s increases don’t just hit “rich” individuals.  They also impact lot of small businesses and two-earner households in high cost-of-living areas.

Specifically, Obama would raise the top marginal rates from 35% to 39.6%,  increase the tax rate on capital gains and dividends, and uncap Social Security taxes (which currently are levied on the first $102,000 of earnings).

When payroll and state income taxes are thrown in, Boskin estimates that the high bracket marginal rate goes to over 60% —  with almost $2 of every $3 earned at the margin, going to the government for services and redistribution.

click to make table bigger

click to make table bigger

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121728762442091427.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

* * * * *

Redistributing $131 Billion Annually

An analysis done by the Tax Foundation — a self-proclaimed non-partisan think tank —  indicates that Obama’s plan — as proposed — would redistribute about $131 billion each year.  Taking money from the undeserving rich, and giving it directly to the financially besieged middle (and lower) class). 

Tax Foundation - Tax Policy Center Estimate
Source: Tax Foundation – Tax Policy Center Estimate

“Hard Numbers on Obama’s Tax Redistribution Plan
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/23319.html

* * * * *

My POV

1.  On a philosophical level, I agree that the grossly uneven distribution of earning power in the US is a serious problem that needs to be fixed. 

2. But, I don’t think that the problem of income inequality should be fixed via a tax system — which was originally intended to “tax & spend” efficiently on necessary common services — not to “grab and redistribute”.  Direct transfers from one citizen’s pockets to another’s (e.g. refundable tax credits) are certainly the latter.

3. Except for the impact on small businesses, I can’t get too riled over marginal rate increases that start at $350,000; but I do think a “doughnut hole” payroll tax schedule is wacky and I think raising capital gains taxes during an economic slowdown is dangerous.

4 . My real  issue:  The numbers say that in Obama World, a minority of voting age Americans will be paying income taxes.  That scares me. What’s to stop an income tax-free majority from continually voting  to  raise taxes on the tax-paying minority to fund an ever increasing potpourri of benefits or add to the redistribution pot.

* * * * *

Next Up: The numbers are conclusive … taxpayers will be a minority.

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
 
Click link =>  The Homa Files Blog

Tax Payers: A Dwindling Majority

July 29, 2008

A couple of years ago, one of my sons observed that people paying income taxes would soon be in the minority.  In denial, I dismissed the notion at the time. 

More recently, I read in Dick Morris’ book Fleeced:  “When Obama is done, the proportion of adult Americans who pay taxes at all will become a minority of our population” (p.41)

Finally, curiosity (and selfish interests) got the best of me and I decided to get some facts and crunch some numbers. 

My conclusion: UH-OH !!! 

Here are some things to mull over.

* * * * *

10% Bracket

The Bush tax plan introduced a 10% tax bracket that currently applies to individual tax filers with taxable incomes less than $7,825 Over $7,825 is taxed at the ‘old’ 15% marginal rate.  For marrieds filing jointly, the 10% bracket goes up to $15,659.

Technical note: Taxable income equals Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) less $3,400 per personal exemption (the filer plus dependents), less deductions.  The standard deduction is $5,350 for individuals and $10,700 for married couples filing jointly.

* * * * *

Child Tax Credit (CTC)

Additionally, the Bush tax plan doubled the size of Child Tax Credit (CTC) from $500 per qualifying dependent child — the level introduced in 1997 —  to $1,000; and made the credit “refundable(i.e. a filer gets a check for any negative tax balance); and relaxed some of the limtations.

* * * * *

10% & CTC – So what?

Well, for example, a married couple — with 2 qualifying dependent children — filing a joint return  — can report almost $43,000 in Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) and owe no taxes 

Here’s how: The couple’s AGI of $42,850 gets reduced to a taxable income of $18,550 — $42,850 AGI less $13,600 in exemptions (4 times $3,400 per exemption), less the standard deduction of $10,700, equals $18,550.  The tax on $18,550 is $2,000 — $1,565 plus 15% of the excess over $15,650 equals $2,000.  But, the couple gets a $2,000 Child Tax Credit — $1,000 for each qualifying dependent child.  So, the couple owes no taxes.

A married couple  with 2 children who  file jointly and report less than $42,850 get a refundable credit — a check from the government — in effect, a negative income tax.

* * * * *

Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)

Similarly, the revised tax code provides for an Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) based on a relatively complicated formula:

click table to make it bigger

So what?

Well, for example, an individual with no child dependents can report up to $10,416 in AGI and owe no taxes.  Those who report less than $10,416 in AGI, get a refundable credit. (Just trust me on the calculations — even if they’re not precise, I ‘m confident that they’re directionally right)

The table below displays the maximum AGI that individuals can report — and that maried couples can jointly report, depending on their number children — without owing income taxes i.e. their “zero-tax AGI)

 

click table to make it bigger

* * * * *

Bottom 40% – Negative Income Taxes

Based on Congressional Budget Office (CBO) & Tax Foundation analyses of IRS data, the bottom 40% of tax filers — as a group — have negative tax liabilities. 

That is, on average,  the effective tax rates of the bottom 40% of filers are negative. So, the filers in these quintiles get a refundable credit paid by the government.

Technical note: These are averages ! Some filers in the group may pay some income taxes — but their tax liabilities are more than offset by filers with negative tax balances.  And, as will be shown in a subsequent post, some filers in the middle quintile — which has a positive average effective rate — have negative tax liabilities.

click table to make it bigger

Sources:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/12-11-HistoricalTaxRates.pdf
http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/1001091_distribution_federal_taxes.pdf

* * * * *

32% of filed returns – Zero (or Negative) Income Tax Liability

Of those in the bottom 40%, roughly 80% (i.e. over 32% of total filers) paid zero taxes or received a refundable credit.

* * * * *

41% of U.S. Population – Zero (or Negative) Income Tax Liability

Economists at the Tax Foundation estimate that — for the 2006 tax year — roughly 43.4 million tax returns, representing over 32% of the 136 million returns filed) and 91 million individuals, faced a zero or negative tax liability.

In addition to the 91 million, about 15 million low and no income households (averaging 2 people per household) are not required to file tax returns.  

So, roughly 121 million Americans—or 41 percent of the U.S. population—  pay no income tax, or — benefiting from the earned income tax credit or child credits — get a “refundable credit” back from the goverment (i.e. a check for “negative income tax”).

