Public Policy

Automakers under pressure to reinvent the industry

Posted on by j.giglio

Automakers face unprecedented technological changes and market trends that will ultimately force them along with the Cleveland Browns and the Democratic Party to reinvent their business models. Sources of disruption include electric vehicles; connectivity; autonomous vehicles, including trucks; changing patterns of car ownership and use; and on-demand ride services.

Car companies face an array of new competitors. Besides their traditional rivals, new market entrants including Google, Apple, Tesla, Uber, and Lyft, are fielding new technology vehicles.

Technology is but one of the threats that connected, automated and autonomous driving are introducing to the industry. Connected vehicles are able to “talk” with one-another through radio frequency devices or cellular technology.

General Motors plans to have connected vehicles on the street by the end of the year. The 2017 Cadillac CTS sports sedan will offer technology that allows sharing information about driving conditions like weather, speed, sudden braking and more. Other automakers are expected to follow suit.

Automated and autonomous driving is more complicated. Automated cars use on-board sensors and systems to aid the driver, while autonomous vehicles actually do the driving. It is unclear whether fully autonomous vehicles are 10 or 15 years away.

Autonomous vehicles may get the attention, but the notion of cars talking to one another is the real deal. Vehicle connectivity has garnered great interest from the U.S. Department of Transportation. The Holy Grail of connectivity is vehicles talking with one another without human intervention. The feds have bet that such communication will prevent millions of crashes that result in thousands of fatalities. Last December, USDOT proposed rules requiring that all new cars and small trucks contain technology allowing them to broadcast data to other vehicles within a 984-foot radius about their speed, location and direction.

The proposed rules will standardize how one car talks to another and warns drivers, and eventually autonomous vehicles, about potential dangers. The car- maker determines what to do with the data, be it automated braking or a visual dashboard warning. At an intersection, vehicles would decide if you have enough time to make that right on red and who gets to go next at a four-way stop.

According to the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, the vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) equipment and supporting communications functions would cost about $350 per vehicle in 2020. If the rule is adopted, the feds say all new cars would have the technology in four years.

The rule would not require existing vehicles to be retrofitted. As technology evolves, automobiles will likely become more connected to people’s home and mobile devices, and integrated into the internet of things.

Deployment of V2V technologies faces a number of hurdles, such as data security and privacy concerns. If V2V communications get hacked, the possibilities for traffic accidents increases.

Then there is the question of the underlying technology that would enable V2V communication. The feds mandate the use of dedicated short-range communications (DSRC). Many believe DSRC is obsolete and that newer technologies, such as 5G cellular wireless to power smartphone communication, will be released before DSRC market penetration is achieved.

Moreover, critics argue that cellular has already built infrastructure in the form of cell towers, obviating the need to for state and local governments to roll out dedicated short-range receivers on roadside infrastructure.

The other half of the communication network is vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I). USDOT plans to issue guidance on V2I communications, which in theory should help transportation planners integrate the technologies to allow vehicles to “talk” to roadway infrastructure such as traffic lights, stop signs, and work zones to improve mobility, reduce congestion, and improve safety.

No matter how the technology battle sorts out, the car of the future will be connected. Our transportation system is on the cusp of a transformation, with technology bridging the gap between vehicles and intelligent roadside infrastructure, creating a network that works like the internet and can prevent collisions, keep traffic moving and reduce environmental impacts.

Originally posted: January 21, 2017

Civil and military success depend on developing and adapting strategy

Posted on by j.giglio

Developing strategy is too often thought of as a by-the-book, one-shot undertaking to provide managers with a comprehensive roadmap that is supposed to cover all eventualities. But in the real world, this is scarcely the case.

Instead, developing an effective strategy is a relatively messy process that involves evaluating everything we know about the external environment at any given time, designing a realistic way to achieve long-term goals, constantly monitoring for changes in the environment, and revising strategies as they are being executed to take such changes into account. Strategy must reflect reality, not what you think the world ought to be like.

As proposals to invest in transportation and other infrastructure currently making headlines, military history provides essential background for those attempting to develop effective strategies for such large undertakings. Without this background, they’re like techno-wannabes trying to do engineering without have studied physics.

As the United States approaches the 75th anniversary of Japan’s surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, we should remember lessons the military has taught us: How to properly develop a strategy, why it must be regarded as an ongoing process, and how it must respect changing realities.

Just before 8 a.m. on Dec. 7, 1941, hundreds of Japanese fighter planes attacked the American naval base at Pearl Harbor near Honolulu, Hawaii, killing more than 2,000 and wounding another 1,000. Sixteen battleships, cruisers, and other warships were sunk or disabled in the attack, but all-important fuel storage and ship repair facilities were left untouched. This omission allowed Pearl Harbor to continue as a forward base for American naval power in the Pacific.

