Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Federal Reserve On Small Business

 

Addressing the Financing Needs of Small Businesses
Summary of Key Themes for the Federal Reserve System's Small Business Meeting Series

Introduction

The Federal Reserve System's Community Affairs Offices hosted more than 40 meetings in 2010 as part of an initiative titled "Addressing the Financing Needs of Small Businesses." 1 The goal was to gather information and perspectives to help the Federal Reserve and other stakeholders address the immediate and intermediate credit needs of small businesses.

Some of the meetings took the form of small focus groups or listening sessions. Other meetings were on a larger scale, with more formal agendas focusing on a particular aspect of small business financing, such as minority entrepreneurship, the role of Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs), or federal guarantee loan programs. Several meetings focused on a specific industry, such as auto suppliers.

Whether small or large, all of the meetings brought together small business owners, small business trade groups, financial institutions and other private lenders, bank supervision officials, CDFIs, and other small business support service providers to discuss ways to improve credit flow to viable small businesses. Through this initiative, the Federal Reserve sought to deepen its understanding of the dynamics of the supply of and demand for small business credit, to identify specific credit gaps, and to learn of promising practices and suggestions for improvement.

This summary aims to capture the key issues that emerged from the meetings and offer examples of how those issues were reflected in different parts of the country and in different industries. It is not intended to be a comprehensive compilation of all the ideas and views that were expressed. We have grouped the comments under the categories of credit supply, credit demand, and credit gaps. In addition, we have included key recommendations for potential next steps that were identified by participants at the July 12 capstone event at the Board of Governors as well as throughout the System's series of meetings.

Factors Impacting the Supply of Small Business Credit

Small businesses and banks generally reported that lending contracted significantly during the recession for a variety of reasons. These comments are consistent with data indicating that outstanding loans to small businesses dropped from more than $710 billion in the second quarter of 2008 to less than $670 billion in the first quarter of 2010.2 In addition, some banks noted that some of the contraction in lending is related to broader concerns about capital adequacy.

Comments related to the supply of credit to small businesses fell into four broad categories: 1) tighter bank underwriting standards; 2) resource constraints on lending; 3) impact of regulatory guidance; and 4) utilization of alternative funding sources.

Underwriting standards – At most meetings, both small businesses and banks acknowledged that underwriting standards had tightened. Some small businesses reported that underwriting changes made access to credit more difficult, but not impossible, while others found the changes to be a significant hurdle to obtaining credit. Many banks acknowledged that lending standards had become more flexible prior to the economic downturn and that they since have returned to more traditional underwriting practices.

Recurring issues related to underwriting standards included the following:
Additional collateral requirements – For existing loans, small businesses reported that routine collateral re-evaluations of assets that directly or indirectly secure loans –including personal residences, commercial property, and equipment – often result in additional collateral requirements because of a significant drop in asset values. In addition, in some markets, banks noted they were no longer readily taking real estate as collateral, especially if there was another outstanding lien against the property.

Many banks have also reduced their loan-to-value (LTV) thresholds, increasing the amount of equity businesses need for new and refinance loans.

At a meeting in Cincinnati, small business owners said they were required to make cash payments when reassessments of LTV ratios resulted in insufficient collateral. If the payment was not made, the loan could be subject to default. For new loans, small businesses cited heavy collateral requirements, including personal guarantees, which made them reluctant to secure the loan.

In Detroit, auto suppliers emphasized their concern about the values that lenders are placing on their collateral, particularly equipment. An official with an auto supplier trade group confirmed that many of his group's members have reported issues relating to banks' current lower valuation of assets that back existing loans or that are being assessed for new loans.

Greater focus on cash flow – Some banks acknowledged that prior to the economic crisis, credit scores or collateral values, often inflated, were sometimes more important than cash flow in underwriting a small business loan. Banks and small businesses both concurred that strong cash flow is now one of the chief underwriting criteria.

At the Baltimore meeting, several bankers said that they understand the frustration of small businesses that may be experiencing reduced cash flow during the recession but that had a solid track record before the downturn. They noted, however, that generally they cannot extend credit if there is no recent history of positive cash flow. According to one banker, even if a business has strong collateral, banks do not want to be in the business of taking collateral to recoup loan principal.

In Dayton, a small business owner stated: "If you have the money you need [i.e., good cash flow and collateral], then they'll loan to you." 


Higher personal credit thresholds, including credit score – Small businesses commented that, in response to concerns about declining collateral values and cash flow, the recent trend has been to require more personal resources and guarantees. For many larger banks, automated underwriting driven primarily by credit scores is the only way to profitably offer loans below a certain dollar threshold (e.g., below $200,000).

Many small businesses reported being denied credit because either the owner's personal credit score had declined or the score no longer satisfied lenders' heightened standards.

