by Adam Hartung | Aug 29, 2016 | Finance, Investing, Politics
(Photo: AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, File)
Last weekend, the Federal Reserve Board’s leadership met to discuss the future of America’s monetary policy. Reports out of that meeting, like reports from all Fed meetings, are long, tedious, and pretty much say nothing. Every analyst tries to interpret from the governors’ statements what might happen next. And because the Fed leadership is so vague, and so academic, the analysts inevitably never guess right.
This bothers a lot of people. There are those who want a lot more “transparency” from the Fed – meaning they want much clearer signals as to what is intended, and usually specifics as to intended actions and a timeline. Because the Fed’s meetings are so cloaked and opaque, some congress members actually want to do away with the Fed, or regulate it a lot more closely.
But for most of us, most of the time, the Fed is pretty much immaterial. When the Fed matters is when there are big swings in the economy, which happen quickly. Then their action is crucial.
Why Small Changes In Interest Rates Don’t Really Matter To Most Of Us
Take the debate right now over a quarter point rise in interest rates. How does this affect most people? Not much. If you have credit card debt, or a car loan, your interest rate is set by the financial institution. And you may hear people talk about zero interest rates, but you know your rate is a whopping amount higher than that. And you know that a quarter point change in the Federal Funds rate will not affect the interest on those loans.
Where you’ll see a difference is in a mortgage. But here, is a quarter point really important?
When I graduated business school in 1982 and wanted to buy my first home the interest rate on an annual, variable rate loan was 18.5%. My first house cost just about $100,000 so the interest was $18,500/year. Today, mortgages are around 3.5%, fixed for anywhere from 3 to 7 years. $18,500 in interest now funds a $525,000 mortgage! If interest rates go to 3.75% – which has many analysts so concerned for the economy – the home value associated with interest of $18,500 is $500,000. Probably within the negotiating range of the buyer.
So you have to borrow a LOT of money for this quarter point to matter. And it does matter to CEOs and CFOs of companies that lead corporations on the S&P 500, or those running huge REITs (Real Estate Investment Trusts) that have enormous debts. But that is not most of us. For most of us, that quarter point difference will not have any impact on our lives.
So Why Do People Pay So Much Attention To The Fed?
The Fed was originally created barely 100 years ago (1913) to try to create a more stable monetary system. But this didn’t work too well in the beginning, which led to the Great Depression. And then, to make matters worse, the conservative bent of the Fed coupled with its fixation on stable interest rates led it to actually cut the money supply as the economy was tanking. This led to a collapse in the value of goods and services, particularly real estate, and the loss of millions of jobs greatly worsening the Great Depression.
It was the depression which really caused economists to focus on studying Fed actions and the economic repercussions. A group of economists, most notably Milton Friedman at the University of Chicago, started saying that the Fed shouldn’t focus on interest rates, but rather on the supply of money. These folks were called “monetarists” and they said interest rates should float, and economists should focus on stable prices.
The 1970s – “Easy Money” Inflation
As we moved into the 1970s, and as Fed Governors kept trying to control interest rates, they found themselves creating more and more money to keep rates low, and in return prices skyrocketed. “Easy money” as they called it allowed ratcheting upward incomes, big pay raises, higher prices for commodities and inflation. Another monetarist leader, Paul Volcker, was named head of the Fed. He rapidly moved to contract the money supply, allowing those 18.5% mortgage rates to develop. Yet, this did stabilize prices and eventually rates lowered, moving down constantly from 1980 to the near zero rates of today for Treasury Bonds and other very large, low risk borrowers.
When the Great Recession hit the Fed leadership, led by Ben Bernanke, remembered the lessons of the Great Depression. As they saw real estate values tumble they were aware of the domino effect this would have on bank failures, and then business failures, just as they had occurred in the 1930s. So they flooded the market with additional currency to keep failures to a minimum, and ease the real estate collapse. This sent interest rates plummeting to the record low levels of the last few years.
Policy Must Address The Current Situation, Not Be Biased By Historical Memories
Yet, people keep worrying about inflation. Those who lived through the 1970s and saw the damage done by inflation are still fearful of it. So they scream loudly about their fear that the last 8 years of monetary ease will create massive future inflation. They want the Fed to be much tighter with money saying that all this cash will someday create inflation down the road. Their view of history is guiding their analysis. Their bias is a fear that “easy money” once caused a problem, so surely it will cause a problem again.