Source: Tax Foundation: “Number of Americans Outside the Income Tax System”
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/542.html

* * * * *

59% Think Everyone Should Pay Something 

Source: HarrisInteractive, 
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/topline-20050414.pdf

* * * * *

Next up: Will tax payers become a minority (of voting adults) any time soon?  If so, so what?

* * * * *

 Want more from the Homa Files?
 
Click link =>  The Homa Files Blog

Hmmm: Obama Visits Doctor (on a Sunday Night !)

July 28, 2008

The Story

CHICAGO — Barack Obama, back in his home town after a tour of Afghanistan, the Middle East and Europe, saw a doctor at the University of Chicago Medical Center on Sunday night to deal with a sore hip, inflamed from playing basketball.

My POV  (POV = point-of-view)

1) Obama promises that when he’s elected, we’ll get exactly the same health care that Senators get.

Does that mean that my doctor will see me on a Sunday night (for “soreness” no less)  instead of telling me that the next open appointment slot is 6 weeks from Tuesday at 1:46 — come early, but plan to wait?

Must be, because Obama certainly wouldn’t think of accepting preferential care, right?

2) Why do all of the candidates confuse “medical insurance” with “health care” ?  The former is just money; the latter is fundamental service delivery.  Two different things !

Amen.

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
 
Click link =>  The Homa Files Blog

Hmmm – Some Interesting Tax Stats

July 28, 2008

Summary: To load you with some interesting factoids for cocktail party conversations and to provide background for the next couple of analytical posts — here are some highlights from the 2006 IRS data pile (the latest year available) , and the link to the complete IRS data set (which is a treasure trove of info).

Some Highlights

138.4 million returns filed … reporting almost $8 trillion in AGI
         
 … up 8.4% from 2005 …  $57,670 average AGI

23%  reported dividend income … averaging $5,897

10.5%  reported capital gains … averaging $4,275

 63%  took the standard deduction … averaging $7,043

 37%  itemized deductions … averaging $24,122

 30%  reported charitable deductions … totaling $173 billion

2.9%  were assessed Alternative Minimum Tax
              … averaging $4,769

 19%  claimed child tax credits … averaging $1,233

 17%  claimed earned income tax credits … averaging $1,939

 67%  paid income taxes … averaging $11,064

   33%  paid zero taxes (or received a refundable tax credit) 
                … up from 20% in 1990 and 25% in 2000 



     
 * A deeper dig on this point is coming in subsequent posts *

* * * * *

Summary Table:

click table to make it bigger
click table to make it bigger

Source: IRS
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/06in01fg.xls

* * * * *

Next up: Taxpayers –  A Dwindling Majority

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
 
Click link =>  The Homa Files Blog

Randy Pausch: The Last Lecture

July 25, 2008

Randy Pausch, the Carnegie Mellon University computer science professor whose final lecture inspired millions, died early today (July 25) in Virginia of pancreatic cancer.

Last fall, Dr. Pausch delivered the lecture at CMU, which has attracted more than six million viewers. (link below)

Dr. Pausch wrote a book, “The Last Lecture,” which … elaborated on his lecture and emphasized the value he placed on hard work and learning from criticism. His words were intended as a legacy for his young children.

In May, Dr. Pausch spoke at the Carnegie Mellon commencement. He said a friend recently told him he was “beating the [Grim] Reaper” because it’s now been nine months since his doctor told him he would die in six.

“But we don’t beat the Reaper by living longer. We beat the Reaper by living well,” said Dr. Pausch, who urged the graduates to find and pursue their passion. 

Watch the Last Lecture:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=nwO7EnM0zWM

Excerpted from the Pittsburgh Gazette 

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
 
Click link =>  The Homa Files Blog

 

Update: XM – Sirius Merger – Finally!

July 25, 2008

After more than a year of government review (largely instigated by a powerful “over the air” radio lobby led by the National Association of Broadcasters), it looks like the merger between XM Satellite Radio and Sirius Satellite Radio — is finally going to happen.

in March, the Justice Department approved the merger.  Last month (June), FCC Chairman Kevin Martin gave his ok, saying:  “I am recommending that with the voluntary commitments they’ve offered, on balance, this transaction would be in the public interest. They have voluntarily committed to setting forth price constraints, so the prices for consumers do not increase; smaller packages at lower prices; an open standard for radios; the sale of interoperable radios; and additional public interest programming for noncommercial use and for qualified entities who have not been traditionally represented.”

Two of the five FCC members commission quickly followed Martin’s lead and  announced that they would cast votes to approve the deal.

Now, their are reports that at least one of two other members of the FCC (John Adelstein, Deborah Taylor Tate), is ready give the merger the majority vote it needs provided that XM-Sirius up the ante by freezing prices for six years, by making 25% of their satellite capacity available for public-interest and minority programming, and by paying a $2o million fine for some minor technical violations of FCC transmission rules.

For more details:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121683130281477651.html

* * * * *

Performance Update

The companies broke even financially, and ended the 1st quarter of 2008 with a total of almost 18 million subscribers — 9.33 for XM, 8.64 for Sirius. (Reminder: The original “Bass Model” research studies projected the market would be at least 25 million).

XM’s subscriber acquisition costs (SAC), a component of cost per gross addition (CPGA), were $73.  CPGA in was $99 for XM, $91 for Sirius

XM converted  53.3 percent of OEM installations (i.e. radios already installed in new cars)to subscriptions. XM’s monthly churn rate was 1.77 percent.

* * * * *

TEST QUESTION: Given a monthly subscription price of $12.99,  what’s the customer life time value (CLTV) of an average satellite radio subscriber? Answer below

* * * * *

Observations

1. The prolonged merger approval process — which took longer than the approval of the Exxon-Mobil merger — certainly validates the political clout of the “over the air” media companies.  To a reasonably objective person (me), this one was a no-brainer.

2. Finally, I’ll be able to get the NFL and MLB on the same service.

3. I still think that converting about half of the OEM units pre-installed in new cars is cause for concern, not celebration.  Any marketer worth his / her salt wouldn’t sleep well at night until the conversion ration was at least over 75%. 

4. My Lexus RX-350 didn’t come with either XM or Sirius pre-installed.  The dealer treated the installation as a minor annoyance, and said less than half of their customers opt for satellite radio..

