America's Credit Catastrophe

The financial freeze starts to envelop Main Street. Thanks, Wall Street

By Kirk Shinkle

Posted: October 3, 2008

Before doing anything drastic, a plan is in order. Johannessen suggests investors identify how much they'll need each year in retirement, then stash away five to eight years' worth of cash needs in safe investments (such as short- and intermediate-term bonds). But if you do want to pull some money out of the market, he says you shouldn't do it all at once; a better idea is to spread it out over a few months: "You never want to be selling into a 7.7 percent down day." Though for stock buyers, such drops serve as screaming opportunities.

Even if investors are already in retirement—especially those who are looking at a potential 20- to 30-year timeline like Meyer—it's a good idea to leave a large chunk of money in the stock market. That's because bonds' after-inflation re-turns are pretty puny. (Since 1926, bonds have produced an average annual return of just 2 percent after figuring in an annualized 3 percent for inflation, according to Morningstar.)

Assuming a diversified portfolio, investors might not want to change anything, says Gary Hager, founder and chief executive of Integrated Wealth Management in Edison, N.J. "The sky is not falling. There's an incredible amount of emotional noise on the street right now. In 20 years, this is the most scared I've seen people," he says. Hager recommends investors devote a slice of their investments to alternative asset classes, such as commodities or metals, which add some insulation in volatile markets. "If the market does nothing but go down, your portfolio will still suffer, but it'll be nowhere near the suffering if you just have stocks, bonds, and cash." - Katy Marquardt

The Small-Business Owner

While a lack of liquidity in the commercial paper market is making a mess of funding for some Fortune 500 companies, it's a whole different ballgame when you scale down to the world of small business. According to a National Federation of Independent Business survey of a random sample of its half-million members, while only 2 percent of respondents in August saw their financial situations as their biggest problem, 10 percent did say they found loans harder to come by—the highest in more than five years. But NFIB chief economist William Dunkelberg notes that that number pales in comparison with previous economic downturns. In the early 1980s, some 30 percent called access to credit their No. 1 headache.

Although credit is tightening, it's not completely clear how the increased turmoil in the credit markets since August has changed that equation when business owners were already saying banks were clamping down. But there's at least some reason for cautious optimism. Even though most banks have essentially stopped lending to each other, it does not mean they are not lending to businesses. Dunkelberg says that small, community banks—he is chairman of one in Cherry Hill, N.J.—are "not particularly affected" by the broader financial problems when it comes to making commercial loans. Notes small-business advocate and radio host Jim Blasingame, "If you're an established small business, you can get the money."

But even if there's no sectorwide credit crunch for small businesses yet, that doesn't mean many firms, especially the bigger ones, aren't being squeezed. George Gendron, director of the Innovation and Entrepreneurship Program at Clark University, says that right now, "there is no growth capital" for high-growth small companies with millions in sales—firms that tend not to deal with small banks. "I have never seen this population more concerned than they are today," Gendron says. Things might be getting worse, too. Rich D'Amaro, CEO of Tatum, LLC, an executive services firm, says that his clients—small and midsize businesses with $50 million to $500 million in annual revenue—are mostly finding growth capital "frozen," with the last 60 days especially bad.

Biggiest "communist" country on earth

Then, how does this off-shoring impact the company? Let’s have a look at the truth.

1. The large IT infrastructure is very important and critical to our financial security – now the bank has to depend on foreign technical staff to control and manage this critical financial infrastructure of our country

2. The large financial IT infrastructure is not making tennis shoes – it needs a highly educated and very experienced workforce to design, build, and operate. These systems take year to learn. If we do not have our own engineers working on them, soon, (with no exaggeration at all) nobody in the US understands these large and highly complexes, but powerful technical systems. Is this good for our country?

3. Losing these highly paid and highly technical jobs send out a powerful message to our young people who will not get into engineering and technical areas. For example, our computer science education in the past 5 years has consistently gone down across the country.

Our business leaders know all of these, but they will still off-shore IT jobs. Why? Because by all means, the incentive structure for executive compensation does not give them any real motivation to serve the company or the country, but make themselves richer faster. By the way, they themselves and their friends make the incentive packages for themselves. Since they are not the real owners of the companies, they do not really care.

In this particular sense, we have allowed the United States of America become the biggest country in the world in terms of public ownership of businesses. In addition, it is a twisted public ownership because by all means, it is call “private ownership” though in any possible economic means, it is a pure public ownership.

Public ownership does not work. Communism in whatever format will fail. Without fixing the divorce between ownership and managerial power of our large companies, we will get out of one mess only find ourselves in another, possibly a worse one.

