Archive for January 15th, 2009

Stop foreclosures: Keep people in "their" homes … huh?

January 15, 2009

Background

There seems to be momentum to “keep people in their homes” by modifying the bulk of the 4.6 million mortgages that are currently in foreclosure or payment delinquent for longer than 90 days.

There have already been some voluntary lender efforts to modify distressed mortgages by lowering interest rates or extending the term of the mortgages (say, from 30 to 40 years).  Generally, the programs hadn’t generated many modified loans … and for the loans that have been modified, about 40% become delinquent again within 6 months. (Note: I’ve seen ranges on this number from 35% to over 50%).

So, the Feds are pushing lenders to sweeten the mortgage modification packages.  Specifically, there’s talk of a broadscale government program that would pare mortgage interest rates to 4.5%.  And, there seems to be support for “cram downs” — having lenders reduce the principal loan balances to the current fair market value of the homes collateralizing the loans.  That is, if a defaulting loan is on a home that is “below water” — i.e. loan balance is greater than the home’s market value — the lender writes off the difference and issues a revised mortgage at the home’s market value.

These proposals strike me as both naive and very problematic.  Here’s another take on why these loan modification programs are generally bad ideas, and why cram downs, specifically, are a bad idea.

* * * * *

Ken’s Take: Keep people in”their” homes … huh? 

The underlying premise of the proposed loan modifications —  “keep people in their homes” — is logically flawed

The overwhelming majority of foreclosures are investor-speculators and sub-primers — people with shaky credit ratings and undocumented incomes who put little or no money down when they “bought” their homes, who often made few if any mortgage payments — not even making a rounding error dent in their principal loan balances, and who have seen home prices slide in their neighborhood — putting their loan “under water”. 

Said differently, most of the mortgage delinquencies and foreclosures are on people who have no equity in the homes — they never did if they didn’t make a downpayment or a couple of years of mortgage payments and, in most cases, they have “negative equity” — since they owe more than the the homes are worth on the open market.

Bottom line: these folks are “occupants” not “owners” — unless they get credit for some sort of squatter’s rights.  There may be some legitimate reasons for enabling them to stay in the homes — but there’s no way that the homes are their homes.

In the next couple of posts, I’ll walk thru the economics: what crams downs aren’t even necessary, and the “free housing” moral hazard.  

* * * * *

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

Quick: How many people does it take to feed the IRS ?

January 15, 2009

Each year, the IRS publishes roughly 70,000 pages of forms, publications, schedules, instructions and rules … that’s equivalent to 25 volumes of administrative and legal guidance books that take up nearly nine feet of shelf space

There have been 3,250 changes to the tax code since 2001, more than 500 of them in 2008 alone. 

Americans (individuals, company employees, tax firms) expend 7.6 billion hours preparing, submitting, and answering questions about tax filings …. the time is split about 50 / 50 on individual and company returns.

“If tax compliance were an industry, it would be one of the largest in the United States. The ‘tax industry’ requires the equivalent of 3.8 million full-time workers.” 

In 2006, corporations and individuals spent $193 billion to comply with the tax code … some estimates go as high as $265 billion.

60% of taxpayers pay professionals … 22% of taxpayers buy tax prep software (e.g. TurboTax, TaxCut).

On average, individual tax payers spend about 20 hours each on tax filing and end up overpaying by more than $600 per return

* * * * * 

Excerpted from IBD, “Change We Need”, January 13, 2009
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=316743763302078 

* * * * *

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

Consumer choice modeling … how people decide to buy

January 15, 2009

Excerpted from Strategy+Business, “Tracking the Elusive Consumer”, by John Jullens and Gregor Harter, Novermber 11, 2008

* * * * *
Consumer choice modeling … offers a better understanding of consumer preferences:
 
  • What does the consumer want?
  • Why do individuals prefer one product or service over another?
  • How, precisely, do most consumers make their purchasing decisions?

Recent work on the art and science of consumer behavior has refined, updated, and strengthened an analytical tool known as consumer choice modeling, initially developed in the 1960s by Daniel McFadden, a winner of the 2000 Nobel Prize in economics.

Simply put, this model examines the personal reasons for individual choices and provides techniques researchers can use to measure and predict those choices. By exploring why individuals make specific trade-offs among various product options, consumer choice modeling can determine the features that people in different economic and demographic strata are looking for and how much they are willing to pay.

* * * * *

Originally, this technique suffered from a lack of sophistication. A typical implementation involved asking respondents to react to lengthy paper-and-pencil surveys offering a series of preconfigured and static product or service possibilities. Although some insight about consumer preferences was typically evinced, it was often shallow, limited by researchers’ inability to dynamically change the direction of the questioning on the basis of the responses.

However, advances in experimental designs and information technology now allow researchers to better approximate the shopping experience when asking questions by adjusting product choices in reaction to a person’s answers. By analyzing the responses from a representative sample of consumers (or potential future customers), researchers can produce econometric models that depict the relative weighting of specific product features and price points.

* * * * *

Early in 2007, Booz & Co.applied consumer choice modeling to identify and measure the drivers of demand for mobile phones. One example::  Apple’s iPhone.

Long before the iPhone’s launch,  the Booz  model correctly predicted that it would be the most attractive overall offering to consumers despite its high price tag. 