When President Roosevelt delivered his “Day of Infamy” speech asking Congress to declare war on Japan the next day, the federal government already had a detailed game plan for defeating Japan in the Pacific. It was known as War Plan Orange and had been under development by the U.S. Navy since 1905.

The Navy began this effort and carried it forward in response to growing awareness that the U.S. acquisition of the Philippines during the Spanish-American War was likely to create conflicts with Japan in the western Pacific that could eventually lead to war.

By 1941 War Plan Orange had undergone many revisions and updates to reflect changing political and tactical realities such as the emergence of the aircraft carrier as a naval weapons system that had the potential to become as important as the battleship.

The game plan contained extensive detail about the numbers and types of fighting personnel that would be required to carry out the strategy, and how to recruit, organize and train them. Finally, it detailed the types and quantities of weapons and equipment that would be needed, how to produce them, what kinds and quantities of raw materials their production would require and how and where to allocate them in the theater of war for maximum effect.

It was all there in black and white. And as history has demonstrated, War Plan Orange reflected what actually happened. It was indeed the blueprint for the campaigns that eventually defeated Japan in 1945.

War Plan Orange guided the U.S. to victory over Japan less than four years after Pearl Harbor. This was less than half the time the U.S. spent in Vietnam, and far shorter than the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. It began as a sound strategy and was flexible enough to roll with the punches from events that strategists were unable to anticipate.

Clearly, the United States needs this kind of strategic focus at all levels of government if efforts to address major domestic and foreign policy issues are to succeed. Otherwise the country risks missing worthwhile opportunities, doing new projects and programs without proper coordination, and spending a lot of money just to make things worse.

As a new administration comes into power, it would be wise to recall that, as former President Eisenhower wisely remarked, “Plans may be irrelevant, but planning is essential.”

Originally Published: November 26, 2016

Infrastructure spending must look forward

Posted on by j.giglio

Many economists and politicians are once again peddling the conceit that billions of dollars in infrastructure spending (aka investment) will create new jobs, raise incomes, boost productivity and promote economic growth. After all, a report card from the American Society of Civil Engineers gave America’s infrastructure a D+ grade and claimed that an investment of $3.6 trillion is needed by 2020.

But before we accept this idea as gospel, we should remember that the future isn’t likely to look like the past.

Americans are reminded that a large part of President Roosevelt’s New Deal to “Save Capitalism in America” was massive federal investments in economic growth projects like rural electrification, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Boulder and Grand Coulee Dams, and other monumental hydroelectric generating facilities. Not to mention hundreds of commercial airports like La-Guardia and JFK in New York City, thousands of modern post offices, schools and courthouses.

The investments culminated in the 41,000-mile Interstate Highway and Defense System, begun in the 1950s under President Eisenhower (the Republican New Dealer”) because of what he had learned from his military experiences leading the allied armies in Europe during World War II.

It is further claimed that Americans have been living off these federal investments ever since. Their contribution to decades of job growth and increasing national prosperity has been so enormous that Americans have come to take them for granted as cost-free gifts from a beneficent God, like the unimaginably bountiful resources of crude oil discovered under that legendary East Texas hill called Spindletop, which came exploding out of the Lucas Number 1 well in 1901 with a roar that shook the world.

The $828 billion stimulus plan President Obama signed in 2009 focused on “shovel-ready” projects like repaving potholed highways and making overdue bridge repairs that could put people to work right away. Still as Gary Johnson noted in 2011, “My neighbor’s two dogs have created more shovel-ready jobs than the Obama stimulus plan”.

Let’s not kid ourselves, spending for these projects scarcely represented “investment in the future.” Had we been managing infrastructure assets sensibly, they would have been little more than ongoing maintenance activities that should have been funded out of current revenues, like replacing burned-out light bulbs in a factory.

One problem with initiating a massive new capital investment program is figuring out where the dollars to fund it will be found. Projections for escalating federal deficits and skyrocketing debt are bound to raise questions about the federal government’s ability to come up with the necessary cash.

For starters, it’s time to recognize that the future will be quite different from the past, particularly when it comes to transportation infrastructure. Large projects may be rendered obsolete and the burden of stranded fixed costs left to the next generation.

Disruptive technologies such as electric or hybrid, semi-autonomous or self-driving vehicles, and changing consumer preferences, especially among urban millennials who are more interested in the on-demand riding experience than driving, is a cause for optimism about the future of America’s infrastructure condition.

These new patterns of vehicle ownership and use and the emergence of privately funded technologies are changing the way people and goods move, and transforming the transportation industry in both the public and private sectors. They offer the potential for dramatic improvements in traffic congestion (due to improved safety and reduced spacing between vehicles) and reducing motor vehicle accidents and fatalities.