In Boston and Cleveland, small business owners reported that their credit scores declined after credit-limit reductions led to higher debt ratios, despite the fact they were always current with payments. In some cases, the credit score downgrades made it extremely difficult to borrow and resulted in businesses' closure or bankruptcy.

In Miami, business owners and intermediaries expressed concern that lenders are placing greater emphasis on business owners' personal credit to determine creditworthiness and denying credit to small businesses where the owner has a good business plan but impaired credit.

Resource Constraints – In addition to capital challenges, banks pointed to a number of other constraints on their lending resources, such as the following:
Asset management challenges – Banks reported that higher-than-average delinquency and loss rates have taxed their workout units, forcing them to shift seasoned staff, including loan officers, to assist with the increased number of problem loans. Some banks, particularly smaller banks, described a temporary suspension of all lending activities while they assess portfolios, manage workouts and distressed loans, and reevaluate collateral.

Regulatory burden – Smaller banks pointed out the difficulties involved in staying abreast of new regulations and guidance, understanding them thoroughly, and determining how to best implement them.

Because of the complexity associated with administering new or revised regulations, some community banks said that they often must assign senior loan officers to handle the new rules, leaving more junior lenders to handle new loans. Some small businesses commented that they are then left working with junior loan officers who they believe do not understand their businesses, are dismissive, or adhere mechanically to underwriting guidelines.

Programmatic changes – Bank lenders described how enhancements to Small Business Administration (SBA) lending programs, including the increase in guarantee authority and fee waivers, helped them to make loans they might not otherwise have made. Credit unions also reported good success in using the 7(a) loan program, which was in high demand. Suggestions for program improvements included an SBA guarantee for loan modifications, more streamlined and faster loan processing, and packaging assistance for the 7(a) program, similar to what is available for the 504 program.

In meetings in Nashville and Tampa, several participants expressed the view that uncertainty about the duration, availability, and conditions of SBA program enhancements has made banks reluctant to invest the time to adapt to new program requirements.

Impact on underwriting time – Banks frequently said that they do not have enough time to handle applications with insufficient documentation, such as sparse tax returns, inadequate income statements, or unreliable interim financial statements. Participants noted that some banks significantly reduced or eliminated loans below a certain threshold, typically $200,000, as a way to limit time-consuming applications from smaller and less sophisticated businesses. Banks also cited the imbalance between time commitment and returns as a reason for not participating in certain SBA loan products, such as the America's Recovery Capital or 7(a) loan programs.

In Miami, bankers noted that they were spending much more time on due diligence than ever before. The bankers and technical assistance providers agreed this is necessary in a market where fraud is prevalent. However, the extended time it may now take to get a loan approved can hurt small businesses.

Impact of bank closures – Small businesses raised the issue of credit availability in areas that have experienced bank failures. If a financial institution is closed and not replaced, the impact is particularly acute. Small businesses in rural areas and in regions with few banks raised this issue most frequently.

In St. Louis, participants described the challenge of "orphaned" loans, when a bank that acquires a failed financial institution chooses not to continue the relationship with the borrower, making future extensions of credit unlikely.

Regulatory Environment – Some banks cited examination-related concerns as an important factor in credit availability for small businesses. In addition to general statements attributing tightened credit to increased regulatory scrutiny in light of recent economic conditions, concerns were raised about examiner assessments and the uncertainty surrounding classification of assets.

Restrictions on lending – Some bank participants noted that because of declining asset values of their balance sheets, more banks have been required to raise capital to cover potential losses. Among other strategies, banks can respond by taking on fewer loans in order to meet the capital requirements or raising capital under adverse economic conditions.

In St. Louis, participants stated they were unsure whether examiners are requiring a 5 percent tier-1 capital ratio standard or whether a stricter 7 percent standard is being applied.

Some banks reported inconsistent treatment of loans by different regulators.
Several banks mentioned that they consider their examiner's expected response before making new loans. They also expressed reluctance to do loan workouts because of concerns that examiners will still regard the loan as being impaired.

In New York, Atlanta, and Miami, small businesses and other participants expressed the view that banks are citing increased examiner scrutiny when refusing to lend to certain industries, such as construction, real estate, and retail services.

Bank regulators stated that banks in South Florida have significant challenges in maintaining adequate capital levels because of the higher loan-loss reserves related to declining asset values.

Conflicting messages – Some bank participants expressed frustration about their perception of conflicting messages from different government stakeholders. On the one hand, the banks feel pressure to lend, but at the same time they are encouraged to apply stricter credit standards. The result is a more cautious approach to lending.

Several banks expressed concern about lending to small businesses that they believe have the potential to grow when the economy begins to expand. Their concern is that, although a business may have good prospects, regulators may be wary of loans based on future prospects, particularly if the business has less-than-perfect credit, a recent history of uneven cash flow, or reduced collateral values.