5. Big question: too late to matter? My sense: the buzz is gone and momentum  is gone.  Your views?

 * * * * *

Next up: Back to taxes …

Want more from the Homa Files?
 
Click link =>  The Homa Files Blog  

* * * * *

Answer to CLTV Question:
Assuming nil marginal operating costs per customer (though there would be some), and a 5% annual discount rate ( .4% monthly):
CLTV = [MS$ / (C% + DR%)] – CGAC
MS$ = monthly subscription = $12.99
C% = churn rate =  .0177
C% + DR% = .0177 + .004 = .0217
[MS$ / (C% + DR%)]  = $12.99 / .0217 = $598.61
$598.61 – CGAC = $598.61 – $95 (avg for XM & SIRI) +
$503.61

Taxes – Tax Breaks for the Wealthy?

July 24, 2008

The 2008 presidential campaign is loaded with tax rhetoric.  The GOP says that the Bush tax cuts have worked and it would be crazy to raise taxes during an economic slowdown. 

The Dems say that the Bush tax plan “gave tax breaks to the rich, who didn’t even want them” — as evidenced by Warren Buffet repeatedly saying that he pays less taxes than his secretary — and that uber-earning people — e,g, greedy CEOs and hedge fund managers — aren’t paying their fair share.

What do the numbers say?

Well, several pivotal conclusions can be drawn from a comparison of published IRS data for 2000 (the year immediately prior to the first wave of so-called “Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy”) to the data from 2005 (the last year of IRS data available):

1. The effective tax rate for the top 1% of tax filers — those reporting AGI greater than $365,000 — did go down 4.32 percentage points from 27.45% in 2000 to 23.13% in 2005 — a 16% reduction; the effective tax rate for the top 5% earners (which, of course, includes the top 1%) went down 3.64 percentage points from 24.42% in 2000 to 20.78% in 2005 — a 15% reduction. 

Note: “effective rate” is actual income taxes paid divided by income; “marginal rate” is the percentage of “last dollars earned” paid in taxes.  So-called “payroll taxes” for Social Security and Medicare are not included (see ana;ytical note below).


2. But — and it’s a big “but” — the effective tax rate for the bottom 50% of all tax filers (those reporting less than $28,875) also went down — from 4.62% in 2000 to 2.98% in 2005 — “only” 1.62 percentage points, but representing a whopping 36% cut from the 2000 rate.

Note: 32% of tax filers paid zero income taxes or received refundable credit checks from the government


3. And, the amount of taxes paid by the top 1% as a group was approximately the same in 2000 ($388.9 billion) and 2005 ($368.1 billion); ditto for the top 5% — $553.7 billion in 2000 and $557.8 billion in 2005. 

4. During the same time period, the tax proceeds from the bottom 50% of tax filers dropped almost 25% — from $38.3 billion in 2000 to $28.7 billion in 2005. 

5. So, the tax burden absorbed by the top 1%  increased by 2 percentage points from 37.4% of total income taxes paid in 2000 to 39.4% of total income taxes paid in 2005; the top 5% share of the tax burden increased by 3.2 percentage points from 56.5% of toal income taxes in 2000 to 59.7% in 2005; the bottom half’s share of total income taxes paid dropped from 3.9% in 2000 to 3.1% in 2005. 

6. Taking a longer run view, the share of the income tax burden shouldered by the top 1% has roughly doubled over the past 25 years — from about 20% of total income taxes paid to about 40% of all income taxes paid; the share of the income tax burden shouldered by the top 5% has has increased roughly 25 percentage points over the past 25 years — from about 35% of total income taxes paid to about 60% of all income taxes paid. 

               

           

 

7.  The share of income taxes borne by the bottom half of tax filers has fallen from over 7% to about 3%.


            

 


* * * * *

Observations

I. The picture is certainly different when the focus shifts off marginal tax rates to the  amount of taxes paid or the share of the total income tax burden.

2. Broad based surveys indicate that people in general think the maximum percentage of a person’s income that SHOULD go to state, federal, and local taxes (in total) is 16%, with only 12% of respondents saying that the rate should be over 30%.

From a HarrisInterActive Poll:
Q 650: What is the maximum percentage of a person’s income that SHOULD go to taxes – that is, all taxes, state, federal, and local?

  the maximum percentage of a person's income that SHOULD go to taxes - that is, all taxes,
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/topline-20050414.pdf

3. A tax burden of 60% of taxes paid by 5% strikes me as a pretty high number — especially since it’s 5% of tax filers not 5% of citizen-voters. Of course, “fair share” is in the eye of the beholder …

* * * * *

Data deck: 02-irs-tax-quartiles-key-metrics
Primary data source: http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

* * * * *

Analytical Note: This post, and a few follow-ons that I have in process, focus on individual federal income taxes.  That distinction excludes corporate taxes (an entirely different animal), state taxes (a crazy quilt of different programs), and so-called “FICA” or “payroll taxes” (for Social Security and Medicare).  The latter exclusion is admittedly dicey.  Employees’ paycheck deductions for Social Security and Medicare are a constant percentage of income (6.2% + 1.45% = 7.65%), up to $102,000 in earnings.  So, many people argue that the assessments are “regressive.”  Nonetheless, I consider these charges to be more akin to forced savings or deferred income plans since contributions are matched by employers and since the benefits received (e.g. retirement income and health insurance) are directly tied to the level of contributions.  So, I choose to outboard them from “tax and spend” analyses.  

* * * * *

Next up: More on income, deductions, credits, and taxes.

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
 
Click link =>  The Homa Files Blog

Taxes – Fair Share ?

July 22, 2008

Excerpted from the WSJ Editorial: “Their Fair Share”, July 21, 2008

 

“No President has ever plied more money from the rich than George W. Bush did with his 2003 tax cuts … The latest IRS data … show that the 2003 Bush tax cuts caused what may be the biggest increase in tax payments by the rich in American history.

The top 1% of taxpayers, those who earn above $388,806, earned 22% of all reported income and paid 40% of all income taxes in 2006, the highest share in at least 40 years.

The top 10% in income, those earning more than $108,904, paid 71% [of all income taxes]..

Americans with an income below the median paid a record low 2.9% of all income taxes, while the top 50% paid 97.1%.”