But economists who study prices keep saying that there are currently no signs of price escalation – that wages have not moved up appreciably in a decade, home values are barely where they were a decade ago. Commodity prices are not escalating, in fact many (like oil) are at historically low prices. The dollar is stronger because, relatively speaking, the USA economy is doing better than the rest of the developed world. As long as prices and wages remain without high gains, there is little reason to tighten money, and little reason to feel a higher interest rate is needed.
Further, past monetary increases will not cause future inflation, because monetary policy only affects what is happening now. “Easy money” today can only create inflation today, not in 3 years. And inflation is almost nowhere to be seen.
Ignore Fed “Fine Tuning.” Pay Attention When A Crisis Hits. Otherwise, It’s Up To The Politicians
The big thing to remember is that small changes in policy, such as those that might affect a quarter point change in rates, is “fine tuning” the money supply. And that has pretty nearly no affect on most of us. Where as citizens we should care about the Fed is when big changes happen. We don’t want mistakes like happened in the 1930s, because that hurt everyone. But we do want fast action to deal with a crisis like the falling real estate values and bank collapses that were happening a decade ago.
Remember, it was when the Fed targeted interest rates that the USA economy got into so much trouble. First in the Great Depression, and then in the inflationary 1970s. But when the Fed targeted prices, such as in the 1980s and the mid-2000s, it did exactly what it was created to do, maintain a stable money supply.
So don’t worry about whether analysts think interest rates are going to change a quarter point, or even a half point, in the next year. The big economic question facing us is not a Fed question, but rather “what will it take to increase investment so that we can create more jobs, and provide higher wages leading to a higher standard of living for everyone?” And that is not a question for the Fed to answer. That is up to the economic policy makers in the legislature and the White House.
by Adam Hartung | Dec 31, 2014 | General, In the Rapids, Transparency
Results, results, results. We frequently hear that we should focus on results.
More often than not, focusing on results is a waste of time. Because it is looking in the rear view mirror, rather than the windshield.
Someone asked me today what I thought of Janet Yellen as head of the Federal Reserve. I found this hard to answer. Even though Chairperson Yellen has been in the job since February, her job as lead policy setter has almost no short term ramifications. It takes quarters – not months – to see the results of those policy decisions. Even after a year in office, it is very difficult to render an opinion on her performance as Fed leader. The fantastic 5% growth in the U.S. economy last quarter has much more to do with what happened before she took office – in fact years of policy setting before she took office – than what has happened since she became the top Fed governor.
We often forget what the word “results” means. It is the outcome of previous decisions. Results tell us something about decisions that happened in the past. Sometimes, far into the past. We all can remember companies where looking backward all looked well, right up until the company fell off a cliff. Circuit City. Brachs Candy. Sun Microsystems.
Further, “results” are impacted dramatically by things outside the control of management, such as:
- Changes in interest rates (or no changes when they remain low)
- Changes in oil prices (which have been dramatically lower the last 6 months)
- Changes in investor expectations and the overall stock market (which has been on a record-setting bull run)
- Inflation expectations (which remain at historical lows)
- Expectations about labor rates (which remain low, despite trends toward higher minimum wages)
- Technology advances (including rapid mobile growth in apps, beacons, payments, etc.)
We too often forget that last quarter’s (or even last year’s) results are due to decisions made months before. Gloating, or apologizing, about those results has little meaning. Results, no matter how recent, are meaningless when looking forward. Decisions made long ago caused those results. “Results” are actually unimportant when investing for the future.
What really matters are the decisions being made today which can cause future results to be wildly different – better or worse. What we need to focus upon are these current decisions and their ability to create future results:
- What are the goals being set for next year – or better yet for 2020?
- What are the trends upon which goals are being set? How are future goals aligned to major trends?
- What are the future expected scenarios, and how are goals being set to align with those scenarios?
- Who will be the likely future competitors, and how are goals being set make sure we the organization is prepared to compete with the right companies?
Far too often management will say “we just had great results. We plan to continue executing on our plans, and investors should expect similar future results.” But that makes no sense. The world is a fast changing place. Past results are absolutely not any indicator of future performance.
For 2015, and beyond, investors (and employees, suppliers and communities sponsoring companies) should resolve to hold management far more accountable for its future goals, and the process used to set those goals. Amazon.com maintains a valuation far higher than its historical indicates it should primarily because it is excellent at communicating key trends it watches, future scenarios it expects and how the company plans to compete as it creates those future scenarios.