They can also generate environmental gains from smoother traffic flow, promote productivity growth as reduced congestion improves access to labor markets, and improved utilization of transportation assets such as existing highway capacity with higher through put without additional capital investments.

These changes create an opportunity for a new generation of political leaders to present the public with a modern vision for transportation, the economy, and the environment, not one that harks back to an earlier time.

Originally Published: Nov 12, 2016

The Fed got it wrong

Posted on by j.giglio

The job market received a jolt last week when the Labor Department reported that just 38,000 jobs were added in May, the fewest for any month in more than five years. The experts expected a gain of 150,000 jobs and had included an estimated decrease of about 35,000 striking Verizon workers.

Equally disturbing, the job numbers for the two previous months were revised downward. In total, there were 59,000 fewer jobs in March and April than had previously been reported. This suggests the May numbers will be revised downward next month.

But it gets worse. Of the 38,000 new jobs, only 25,000 were in the private sector. Yet even as job growth stalled, the headline unemployment rate fell to 4.7 percent from 5 percent, in large part due to a drop in the labor force participation rate as many frustrated Americans stopped looking for jobs, meaning they are not counted in the unemployment rate. It’s an ominous sign that suggests the economy may be slowing.

Since the end of the recession, economic growth has been lackluster despite the Federal Reserve putting the pedal to the metal by pursuing zero interest rates and engaging in bond purchases known as quantitative easing. The rationale for this policy is that artificially suppressed interest rates and easy money are required for the Fed to fulfill its full-employment mandate. They assume that low rates stimulate business investment and make it easier for consumers to finance big-ticket purchases such as housing and automobiles.

The May employment numbers are just the latest evidence that it isn’t working. This should come as no surprise, since the Fed high priests’ failure to prophesize the 2008 crisis has been well documented.

President Truman once famously asked for a one-armed economist because his economic advisers kept telling him “on the one hand this, and on the other hand that.” For sure, there are pros and cons to the Fed’s monetary policy. Low interest rates have contributed to a partial recovery and growth may be stronger than it would otherwise have been. The rationale was to lower interest rates to encourage movement into riskier assets with higher yields, including stocks, junk bonds, real estate and commodities. The Fed has privileged Wall Street over Main Street in the belief that the wealth effect will trickle down to the ordinary American worker.

Lower rates would encourage greater leverage, i.e., borrowing to invest and boost asset prices. This pseudo “wealth effect” would then stimulate consumption, economic growth, and job creation. Such monetary policy raises the question of whether the Fed should be promoting risk and inflated asset prices that outpace real economic growth.

On the other hand, zero interest rates have created problems for savers, retirees and those on the other side of the velvet rope. Savers get virtually no return on their money market funds and saving accounts. Indeed, after inflation and taxes, real rates on these instruments are negative, promoting inequality and resulting in declining purchasing power. With so many Americans living paycheck to paycheck, is it any wonder that payday lenders are doing record business?

Lost interest is a permanent loss of wealth. Very low interest rates force retirees, who rely on interest income, to reduce their spending. Workers contemplating retirement will stay in the labor force longer to save more, blocking access for younger workers.

More importantly, low interest rates play havoc with retirement planning for both individuals and pension plans. Pension funds face increasing unfunded liabilities. Without adequate future income streams, retirement as Americans have known it is off the table.

Fed policy can’t overcome structural weakness in the job market that results from the twin challenges of globalization and rapid technological change. Continuing the policy of cheap credit is reminiscent of the old lesson about looking for a lost item under a lamppost at night because that’s where the light is. It’s time to look elsewhere for answers.

Originally Published: Jun 11, 2016

America’s $4.7 trillion pension liability problem

Posted on by j.giglio

The average American still feeling the effects of the Great Recession can be forgiven for not being riveted on the fact that state and local governments across the country are facing another fiscal crisis in the form of a public pension “tsunami” of epic proportions. Fixing the problem will require fundamental changes to public retirement plans.

According to Standard & Poor’s, 32 states are confronting budget shortfalls in fiscal 2015 and/or 2016. One contributor to those ills is growing unfunded public pension liabilities that now range as high as $4.7 trillion nationwide according to a report from State Budget Solutions, a non-profit organization that advocates for state budget reform. The unfunded liability works out to about $15,000 per person.

Public employees have been promised more than state and local governments can ever afford to pay and taxpayers are on the hook for the shortfalls. Many retirement plans are not setting aside enough money  to make good on their promises to current and retired state employees. Some, such as Detroit and Stockton, Calif., have already declared bankruptcy; countless public pension systems are in dire shape.

Moody’s dropped Chicago’s bond rating to junk status after the Illinois Supreme Court overturned state pension reforms. That means the Chicago taxpayers will be paying higher interest rates on the money the city borrows.