The WSJ editors project: If tax rates are raised on the rich — the Obama plan — their share of tax payments will fall. The last time tax rates were as high as Obama wants them — the Carter years — the rich paid only 19% of all income taxes, half of the 40% share they pay today. Why? Because they either worked less, earned less, or they found ways to shelter income from taxes so it was never reported to the IRS as income.

 

For full editorial:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121659695380368965.html

* * * * *

Observations & Questions

1. This isn’t new news, but seems to get swept under the carpet — largely because of legitimate concern for the uneven distribution of earning power in the U.S.

2. What is if “fair share”? Who should decide what it is? On what basis? Ability to pay ???

3. What is the goal of the income tax system: “collect and spend”(on necessary gov’t services) or “take and redistribute”

4. Based on cocktail party conversations, the WSJ is certainly right on at least point: folks are already starting to think about tax strategies to cope with likely tax rate increases. 

5. Warning: This editorial aroused my curiosity — so, several posts on the topic are on their way … with numbers, of course.

Want more from the Homa Files?
 
Click link =>  The Homa Files Blog

Energy – Alternative Energy Initiatives

July 21, 2008

Political candidates and pundits are talking like the energy crisis is new news, and even O’Reilly rants that the Bush administration has done absolutely nothing about it.  They conveniently overlook programs aimed at the development of hydrogen fuel, advanced energy technologies, and renewable fuels.

 Click chart to make it bigger

For details, see the DOE summary presentation:
http://www.energy.upenn.edu/docs/EWGP-Milliken-slides.pdf

The cornerstone of the program is the Advanced Energy Initiative (AEI) — which was announced in Bush’s 2006 State of the Union address .  The AEI’s stated goals  are to reduce our dependence on oil (especially foreign sourced) and to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants).

Specifically, the AEI was tasked with accelerating the technical and cost viability of alternative energy technologies for vehicles (e.g. plug-in hybrid vehicles,   fuel cells, and biofuels, including “cellulosic” ethanol derived from agricultural waste, forest residues and dedicated energy crops such as switchgrass), and for homes and businesses (e.g. nuclear power, clean coal, solar, and wind).

An important component of the AEI is critical basic research that should help overcome major technical barriers to the expanded use of technologies such as solar energy, cellulosic ethanol, energy storage, hydrogen fuel cells, and fusion energy.

For details of the AEI:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2006/energy/energy_booklet.pdf

The initial enacted budget for AEI was $1.77 billion in FY2006; the proposed FY 2009 Budget is  $3.17 billion:
          

http://www.ostp.gov/galleries/Budget09/AdvancedEnergyInitiative1pager.pdf

* * * * *

Observations

1. Critics argue that the too little, too late, misdirected … with too little emphasis on convervation standards and processes.  The critics may be right, but some visibility and credit should be given for getting the ball rolling.

2. The next president will take over with the ball close to the end zone on some of the initiatives.  Watch whoever it is punch it in for the touchdown, dance in the end zone, and claim credit for the entire scoring drive.

3. The Bush team may be the worst marketers in the entire free world.

4. Gotta ask: what did Al Gore do in the 8 years he was hanging around the White House? I guess it’s easier to be bold and visionary when you don’t have responsibility … 

* * * * *

Worth browsing:  the U.S. DOE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) web site: http://www.eere.energy.gov/

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
 
Click link =>  The Homa Files Blog

 

Idea – Revive the Hybrid Car Tax Credit

July 18, 2008

As of the end of 2007 (before the recent surge in gas prices), there were just under 1 million hybrid vehicles in use in th U.S.

http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/data/docs/hev_sales_model_year.xls

As I recounted in a prior post, I was surprised that  — for practical purposes —  there aren’t any tax credits available for hybrid cars to offset some of their price premium over conventional autos.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 provided income tax credits up to $3,400 (depending on the make & model of car), for hybrids purchased by individuals after January 1, 2006. 

 

But, the credits weren’t applicable to taxpayers falling into the Alternative Minimum Tax category, and only the first 60,000 hybrid vehicles sold by each manufacturer qualified.  The allowable credits were phased out as manufacturers approached their 60,000 limits. 

 

For example, a Prius qualified for $3,150 credit on January 1, 2006.  That got cut to $1,585 on October 1, 2006; $785.50 on April 1, 2007; and to zero on October 1, 2007.
 

           

     See  http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/tax_hybrid.shtml for current hybrid tax incentives

 

The price premium for hybrids is somewhere between “statistically significant” and — with long payback periods — “economically disqualifying “.

 

So, wouldn’t it make sense to reinstitute some kind of tax incentive to stimulate the shift? It could be done quickly — with the stroke of a couple of pens.  

 

Make it big enough to matter, keep it both simple (no silly sliding scales) and broadly available (folks paying AMTare penalized enough), and watchdog the auto companies and dealers so they don’t just inflate the prices.

Want more from the Homa Files?
 
Click link =>  The Homa Files Blog

   

Autos: A Run on Used “Econocars”

July 17, 2008


Excerpted from  “Want a Used ‘Econobox’? Better Get in Line”,
WSJ: July 16,2008

 

The appeal of fuel efficiency is moving beyond the new-car market and creating a run on small used cars. Used economy cars … are now flying off the lots, and prices are rising.  Sustained high gasoline prices are pushing more drivers out of their gas-guzzling SUVs and into what were once called “econoboxes.”  

 

But because economy models haven’t been big sellers for the past few years, car makers have built relatively few of them. The resulting tight supply and strong demand have driven up prices.

 

“We find that the big ticket is 30 mpg,” says Norm Olson, sales operations manager for Toyota’s certified used-car business … Buyers are interested “in just about anything with four cylinders’ because those are the cars that will travel more than 30 miles per gallon.

 

For car shoppers, the run on econoboxes has a downside: Consumers have to pay top dollar for small used cars, even as they get lower trade-in values for their large vehicles. Some buyers may also be deterred by the higher upkeep costs of older cars   the average amount spent on a car in the fourth year of its life, according to J.D. Power & Associates, is $398..

 

Full article

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121617183225056575.html

Thanks to MSB-MBA alum Jason Bates for the heads-up

Want more from the Homa Files?
 