In the 1981 Burt Reynolds’ movie “Cannonball Run” a character begins a trans-country auto race by ripping the rear view mirror from his car and throwing it out the window. “What’s behind me is not important” he proudly states. This should be the 2015 resolution of investors, and all leaders. Past results are not important. What matters are plans for the future, and future goals. Only by focusing on those can we succeed in creating growth and better results in the future.
by Adam Hartung | Feb 9, 2014 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, Food and Drink, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lifecycle, Lock-in
There is a definite trend to raising the minimum wage. Regardless your political beliefs, the pressure to increase the minimum wage keeps growing. The important question for business leaders is, “Are we prepared for a $12 or $15 minimum wage?”
President Obama began his push for raising the minimum wage above $10 a year ago in his 2013 State of the Union. Since then, several articles have been written on income inequality and raising the minimum wage. Although the case to raise it is not clear cut, there is no doubt it has increased the rhetoric against the top 1% of earners. And now the President is mandating an increase in the minimum wage for federal workers and contractors to $10.10/hour, despite lack of congressional support and flak from conservatives.
Whether the economic case is provable, it appears that public sentiment is greatly in favor of a much higher minimum wage. And it will not affect all companies the same. Those that depend upon low priced labor, such as retailers like Wal-Mart and fast food companies like McDonald’s have a much higher concern. As should their employees, suppliers and investors.
A recent Federal Reserve report took a specific look at what happens to fast food companies when the minimum wage goes up, such as happened in Illinois, California and New Jersey. And the results were interesting. Because they discovered that a higher minimum wage really did hurt McDonald’s, causing stores to close. But….. and this is a big but…. those closed stores were rapidly replaced by competitors that could pay the higher wages, leading to no loss of jobs (and an overall increase in pay for labor.)
The implications for businesses that use low-priced labor are clear. It is time to change the business model – to adapt for a different future. A higher minimum wage does not doom McDonald’s – but it will force the company to adapt. If McDonald’s (and Burger King, Wendy’s, Subway, Dominos, Pizza Hut, and others) doesn’t adapt the future will be very ugly for their customers and the company. But if these companies do adapt there is no reason the minimum wage will hurt them particularly hard.
The chains that replaced McDonald’s closed stores were Five Guys, Chick-fil-A and Chipotle. You might remember that in 1998 McDonald’s started investing in Chipotle, and by 2001 McDonald’s owned the chain. And Chipotle’s grew rapidly, from a handful of restaurants to over 500. But then in 2006 McDonald’s sold all its Chipotle stock as the company went IPO, and used the proceeds to invest in upgrading McDonald’s stores and streamlining the supply chain toward higher profits on the “core” business.
Now, McDonald’s is shrinking while Chipotle is growing. Bloomberg/BusinessWeek headlined “Chipotle: The One That Got Away From McDonalds” (Oct. 3, 2013.) Investors were well served to trade in McDonald’s stock for Chipotle’s. And franchisees have suffered through sales problems as they raised prices off the old “dollar menu” while suffering higher food costs creating shrinking margins. Meanwhile Chipotle’s franchisees have been able to charge more, while keeping customers very happy, and maintain margins while paying higher wages. In a nutshell, Chipotle’s (and similar competitors) has captured the lost McDonald’s business as trends favor their business.
So McDonald’s obviously made a mistake. But that does not mean “game over.” All McDonald’s, Burger King and Wendy’s need to do is adapt. Fighting the higher minimum wage will lead to a lot of grief. There is no doubt wages will go up. So the smart thing to do is figure out what these stores will look like when minimum wages double. What changes must happen to the menu, to the store look, to the brand image in order for the company to continue attracting customers profitably.
This will undoubtedly include changes to the existing brands. But, these companies also will benefit from revisiting the kind of strategy McDonald’s used in the 1990s when buying Chipotle’s. Namely, buying chains with a different brand and value proposition which can flourish in a higher wage economy. These old-line restaurants don’t have to forever remain dominated by the old brands, but rather can transition along with trends into companies with new brands and new products that are more desirable, and profitable, as trends change the game. Like The Limited did when selling its stores and converting into L Brands to remain a viable company.
Now is the time to take action. Waiting until forced to take action will be too late. If McDonald’s and its brethren (and Wal-Mart and its minimum-wage-paying retail brethren) remain locked-in to the old way of doing business, and do everything possible to defend-and-extend the old success formula, they will follow Howard Johnson’s, Bennigan’s, Circuit City, Sears and a plethora of other companies into brand, and profitability, failure. Fighting trends is a route to disaster.