Booz  surveyed more than 1,800 consumers by simulating the actual mobile phone purchasing process and asking people to compare their existing package with alternatives.

For example, owners of low-cost Sharp handsets running on pay-as-you-go carriers such as Virgin Mobile or Boost Mobile were offered a U$100-plus Samsung phone with Nextel service and a $250-plus LG phone with Verizon’s network. Respondents were asked, “If these two packages were your only alternatives, which one would you choose: Samsung/Nextel, LG/ Verizon, or neither?” and “If Samsung/Nextel were your only option, would you purchase it or continue to use your current package?”

The majority of the low-end and midlevel consumers were highly commodity driven. Other than by offering an attractive handset price, it is almost impossible to convince an individual to change his or her current mobile phone package. In fact, further analyses revealed that one-third of U.S. consumers are unwilling to change their wireless package, no matter how much the handset price is lowered.

* * * * *

Of all phone users, owners of low-end handsets made by the Nokia  value their phone package the least. Consequently, these consumers are the most willing to switch to another carrier and handset — an opportunity for competitors to attack Nokia’s base by producing a low-cost package with a function or two that outpaces the relatively plain Nokia product.

The consumer choice model also revealed that owners of handsets made by Sony Ericsson , which tend to be highly designed, full-featured products, care much more than Nokia users about functionality, usage range, and purchase location (they prefer to buy their packages at stores that offer personal attention, rather than at Costco or Circuit City, for example). And although these customers, too, are price conscious, they’re willing to pay a premium to have their preferences met. A service provider could use these findings to target Sony Ericsson owners with a slightly less expensive offering that in all other ways matches their current package.

* * * * *

Consumer choice modeling also has the ability to predict the impact of future products and services on the market. Booz  simulated the characteristics of “the ideal high-end phone” as consumers viewed it. From this, the survey gleaned that three primary factors — feature, design, and brand — are of paramount value to consumers considering a higher-priced model. These factors, of course, were exactly what Apple focused on in developing its blockbuster iPhone, launched in July 2007.

Significantly, as the model predicted, Apple stumbled when it came to price, which the survey showed matters at all levels of cell phone purchases.

At a price point of $599 for an eight-gigabyte phone, the research forecasted that Apple would have difficulty reaching a significant portion of the high-end market. But the same research suggested that performance would improve quickly as soon as Apple cut prices. In fact, that is precisely what happened: In September 2007, Apple discounted the phone by $200, and sales rose well over 1,000 percent in the succeeding quarter from sales in the prior three-month period. And in June 2008, CEO Steve Jobs announced a much faster eight-gigabyte iPhone — using AT&T’s state-of-the-art 3G network — for only $199, a move that further aligned Apple’s pricing with that of its peers and that will almost certainly improve the product’s market share.

* * * * *

Consumer choice modeling yields valuable insights for demand-driven strategy development by providing customer value segmentation maps, measuring market share impact of new product–service combinations, and assessing overall brand equity. Perhaps most important, choice modeling can reveal sa­lient differences between managers’ beliefs about customers’ needs and preferences and customers’ actual needs and preferences. For managers seeking reliable feedback on how customers view their products and services, consumer choice modeling provides a rigorous way to turn customer-driven feedback into profitable and sustainable tactics for retaining or capturing market share.

Edit by DAF

* * * * *
Full article:
http://www.strategy-business.com/resiliencereport/resilience/rr00064?pg=2

* * * * *

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

* * * * *

What value an acquired brand? It depends …

January 15, 2009

Excerpted from Knowledge @ Emory “The Mystery and Motivation of Valuing Brands in M&A“, November 13, 2008

* * * * *

in 2000 Cadbury Schweppes bought the Snapple brand of drinks, justifying the purchase to its board by saying that Snapple would be a wonderful addition to its product line and could be sold through its established distribution channels. Cadbury could successfully launch this small-town brand into the big time.

Quaker Oats, a previous owner of the Snapple brand, had given the same reasons for wanting to buy the brand—and yet, Quaker had failed to build the Snapple brand to any measure of its aspirations.

Brand valuation takes on a special significance in M&A, when both acquirer and target contribute inherent qualities that fuel brand value. “For example, Procter & Gamble (P&G) acquired Gillette and about 49% of the acquisition was attributed to the Gillette brand.”

Emory researchers. … set out to study the contributing traits of both the target firms and acquiring firms to explain the value given to a brand…They were able to determine the capabilities of both the acquirer and the target and how those, in turn, influence brand value…

Study results show that both acquirer and target marketing capabilities, as well as brand portfolio diversity have positive effects on a target firm’s brand value. Both parties’ capabilities are critical. 

Regarding brand portfolios: “If there’s redundancy in your portfolio, then your valuation is likely to be lower…if you’re acquiring a brand that allows you to get into a whole new market, then your valuation would be much higher.”

“Target firms need to recognize the significance of a firm’s marketing capabilities as well as its brand portfolio diversity…Targets with strong marketing capabilities can negotiate higher prices for their brands because the target’s marketing capabilities provide assurance to the acquirer firms in terms of the future performance of its brand portfolios. Targets with diverse brand portfolios can charge higher prices for their brands because diverse portfolios provide strategic options for the acquirer”…

Edit by SAC

* * * * *
Full article:
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2091
* * * * *
Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
The Homa Files Blog