Click link =>  The Homa Files Blog

 

Econ: Hybrid Cars – Tough Sell

July 16, 2008

Summary: Hybrid vehicles offer many advantages: environmental friendliness, HOV lane access, better gas mileage.  But, based strictly on economic value to the customer (EVC), it’s tough to justify buying one – especially since dealers are discounting conventional models during the current auto sales slowdown, and selling hybrids near (or above) sticker prices   I know, I shopped, I bought.  Here’s my story, replete with numbers.

                    * * * * *

OK, after 9 years and 143,500 miles — it was time to trade in my 1999 Lexus RX300 SUV.  And, with gas prices north of $4 per gallon, it made sense to consider a hybrid. 

Buying a hybrid would certainly be the “right” thing to do – more green, less gas,  But, being an economically rational guy (think “cheap”), my decision quickly centered on the economics: would the price premium being charged for hybrids, in effect, pay for itself?

Two decisions simplified my buying process.

First, I still wanted an SUV.  Sorry, but with 2 big dogs and occasional Home Depot trips,  I do enough hauling to justify it psychologically.

Second, Lexus was my brand choice since the RX300 served me well  for almost a decade, and since Lexus has a competitive  advantage in hybrids — thanks to its accumulated experience with Prius.

Specifically, I narrowed my choice set to the Lexus RX350 (updated version of my current car) and its cousin — the Lexus RX400h – a functionally comparable hybrid version.

Before leaving the house, I pulled  price and tech data  from the usual car sites: Yahoo-Autos, Edmunds, Kelly Blue Book, and CarMax … and crunched some numbers.

First, I wanted to know how much I’d save on gas if I bought the hybrid. 

The RX350 is government rated at 17 MPG in city driving and 22 MPG on the highway; the 400h is rated at 26 MPG city and 24 highway.  I was a bit surprised that the only significant difference is on city driving – slow speeds and lots of starts & stops; highway driving is essentially a push.

I drive about 12,000 miles annually (right at the national average).  I don’t keep track of my split between city & highway mileage.  In fact, I’m not exactly sure what defines the distinction, e.g. is driving down Route 7 in northern Virginia at 45 MPH city or highway?  Without belaboring the distinction,  I simply assumed that my miles are split roughly 50 / 50 between city and highway.

Given my driving pattern and  these MPG ratings, I would expect an RX400h to burn 480 gallons of gas each year (6,000 miles at 26 MPG, and 6,000 miles at 24 MPG).  An RX350 would burn 622 gallons each year (6,000 miles at 17 MPG, and 6,000 miles at 22 MPG).  

So, the hybrid would use about 142 fewer gallons of gas annually.  At the current $4 per gallon, that’s an annual savings of about $566 

Next step: compare the gas savings to the price difference in the cars.

The base price of a RX400h is $42,980; the RX350 is $39,100.  So, assuming a comparable set of equally priced options, the “hybrid premium” between the cars is $3,880. 

I checked for available tax incentives that might be available, and was surprised to find that the tax credits  provided by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 had expired for all but a few low volume makes & models.   More on that in a subsequent post.  

So, it looked like I’d be staring at a $3,880 purchase price difference (over $4,000 counting sales taxes) that would take me almost 7 years to breakeven ($3,880 divided by $566 equals 6.85 years).

Note: To be technically “pure”,  the future gas savings I should be discounted back to a present value.  Using a 5% discount rate, the breakeven is pushed out to a little more than 8 years.

Since holding a car for 7 years is the national average, and since I’ve owned my current car for 9 years, it seemed that the hybrid would be a contender.

Reality set in when I got to the local dealer. No surprise, the lot was full of RX 350s , but there were only a couple of RX400h hybrids.  The salesman volunteered that he “had room” to discount the RX350s, but that the hybrids were going “pretty close” to list price.

Sure enough.  After a couple of hours of haggling, The dealer’s “hard” offer was $48,970 for a loaded RX400h hybrid (about 2% off the sticker price), and  $41,500 for a comparably featured RX350 (about 10% off the sticker price).

Bottom line: The real hybrid price premium turned out to be $7,500 – an 18% price spread between the RX350 and the RX400h.

So, my nominal “pay back” period was pushed out to 13 years ($7,500 divided by $566 per year in gas savings equals 13.25 years); the NPV breakeven was pushed out to over 20 years.  Said differently, gas prices would have to double to $8 per gallon (starting today), to get the payback down to average ownership life of about 7 years.

My conclusion: the RX350 had a compelling economic advantage over the RX400h — its hybrid cousin.  While I admit to some guilt , I concluded that $7,500 is a lot of money and 13 years is a long time. Guess which car I drove off the lot … 

                                 * * * * *

Some observations:

1. The experience reaffirmed my view that anybody who thinks they’re pulling anything over a car dealer is fooling themselves.  Man, do they know how to bob & weave with the numbers, and there is no end to the “adders” they try to throw in.  Aggressive negotiating seems to only minimize the “damage”.  What happens to the average guy off the street?

2. I expected even more of a fuel advantage from the hybrid – and didn’t expect the difference to be almost entirely attributable to city driving.

3. I wonder how many folks will just compare list price differentials and understate the hybrid purchase price premium.  They may make the “right” decision – in part, by drawing wrong conclusions re: the economics.

4. The Prius might make sense for anybody who puts on a lot of mileage diving alone (few passengers, no gargantuan pets, no lumber),.  With a price tag in the low $20s, a sizable “installed base” (no notoriety, familiar to mechanics), and gas mileage over 45 MPG —  it makes both economic and environmental sense.  But, even with a Prius, you’re still paying about a dime a mile for gas …

5. I expect auto companies to keep inching hybrid’s sticker prices up and for dealers to “get healthy” selling them at or above sticker prices.  I wouldn’t be ahocked to start seeing “market area adjustments” added on the sticker prices.

6. I was surprised that hybrid tax credits were a thing of the past.  Most of them were phased out in 2007.   More on that topic in a later post.

Want more from the Homa Files?
 
Click link =>  The Homa Files Blog

Marketing – Reviving Old Brands

July 14, 2008

New Life from Tired Brands
Excerpted from Booz & Co., Startegy+Business

Punch line: Sometimes, it’s easier and less costly to leverage the residual awareness of an archived brand than to launch a new brand from scratch.  Key is assessing the legacy brand’s actionable equity.