However, by embracing the trend and taking action to be successful in a future scenario of higher labor these companies can be very successful. There is nothing which dictates they have to follow the road to irrelevance while smarter brands take their place. Rather, they need to begin extensive scenario planning, understand how these competitors succeed and take action to disrupt their old approach in order to create a new, more profitable business that will succeed.
Disruptions happen all the time. In the 1970s and 1980s gasoline prices skyrocketed, allowing offshore competitors to upend the locked-in Detroit companies that refused to adapt. On-line services allowed Google Maps to wipe out Rand-McNally, Travelocity to kill OAG and Wikipedia to kill bury Encyclopedia Britannica. These outcomes were not dictated by events. Rather, they reflect an inability of an existing leader to adapt to market changes. An inability to embrace disruptions killed the old competitors, while opening doors for new competitors which embraced the trend.
Now is the time to embrace a higher minimum wage. Every business will be impacted. Those who wait to see the impact will struggle. But those who embrace the trend, develop future scenarios that incorporate the trend and design new business opportunities can turn this disruption into a big win.
by Adam Hartung | Jan 15, 2014 | Current Affairs, Leadership
The S&P 500 had a great 2013. Up 29.7% – its best performance since 1997. The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) ended the year up 26.5% – its best performance since 1995. And this happened as economic growth lowered the unemployment rate to 6.7% in December – the lowest rate in 5 years. And overall real estate had double-digit price gains, lowering significantly the number of underwater mortgages.
But if we go back to the beginning of 2013, most Wall Street forecasters were predicting a very different outcome. Long suffering bear Harry Dent predicted a stock crash in 2013 that would last through 2014, and ongoing cratering in real estate values. And bear Gina Martin Adams of Wells Fargo Securities predicted a market decline in 2013, a forecast she clung to and fully supported, despite a rising market, when predicting an imminent crash in September. Morgan Stanley’s Adam Parker also predicted a flat market, as did UBS analyst Jonathan Golub.
How could professionals who are paid so much money, have so many resources and the backing of such outstanding large and qualified institutions be so wrong?
An over-reliance on quantitative analysis, combined with using the wrong assumptions.
The conventional approach to Wall Street forecasting is to use computers to amass enormously complex spreadsheets combining reams of numbers. Computer models are built with thousands of inputs, and tens of millions of data points. Eventually the analysts start to believe that the sheer size of the models gives them validity. In the analytical equivalent of “mine is bigger than yours” the forecasters rely on their model’s complexity and sheer size to self-validate their output and forecasts.
In the end these analysts come up with specific forecast numbers for interest rates, earnings, momentum indicators and multiples (price/earnings being key.) Their faith that the economy and market can be reduced to numbers on spreadsheets leads them to similar faith in their forecasts.
But, numbers are often the route to failure. In the late 1990s a team of Wall Street traders and Nobel economists became convinced their ability to model the economy and markets gave them a distinct investing advantage. They raised $1billion and formed Long Term Capital (LTC) to invest using their complex models. Things worked well for 3 years, and faith in their models grew as they kept investing greater amounts.
But then in 1998 downdrafts in Asian and Russian markets led to a domino impact which cost Long Term Capital $4.6B in losses in just 4 months. LTC lost every dime it ever raised, or made. But worse, the losses were so staggering that LTC’s failure threatened the viability of America’s financial system. The banks, and economy, were saved only after the Federal Reserve led a bailout financed by 14 of the leading financial institutions of the time.
Incorrect assumptions played a major part in how Wall Street missed the market prediction for 2013. All models are based on assumptions. And, as Peter Drucker famously said, “if you get the assumptions wrong everything you do thereafter will be wrong as well” — regardless how complex and vast the models.
Conventional wisdom held that conservative economic policies underpin market growth, and the more liberal Democratic fiscal policies combined with a liberal federal reserve monetary program would bode poorly for investors and the economy in 2013. These deeply held assumptions were, of course, reinforced by a slew of conservative commentators that supported the notion that America was on the brink of runaway inflation and economic collapse. The BIAS (Beliefs, Interpretations, Assumptions and Strategies) of the forecasters found reinforcement almost daily from the rhetoric on CNBC, Bloomberg, Fox News and other programs widely watched by business people from Wall Street to Main Street.