Last week the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that the state did not have to increase its contribution to ensure the solvency of its ailing pension system. Politicians there found that shifting liabilities into the future by underfunding pensions was a convenient way to deliver on promises of low taxes and richer retirement benefits.

In Massachusetts, unfunded state and local pension and retiree health care liabilities total around $75 billion.

Most state and local governments in the United States offer defined-benefit pension plans to which both employees and employers contribute. The plans are supposed to provide public employees with guaranteed income, creating a financial liability for taxpayers when workers retire. Under this type of plan employees accrue the right to an annual benefit usually determined as a percentage of a worker’s average salary over the final years of employment multiplied by the worker’s years of service.

Under this arrangement, the employer is responsible for determining how much to set aside for employees’ retirement fund and how to invest it. Government (taxpayers) assumes the risk of coming up with the extra money if there is a shortfall. Government has several basic options in that case: they can raise taxes, make budget cuts, or default on their obligations. Given the magnitude of pension liabilities, some states may seek a federal bailout as was done for Wall Street and the automakers.

In contrast, the defined contribution plans that now prevail in the private and not-for-profit sectors empower employees to save for their own retirement and manage their own investments. A defined contribution plan transfers investment risk from the employer to the employee.

These are the simplest, most transparent, portable and straightforward pension plans. The employee and employer both contribute, the employee decides where to invest the funds and bears responsibility for investment risk. Upon retirement, there is often an opportunity to cash out with a lump sum payment or to select an annuity whereby payments are made to the retiree over a specified period.

However bad the problems are now, the pension situation is likely to get worse as politicians continue to “kick the can down the road,” the cliche that describes politicians’ response to virtually every fiscal crisis. One thing that would help would be to replace current defined benefit plans with a defined contribution plan for new public employees as Georgia, Michigan, Utah, and Oklahoma have done.

Such a move would minimize the risk of one major but often forgotten stakeholder: taxpayer.

originally published: June 20, 2015

Congress must open its eyes to carried interest

Posted on by j.giglio

When the 114th Congress convenes on Jan. 15 with a Republican majority in both houses,
comprehensive tax reform will be high on their to-do list. Among the first things they should address is ending the practice of treating so-called carried interest as ordinary income.

For those of you who did not grow up passing around copies of the tax code, there are few subjects more esoteric than America’s byzantine tax code. The federal tax code consists of nearly 74,000 pages and about four million words, twice the length of the King James Bible and the entire works of Shakespeare combined.

This voluminous magnum opus validates the average American’s suspicions that Washington is a stage of prancing marionettes tweaked by Wall Street (aka Crime Central) and other moneyed interests.

Rewriting the tax code is a difficult undertaking given the multitude of well-capitalized special interest groups from every comer of American business and society that have skin in the game when it comes to tax policy. Closing tax loopholes that favor particular groups instigates knock-down drag-out political fights. This is why the last serious tax reform came in 1986, also known as light years ago, under President Reagan.

One place to start comprehensive tax reform is to bring an end to the carried interest loophole, which allows super wealthy investment managers, including those in the private equity, hedge fund and venture capital business, to define their compensation as capital gains and pay income tax at a far lower rate. This forces ordinary people to pay more by transferring the burden to those who cannot afford tax attorneys.

Investment managers take a considerable portion of their pay as carried interest, which means being compensated for managing funds’ investments as a share of fund profits, without putting their own capital at risk. Under current tax law, carried interest is treated as a capital gain, subject to the top 20 percent capital gain rate plus a 3.8 percent surcharge on unearned income to help pay for the Affordable Care Act, rather than as ordinary income subject to the top marginal tax rate of 39.6 percent.

As former Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin noted several years ago, “I think what they’re doing is getting paid a fee for running other people’s money.” Put differently, carried interest is performance­ based compensation for investment management services rather than a return on financial capital invested by managers.

The one-percenters, who tend to be big political donors, are the principal beneficiaries of carried interest. Quite apart from basic fairness, treating all taxpayers who provide a service the same, the Obama administration has estimated that ending this tax loophole would generate an additional $15 billion in revenue over 10 years.

For a long time, this loophole has unfairly enabled some of the highest paid individuals in the country to sharply reduce their tax bills and it is time to close it once and for all. Legislation is needed to fix the carried interest dodge and ensure that income earned managing other people’s money is taxed at the same rates as that earned by teachers, factory workers, attorneys and millions of other Americans for the services they provide.

Because of the financial sector’s outsized influence, you can expect to hear how closing the carried interest loophole will destroy capitalism as we know it and undermine the economy. Experience teaches us that the financial sector’s lobbying clout, combined with the fact that doing the right thing is a dangerous luxury for politicians, Main Street standing on the sidelines is not a recipe for success on this issue.

The American public has to actively engage and abandon the assumption that so many things are now taken for granted that it’s as if the public literally no longer sees them.

originally published: December 27, 2014