The story:

The Ford Taurus was the #1 US car model in the early 1990s.  Ford diluted the brand by chasing fleet volume (companies & rental cars).  Eventually, Ford decided to shelve the brand name and introduce the Ford 500 brand — a costly failure.  Ford subsequently phased out the 500,  and revived the Taurus name.  Why? Very hgh brand awareness with manageable negatives.

Booz says that you can determine if a brand has the foundation for a new life via a 4-part “tool” called BVA — Brand Vitality Assessment:

1. Purchase Funnel Assessment (PFA) — how do prospects convert from awareness to trial to repurchase?

2. Brand Equity Review — what are customer perceptions of strengths & weaknesses?

3. Competitive Dynamics Assessment — why did the brand fell off the radar?

4. Value Proposition Check — differentiating benefits worth the price?

                                        * * * * *
Observations

1. Nothing new re: analyses (we cover them all at MSB), but they’re nicely bundled and put in a useful context. 

2. May inspire some situations which have brands on the shelf that may be revivable.

3. For MSBers, should bring back memories of Markstrat.

4. Worth reading to brush up on the 4 analyses.

For full article:
http://www.strategy-business.com/resiliencereport/resilience/rr00060

Want more from the Homa Files?
 
Click link =>  The Homa Files Blog

Energy – T. Boone Picken's Plan

July 10, 2008

T. Boone Picken’s Plan to Escape the Grip of Foreign Oil
OpEd excerpted from the WSJ July 9, 2008

T. Boone Pickens has started running TV ads explaining the severity of the energy crisis and touting wind power as a quick, partial solution.  His WSJ OpEd spells out his plan:

“Each year we import more and more oil. In 1973, the year of the infamous oil embargo, the United States imported about 24% of our oil. In 1990, at the start of the first Gulf War, this had climbed to 42%. Today, we import almost 70% of our oil … [So] our economic engine is now 70% dependent on the energy resources of other countries, their good judgment, and most importantly, their good will toward us.

This year, we will spend almost $700 billion on imported oil, which is more than four times the annual cost of our current war in Iraq … if we don’t do anything about this problem, over the next 10 years we will spend around $10 trillion importing foreign oil. That is $10 trillion leaving the U.S. and going to foreign nations, making it what I certainly believe will be the single largest transfer of wealth in human history.

I have a clear goal in mind  … to reduce America’s foreign oil imports by more than one-third in the next five to 10 years.

Start with wind power  …  the U.S. has the capacity to generate 20% of its electricity supply from wind by 2030 …  [take] the energy generated by wind and use it to replace a significant percentage of the natural gas that is now being used to fuel our power plants.

Today, natural gas accounts for about 22% of our electricity generation in the U.S.  …  use new wind capacity to free up the natural gas for use as a transportation fuel. That would displace more than one-third of our foreign oil imports.

Natural gas is the only domestic energy of size that can be used to replace oil used for transportation, and it is abundant in the U.S. It is cheap and it is clean. With eight million natural-gas-powered vehicles on the road world-wide, the technology already exists to rapidly build out fleets of trucks, buses and even cars using natural gas as a fuel. Of these eight million vehicles, the U.S. has a paltry 150,000 right now.

[To get started] the government must mandate the formation of wind and solar transmission corridors, and renew the subsidies for economic and alternative energy development .

We need action. Now.”

                                      * * * * *

Observations:

1. Gotta like the guy’s passion and clarity of thought.  And, he puts his money where his mouth is – in ads and development capital.

2. Why not? Doesn’t solve the problem completely, but at least it hacks away at it.  No apparent downside. Doesn’t conflict with political agendas. 

3.  My bet? Politicos will take Picken’s ad quote “we can’t drill our way out of the problem” out of context and use it to support drilling bans. 

4. Watch: Congress will convene hearings on wind power and drag their feet.

                                   * * * * * 

Full story at:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121556087828237463.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

Thanks to Christian Walker (MSB MBA alum) for the heads-up on the article

Want more from the Homa Files?
 Click link =>  The Homa Files Blog

Energy – T. Boone Picken’s Plan

July 10, 2008

T. Boone Picken’s Plan to Escape the Grip of Foreign Oil
OpEd excerpted from the WSJ July 9, 2008

T. Boone Pickens has started running TV ads explaining the severity of the energy crisis and touting wind power as a quick, partial solution.  His WSJ OpEd spells out his plan:

“Each year we import more and more oil. In 1973, the year of the infamous oil embargo, the United States imported about 24% of our oil. In 1990, at the start of the first Gulf War, this had climbed to 42%. Today, we import almost 70% of our oil … [So] our economic engine is now 70% dependent on the energy resources of other countries, their good judgment, and most importantly, their good will toward us.

This year, we will spend almost $700 billion on imported oil, which is more than four times the annual cost of our current war in Iraq … if we don’t do anything about this problem, over the next 10 years we will spend around $10 trillion importing foreign oil. That is $10 trillion leaving the U.S. and going to foreign nations, making it what I certainly believe will be the single largest transfer of wealth in human history.

I have a clear goal in mind  … to reduce America’s foreign oil imports by more than one-third in the next five to 10 years.

Start with wind power  …  the U.S. has the capacity to generate 20% of its electricity supply from wind by 2030 …  [take] the energy generated by wind and use it to replace a significant percentage of the natural gas that is now being used to fuel our power plants.

Today, natural gas accounts for about 22% of our electricity generation in the U.S.  …  use new wind capacity to free up the natural gas for use as a transportation fuel. That would displace more than one-third of our foreign oil imports.

Natural gas is the only domestic energy of size that can be used to replace oil used for transportation, and it is abundant in the U.S. It is cheap and it is clean. With eight million natural-gas-powered vehicles on the road world-wide, the technology already exists to rapidly build out fleets of trucks, buses and even cars using natural gas as a fuel. Of these eight million vehicles, the U.S. has a paltry 150,000 right now.

[To get started] the government must mandate the formation of wind and solar transmission corridors, and renew the subsidies for economic and alternative energy development .

We need action. Now.”

                                      * * * * *

Observations:

1. Gotta like the guy’s passion and clarity of thought.  And, he puts his money where his mouth is – in ads and development capital.

2. Why not? Doesn’t solve the problem completely, but at least it hacks away at it.  No apparent downside. Doesn’t conflict with political agendas. 