Interestingly, when Obama was re-elected in 2012 a not-so-well-known investment firm in Columbus, OH – far from Wall Street – took an alternative look at the data when forecasting 2013. Polaris Financial Partners took a deep dive into the history of how markets perform when led by traditional conservative vs. liberal policies and reached the startling conclusion that Obama’s programs, including the Affordable Care Act, would actually spur investment, market growth, jobs and real estate! They had forecast a double digit increase in all major averages for 2012 and extended that same double digit forecast into 2013 – far more optimistic than anyone on Wall Street.
CEO Bob Deitrick and partner Steven Morgan concluded that the millenium’s first decade had been lost. Despite Republican leadership, the eqity markets were, at best, sideways. There were fewer people actually working in 2008 than in 2000; a net decrease in jobs. After a near-collapse in the banking system, due to deregulated computer-model based trading in complex derivatives, real estate and equity prices had collapsed.
“Fourteen years of stock market gains were wiped out in 17 months from October, 2007 to March, 2009” lamented Deitrick.
Polaris Partners concluded the situation was eerily similar to the 1920s at the end of Hoover’s administration. A situation which was eventually resolved via Keynesian policies of increased fiscal spending while interest rates were low, and federal reserve intervention to both expand the money supply and increase the velocity of money under Republican Fed chief Marriner Eccles and Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt.
While most people conventionally think that tax cuts led to economic growth during the Reagan administration, Polaris Financial turned that assumption upside down and put the biggest positive economic impact on the roll-back of tax cuts a year after being pushed by Reagan and passing Congress. Their analysis of the 1980 recovery focused on higher defense and infrastructure spending (fiscal policy,) a massive increase in debt (the largest peacetime debt increase ever) coupled with a more balanced tax code post-TEFRA.
Thus, eschewing complex econometric models, elaborately detailed spreadsheets of earnings and rolling momentum indicators, Polaris Financial focused instead on identifying the assumptions they believeed would most likely drive the economy and markets in 2013. They focused on the continuation of Chairman Bernanke’s easy monetary policy, and long-term fiscal policies designed to funnel money into investments which would incent job creation and GDP growth leading to an improvement in house values, and consumer spending, while keeping interest rates at historically low levels. All of which would bode extremely well for thriving equity markets.
The vitriol has been high amongst those who support, and those who oppose, the economic policies of Obama’s administration since 2008. But vitriol does not support, nor replace, good forecasting. Too often forecasters predict what they want to happen, what they hope will happen, based upon their view of history, their traing and background, and their embedded assumptions. They believe in the certainty of long-held assumptions, and forecast from that base.
But as Polaris Financial pointed out, in beating every major Wall Street firm over the last 2 years, good forecasting relies on looking carefully at historical outcomes, and understanding the context in which those results happened. Rather than relying on an interpretation of the outcome,they looked instead at the facts and the situation; the actions and the outcomes in its context. In an economy, everything is relative to the context. There are no absolute programs that are universally the right thing to do. Every policy action, and every monetary action, is dependent upon initial conditions as well as the action itself.
Too few forecasters take into account both the context as well as the action. And far too few do enough analysis of assumptions, preferring instead to rely on reams of numerical analysis which may, or may not, relate to the current situation. And are often linked to assumptions underlying the model’s construction – assumptions which could be out of date or simply wrong.
The folks at Polaris Financial Partners remain optimistic about the economy and markets for the next two years. They point out that unemployment has dropped faster under Obama, and from a much higher level, than during the Reagan administration. They see the Affordable Care Act opening more flexibility for health care, creating a rise in entrepreneurship and innovation (especially biotechnology) that will spur economic growth. Deitrick and Morgan see tax programs, and rising minimum wage trends, working toward better income balancing, and greater monetary velocity aiding GDP growth. Their projection is for improving real estate values, jobs growth, and minimal inflation leading to higher indexes – such as 20,000 on the DJIA and 2150 on the S&P.
Bob Deitrick co-authored, with Lew Goldfarb, “Bulls, Bears and the Ballot Box” in 2012 analyzing Presidential economic policies, Federal Reserve policies and stock market performance.
by Adam Hartung | Apr 29, 2009 | Books, Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, General, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lock-in, Openness
Today the U.S. Federal Reserve indicated that the worst of America's economic downturn may be over, according to "Fed stands pat, and says worst may be over" at Marketwatch.com. Fed officials seem to think that the rate of decline has slowed. Note, they didn't say the economy is growing. The rate of decline is slowing. They hope this points to a bottoming, and eventually a return to growth.