Ken Lay of TX @ Oct 15, 2008 23:12:04 PM

Not surprising at all because the USA is the biggest "communist" country on earth - part two

Then, how does this off-shoring impact the company? Let’s have a look at the truth.

1. The large IT infrastructure is very important and critical to our financial security – now the bank has to depend on foreign technical staff to control and manage this critical financial infrastructure of our country

2. The large financial IT infrastructure is not making tennis shoes – it needs a highly educated and very experienced workforce to design, build, and operate. These systems take year to learn. If we do not have our own engineers working on them, soon, (with no exaggeration at all) nobody in the US understands these large and high complexes, but powerful technical systems. Is this good for our country?

3. Losing these highly paid and highly technical jobs send out a powerful message to our young people who will not get into engineering and technical areas. For example, our computer science education in the past 5 years has consistently gone down across the country.

Our business leaders know all of these, but they will still off-shore IT jobs. Why? Because by all means, the incentive structure for executive compensation does not give them any real motivation to serve the company or the country, but make themselves richer faster. By the way, they themselves and their friends make the incentive packages for themselves. Since they are not the real owners of the companies, they do not really care.

In this particular sense, we have allowed the United States of America become the biggest country in the world in terms of public ownership of businesses. In addition, it is a twisted public ownership because by all means, it is call “private ownership” though in any possible economic means, it is a pure public ownership.

Public ownership does not work. Communism in whatever format will fail. Without fixing the divorce between ownership and managerial power of our large companies, we will get out of mess only find ourselves in another, possibly a worse one.

Ken Lay of TX @ Oct 15, 2008 23:05:09 PM

Not surprising at all because the USA is the biggest "communist" country on earth

The US decline is not surprising, because it is the biggest ‘communist” country on earth. Its private companies, the backbone of the country, such as AIG actually are very public, with so numerous owners that by all means they belong to the general public.

However, the false assumption of private ownership, the executives of these companies pay no attention to the long-term health of the companies and the interest of the general public, but focus on how to get fatter faster. The divorce of power and ownership is the key of American business and economy failure. From Enron to Wachovia, it has proven that the leaders of our large “private” companies have no other interest but satisfy their own tremendous greed by all possible means as long as they can get away with it.

The divorce of ownership and managerial power also eloquently explains the constant power struggles, absurd reorganizations, and violent turbulent typical of large American companies. Alas, the best brains of our country are employed with laser focus to fight each other for more power and more money!

Have a look at real private such a SAS where none of such stupidity and absurdity exits. For example, a large bank has off-shored its IT operations. On the paper, with the salary difference, there are huge savings. The executives get big bonus as a result. In fact, due to the loss of productivity resulting from loss of intellectual capital and experience, there are tremendous business losses in IT system stability. However, there are no laws forcing companies reporting how their IT divisions operate. In addition, every company in its right mind will not publish its IT operation problems. Therefore, the fact that this off-shoring is losing large amount of money is not generally known. Therefore, the executives who are responsible for the loss continue to harvest huge amount of bonus. When all the tier one executives have a reward of a few more million dollars, who will speak up and tell the truth that the bank is losing big money on this off-shoring deal of IT operations?

Then, how does this off-shoring impact the company? Let’s have a look at the truth.

1. The large IT infrastructure is very important and critical to our financial security – now the bank has to depend on foreign technical staff to control and manage this critical financial infrastructure of our country

2. The large financial IT infrastructure is not making tennis shoes – it needs a highly educated and very experience workforce to design, build, and operate. These systems take year to learn. If we do not have our own engineers working on them, soon, (with no exaggeration at all) nobody in the US understands these large and high complexes, but powerful technical systems. Is this good for our country?

3. Losing these highly paid and highly technical jobs send out a powerful message to our young people who will not get into engineering and technical areas. For example, our computer science education in th

Ken Lay of TX @ Oct 15, 2008 22:55:01 PM

Add Your Thoughts
About You

advertisement

U.S. News Rankings & Research

Best Places

Search for the perfect place for you and your family.

Best Careers

Careers that offer strong outlooks and high job satisfaction.

Car Rankings & Reviews

Make an informed choice when shopping for your next car.

advertisement

Slide Shows

15 Government-Heavy (and Recession-Resistant) Cities

Cities that have lots of government workers have proven recession-resistant.

advertisement

Subscribe

U.S. News Digital Weekly

A weekly insider's guide to politics and policy — in a multimedia, digital format. 52 issues for $19.95!

U.S. News & World Report

6 months of U.S. News & World Report's print edition for only $15. Save up to 67% off the cover price!