3.  My bet? Politicos will take Picken’s ad quote “we can’t drill our way out of the problem” out of context and use it to support drilling bans. 

4. Watch: Congress will convene hearings on wind power and drag their feet.

                                   * * * * * 

Full story at:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121556087828237463.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

Thanks to Christian Walker (MSB MBA alum) for the heads-up on the article

Want more from the Homa Files?
 Click link =>  The Homa Files Blog

Tunes – Chicago Live @ Wolf Trap

July 9, 2008

Most folks know that I’m a big Chicago fan — the city, the Bears, the 1st place Cubbies and — oh yeah — the rock band. 

As part of my Dad’s Day present, son Scott and daughter-in-law Jess made a wish of mine come true — finally, I got to see Chicago perform live.  WOW.  Two solid hours of hit after hit after hit. (Test: ask your friends how many Chicago songs they can name?  Bet you’ll be surprised)

Gotta hand it to a band that stays relatively intact for over 40 years, adapts to the constantly changing music scene, can still pack an outdoor venue, and acts like they really want to be there. 

There’s a lesson in there somewhere.

                                     * * * * *

Some Chicago::
You’re My Inspiration
Make Me Smile
Saturday in the Park
Feeling Stronger Everyday*
25 or 6 to 4
Only the Beginning
Hard to Say I’m Sorry
Old Days
Color My World
Wishing You Were Here

* Ken’s favorite

Oil Econ: Losing Our Financial Independence ?

July 9, 2008

Pump Prices Hurt Americans Not Just in Pocketbook

Highlights from the WSJ July 8, 2008

Referencing a McKinsey Research Study

 

“Both presidential candidates are focusing on the economy this week, and for good reason: $4-a-gallon gasoline has Americans sliding into pocketbook shock.

 

But pain at the pump is only one reason energy now should be the central issue of this year’s campaign. Here’s the other, more insidious one: High oil prices are shredding America’s financial independence and producing a massive transfer of wealth from U.S. pocketbooks into the hands of suspect actors around the world, including Iran, Venezuela and Russia.

 

The U.S., in other words, now has an energy problem that is not only draining the bank accounts of its own citizens, but filling up the bank accounts of some who work against American interests around the globe … Oil-producing countries are accumulating piles of excess cash that they can use — and are using — to buy pieces of Western companies … (to buy) the  U.S. Treasury bonds that finance the federal government’s budget deficit (foreigners buy 80% of all newly issued Treasury bills) … (and) to advance anti-American political [and military] agendas.

 

To their credit, Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama are trying to raise awareness of the corrosive national-security effects of oil prices. In his recent centerpiece address on energy, Sen. McCain declared: “When we buy foreign oil, we are enriching some of our worst enemies.” As far back as last fall, Sen. Obama said in a speech that money spent on foreign oil “corrupts budding democracies and allows dictators from hostile regimes to threaten the international community.” 
                                              * * * * *

Observations:

 

1.  Right now, about 1/3 of US oil is sourced domestically, about 1/3 comes from friendly nations (Canada, Mexico), and about 1/3 from problematic nations.  Let’sdrive less and drill more to at least cover the most problematic 1/3 of our consumption.

 

2. Both candidates have to stop parsing words and make the issue visceral —  e.g. “roughly $1 of each gallon of $4 gas goes into the pocket of folks who don’t like us and want to hurt us”  — “what are the prospects for long-term job security if US companies are increasingly foreign-owned?”

 

3. Shouldn’t the Congress be doing something a little more action-oriented  than “negotiating to hold a bipartisan energy summit”?  Geez guys, do something already… 
                                               * * * * *    


Full WSJ article:
http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB121546528614733687.html

 

McKinsey Global Institute special research study
“The New Power Brokers, Oil, Hedge Funds, Asia” 
http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/publications/The_New_Power_Brokers/index.asp 

 

Economics – Shifting Risk to Ordinary Families

July 8, 2008

Working without a net: The shift of economic risk to ordinary families .

Highlights from a Los Angeles Times article

 

“Economic risks — the costs of being laid off, of suffering a work-stopping illness or of a catastrophe like a house fire — that were once largely borne on the broad shoulders of business and government (are) being shifted onto the backs of ordinary families, from the working poor to the reasonably rich.

 

Jobs, benefits, housing, health coverage, college and retirement savings, even bought-and-paid-for insurance all played crucial roles in maintaining families’ economic stability during the second half of the 20th century. But the protective value of each has been weakened over the last generation.

 

On average, 60% of everything we own — is accounted for by the value of our homes …   over the last two decades … insurers phased out guaranteed replacement cost policies in favor of “extended replacement cost” policies …  It is up to you to figure out what it would cost to rebuild your home. And it is up to you to keep your policy current.

 

Similar(ly) …  the switch from traditional pensions to 401(k)s has left individuals largely on their own to provide for old age … the numbers have flipped. The fraction of private-sector workers relying on traditional pensions has dropped from 62% a generation ago to a mere 10% today, while the fraction depending solely on 401(k)s has jumped to 63%.

 

Similar changes have occurred in the way people pay for college education, where rocketing costs and the declining availability of federal grants have meant that most families can no longer pay as they go to send their kids to school, but must borrow … Twenty years ago, loans were used to pay about 15% of the tuition, room and board and fees that parents and students paid for college. Today, they account for fully one-third, according to the College Board.

 

Working Americans and their families are operating on an economic high wire — only one or two missteps from a steep financial fall. Little wonder people are so bleak about their prospects now that times are tough.

                                            * * * * *

Observation: Many well intended boomers have stashed money into IRAs and 401Ks.  Now, as they approach retirement, the bear market has substantially reduced the value of their nest eggs.  That, in my opinion, will be the next big financial challenge in the US.
 

                                            * * * * * 

For the full story:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-gosselin6-2008jul06,0,4204915,full.story

Peter Gosselin is the author of “High Wire: The Precarious Financial Lives of American Families,”.

 

Brands – GM to reconsider its line-up (again)

July 7, 2008

Excerpt from the Wall Street Journal

“For decades, GM has believed a key to making money in North America was maintaining market share … and having different brands helps the company reach more potential customers and gives it more tools in fighting (competitors). 

The company currently sells vehicles under eight different brands, but most, including Buick, Saturn and Saab, struggle to attract buyers despite offering new models that cost GM billions of dollars to develop.