With interest rates between banks at 0%, and short-term rates for strong companies near that level, there really isn't much more the Fed can do to create growth. It will keep buying Treasury securities and keep pushing banks to loan. But growth requires the private sector. That means businesses – or what reporters call "Main Street."
The government doesn't create growth. It can stimulate growth with low interest rates and money that will stimulate business investment. Growth requires people make products or services, and sell them. Those who are waiting on the government to create a growing economy will never gain anything from their wait, because it's up to them. Only by making and selling things do you get economic growth.
Recent events, closing banks and massive write-offs, are a big Challenge to old ways of doing business. Those who keep applying old practices are struggling to generate profits. The tried-and-true practices of American industrialism just aren't turning out gains like the once did. And they won't. The world has shifted. Entrepreneurs in India, Malaysia and China – places we like to think of as poor and "third world" – are building fortunes in the information economy. American businesses have to shift. If you make posts to install on highway sides, well lots of people can do that and competition is intense. To make money you need to make products that help move more people on the highway faster and safer – some kind of post that perhaps can provide traffic information to web sites and aid people to look for alternate routes. Posts aren't what people want, they want better traffic flow and today that ties to more information about the highway, who's using it, and what's happening on it.
Growth will return when businesspeople move toward supplying the shifted market with what it wants. Like Apple with a solution for digital music that involved players and distribution. Or Amazon with a solution for digitally obtaining books, magazines and newspapers, storing them, presenting them and even reading them to you. These companies, and products, appeal to the changed market – the market that values the music or the words and not the vinyl/tape/CD or the ink-on-paper. The customers that want the information, not necessarily the tangible item we used to use to get the information.
For the economy to grow requires a lot more businesses realize this market shift is permanent, and adjust. During the Great Depression those who refused to shift from agriculture to industrial production found the next 40 years pretty miserable – as rural land prices dropped, commodity prices dropped and the number of people working in agriculture dropped. Agrarianism wasn't bad, it just wasn't profitable. And going forward, industrialism isn't bad – but to grow revenues and profits we have to start thinking about how to deliver what people want – not what we know how to make. You have to deliver what the market wants to grow sales – even if it's different from what you used to make.
Starbucks offered people a lot of different things. And the old CEO tried to capitalize upon that by expanding his brand into liquor, music recording, agency for entertainers, movie production, and a widespread set of products in his stores – including food. But then an even older CEO returned, and he said Starbucks was all about coffee. He launched some new flavors, and he pushed out an instant coffee product. But a year later "Starbucks profit falls 77% on store closure charges" reports Marketwatch.com. His "focus" efforts have cut revenues, and cut profits enormously. He's cut out growth in his effort to "save" the company.
By trying to go backward, Chairman Schultz has seriously damaged the brand and the company. He has closed 570 stores – which were a big part of the brand and perhaps the thing of greatest value. Stores attracted people for a lot more than just coffee. People met at the stores, and buying coffee was just one activity they undertook. So as the stores were shuttered, the brand began to look in serious trouble and people started staying away. The vicious cycle fed on itself, and same store sales are down 8%. No new flavor or packaged frozen coffee bits for take home use is going to turn around this troubled business. It will take a change to giving people what they need – not what Mr. Schultz wants to sell.
With more and more people working from home the "virtual office" for many small businesspeople can still be a local Starbucks. When you can't afford take a client out for a snazzy lunch you can afford to take them for a coffee. When your wasteline can't take ice cream, you can afford a no-cal hot coffee in a great environment. Starbucks never was about the coffee, it was about meeting customer needs in a shifted market. And when the CEO realizes this he has the chance to save the company by taking into the new markets where customers want to go. Not by bringing out new instant coffee granules.
Starbucks is sort of a model of the recession. When you try to do what you always did, and you blame the lousy economy for your troubles, you'll see results worsen. As businesspeople we must realize that the recession was due to a market shift. We went off the proverbial cliff trying to extend the old business – just like Apple almost did by trying to be the Mac and only the Mac. To get the economy growing we have to look to see what people really want, and supply that. And what they want may be somewhat, or a whole lot, different from what we used to give them. But when we start supplying this changed market what it wants then the economy will quit contracting and start growing.
So be more like Steve Jobs, and less like Charles Schultz. Quit trying to go backward and regain some past glory. Instead, look into the future to figure out what people want and that competitiors aren't giving them. Be willing to Disrupt your business in order to take Disruptive solutons to the market. And get your ideas into White Space where you can develop them into profitable businesses. Don't wait for someone else to turn the economy around – just to find out then it's too late for you to compete.