Critics have said keeping so many brands is a drain on resources and leaves many of its divisions competing with each other.

The company will continue to reconsider its mix of brands. All but Cadillac and Chevrolet (60% of GM sales; 12.5% market share), which GM considers core to its business, are undergoing close scrutiny,

The company has already decided to put its Hummer division up for sale.

(Another brand) under examination is Saturn, a maker of economy cars that analysts believe has never made money in its nearly 20-year history.”

                      * * * * *

Observations:

1. I always say that product is the heart of marketing strategy. Branding can only boost strong products, not perpetually cover up for weak ones.

2. In highly segmented markets (such as autos), a multiple brand strategy makes sense — as long as each brand has the potential to reach critical mass, and duplication of efforts and spending is tightly managed.

3. Remember when Saturn was GM’s star brand — a “new kind of car company” with a cult-like following?  Hmm … sound familiar? 

4. How can we expect struggling auto makers — whose highest priority is just staying alive — to lead the movement to more energy efficient cars? 

See the full article at
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121539865693931653.html?mod=hps_us_whats_news

New – Homa Files eAlerts and RSS feeds ==>

July 4, 2008

Now, you can subscribe to eMail Alerts powered by FeedBurner. 

Just click “subscribe” and register your email address.

You’ll get an eAlert whenever there’s a new post to The Homa Files blog.

Note: You can also set up an RSS feed at FeedBurner.com

Idea: Hybridize the Govt Vehicle Fleet

July 3, 2008

Ever notice all of those Post Office mini-trucks cruising their routes?

Bet you have since the USPS is often reported to operate the largest fleet of vehicles in the country (maybe the world). 

Assume that each those vehicles is on the road 6 to 8 hours per day; probably covering 76 to 100 miles per day.  That’s 24,000 to 36,000 miles per year (2 or 3 times an average family vehicle);  At a charitable 15 MPG — that’s about 2000 gallons of gas per year. 

At a Prius-like 45 MPG, that number goes down to about 650 gallons annually — 1,350 gallons less per year.   Multiply that times the number of vehicles in the fleet (thousands),  and we’re talking MILLIONS of gallons of gas. 

Rather than coaxing consumers to buy hybrids one at a time, why not convert the entire USPS fleet in one fell swoop? 

More broadly, why not legislate that all government vehicles be hybrids, flex-fuel, or some other energy saving alternative.  Makes sense to me. 

                                     * * * * *
Side note: According to Phrases.org “fell swoop” means “suddenly; in a single action”.  They say that Shakespeare either coined the phrase, or gave it circulation, in Macbeth, 1605:

MACDUFF: [on hearing that his family and servants have all been killed]
All my pretty ones?
Did you say all? O hell-kite! All?
What, all my pretty chickens and their dam
At one fell swoop?

Limits: Starbucks Wakes Up and Smells the Coffee

July 2, 2008

STAR dims as latte hits thirty BUCKS per gallon.

Starbucks announced that it is shuttering 500 more stores (the company announced 100 closings last month), cutting 12,000 jobs (7% of its 172K “partners”), and slowing new store development.

Excerpts from the Wall Street Journal (with my take):

WSJ: “The pullback is a sign that the Seattle-based coffee giant is continuing to see weak sales as high gas prices and other pressures on consumer spending prompt Americans to cut back on extras”.

KEH: Latte @ $3 per 12 ounce serving = $31.99 … ouch

WSJ: “Starbucks has been struggling to attract customers amid the slowdown in consumer spending and increasing competition from other coffee and restaurant chains, such as fast-food giant McDonald’s.”

KEH: McD’s wins taste tests and costs $2 / cup less … Hmmm … 

WSJ: “The company said it will eliminate as many as 12,000 full-time and part-time retail positions in connection with the closures; some baristas will get jobs at other stores … Workers will find out whether their store is closing by the middle of this month.”

KEH: Isn’t SBUX supposed to be the model of kumbaya HR management?  Worse than getting fired is being told that you’ll be told in a couple weeks.

WSJ: “Starbucks said the sites earmarked for closure include those that aren’t profitable at the moment or aren’t expected to provide the company with acceptable returns on its investment.

KEH: I guess that previously, unprofitable stores with low ROIs were just fine.

WSJ: “(SBUX is coming off a period of rapid expansion intended to ) to boost sales growth and siphon traffic away from some of its stores where long lines were driving away customers … company research showed people sometimes weren’t willing to cross the street to buy a cup of coffee.”

KEH: Not to pay $5 a cup, that is.

WSJ “But the density of Starbucks stores in places like New York and other large cities turned the chain into a symbol of ubiquity, spawning countless jokes. Last year, as Starbucks’s sales began to soften, it became clear that the company’s expansion was cannibalizing its sales in a way that was threatening the chain’s success, as well as causing the quality at its existing locations to slip”.

KEH It’s called “decreasing marginal returns” … or, simply “hitting the wall”

WSJ “(CEO Howard) Schultz has been pushing through changes, including the introduction of a new, milder daily brewed coffee that the company says has helped boost Starbucks’s drip-coffee sales. But, in doing so, he has alienated a small group of loyal Starbucks customers who prefer the strong coffees on which the chain built its reputation”.

KEH: Remember New Coke? 

KEH: Starbuck’s had a great run.  Welcome to the real world.

Numbers: Driving Around

July 1, 2008

According to an ABC News Poll:

The average household owns two cars, trucks or sport utility vehicles … and one in four owns three or more … (Big idea to lower gas consumtion:: raise the driving age to 18 — 16 to 18 year olds don’t vote any way)

220 million adults average an hour and a half a day in their cars … 104 minutes for those with kids, 77 without

An average commute by car is 16 miles … and takes around 30 minutes (obviously not DC)

While about half of commuters have some form of public transportation available, only 4% use it to & from work (mostly city dwellers, minorities and lower-income Americans)

84% of driving commuters go solo … 8% regularly carpool … 20 percent of solo drivers say they’d be interested in carpooling  (yeah right — well mabe if gas stays @ $4 / gallon)

65% oppose higher gasoline taxes … even if the money is earmarked for transportation projects

66% approve of roadside cameras to enforce traffic laws (note: they didn’t survey my family)

For the complete report: http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=485098