Use of Alternative Funding Sources – Meeting participants noted that small businesses that are denied, or perceive they will be denied, credit by banks have turned to alternative sources of financing, which often carry a higher cost.

Increased use of credit cards – At many meetings, small businesses described turning to credit cards in lieu of a bank loan. At the same time, many small businesses also described how their credit limits were being reduced. After being denied credit, many tapped their personal and business credit cards, particularly for working capital or as a line of credit.

Businesses described, and several banks confirmed, that in some cases banks are recommending the use of credit cards in response to requests for smaller loans. Others attributed the increased use of credit cards to the relative ease of applying for and using a credit card as compared to the time and effort required to secure a bank loan.

Some businesses reported incurring additional costs in relying on credit cards. A business owner in Cleveland reported that her bank line of credit, which carried a 7 percent interest rate, was cut. She then turned to a credit card to finance business transactions and subsequently saw the rate on the card substantially increase above her line of credit rate.

Greater reliance on personal resources – Small business owners frequently mentioned the need to use personal financial resources to replace business credit. Personal credit cards, in particular, are often used because they are easily accessed.

Some small businesses said they also relied on home equity lines on their personal residence or on retirement savings. Family and friends are another source often mentioned for small business financing, particularly for start-ups. Current economic challenges, however, have restricted the availability of these sources.

In Annapolis, a small business owner described being denied for a line of credit because her revenues were down in the prior two years. When she looked into refinancing an investment property to tap its equity, lenders said they were not refinancing investment property. As a result, she relied on credit cards and borrowed against her 401(k) savings for working capital.

In Los Angeles, meeting participants indicated that Asian Pacific Islander (API) small businesses rely heavily on personal real estate for their financing, and the significant decline in residential property values has led to a reduction in credit and rising delinquencies for API small business loans.

Participants in several meetings expressed the view that minority-owned businesses are generally less likely to have an established banking relationship and thus are less likely to receive bank loans. They often turn to friends and family for financing, particularly in the start-up phase.

Adjustment of payment terms – Small businesses reported adjusting payment terms in order to preserve cash whenever possible – e.g., shortening payment terms for customers and extending payment terms with suppliers. Small businesses stated that their options were limited when their customers or suppliers, who may also be cash-strapped, are larger firms or the government and thus have more leverage.

In Milwaukee, a small business owner summarized the phenomenon: "Receivables have gone up and we have passed that on by stretching our payables. Some customers pay in 70 days, while others pay in 180. My first recommendation: pass a law that says pay in 30 days or pay interest."

Alternative financial institutions – Many Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) and credit union participants noted an increase in small business loan demand over the last two years. They expressed the view that this may be the result of a tighter supply of credit by larger financial institutions. They noted that their ability to meet increased demand is limited by capital constraints and underwriting capacity. Credit unions also noted the statutory limitation on the percentage of small business loans they may make (12.25 percent of total assets).

At several meetings, participants noted that some small businesses are turning toward non-mainstream finance sources such as factoring companies and pay-day loans, which carry higher fees and interest rates, due to the lack of conventional credit sources.

In Detroit, credit union service organizations are working to provide scale for making small business loans by centralizing some aspects of the underwriting process.
On the other hand, in New York, some credit unions indicated that outsourcing underwriting is not always an effective solution to capacity constraints, stating that they lose control over quality in outsourcing.

A credit union in Tampa expressed the view that credit unions that are new to small business lending do not have an established infrastructure to compete with the bigger banks, particularly in areas such as SBA programs.

In Nashville, it was noted that some CDFIs are receiving loan applications from businesses that they would not expect to hear from, such as more-established businesses whose financial conditions are better than those of clients they served several years ago.

In Chicago, the Chicago Urban League, which offers bridge loans to companies that have gone through its entrepreneurship training and coaching programs, reported making such loans to businesses that could not get credit from banks. A banker indicated that several banks participating in the meeting were founding investors in the League's loan fund.

At several meetings, CDFI participants described the challenges in becoming authorized to provide loans under the SBA's 7(a) program.

Factors Impacting the Demand for Small Business Credit

Small businesses and bank participants noted that the economic downturn has diminished sales for many small businesses, weakening balance sheets and asset values and thus dampening small business loan demand. Some financial institutions reported weaker quality in loan applications from small businesses. Comments related to credit demand by small businesses included issues of reduced credit quality, reduced confidence, a need for additional technical assistance, and interest in government contracting and entrepreneurship.

Reduced credit quality – Banks generally attributed the decrease in overall lending to small businesses to their declining sales and asset valuations. They reported lower overall demand for credit from creditworthy businesses. Some financial institutions also noted that applications for small business credit generally have become weaker as the challenging economic environment continues. Still, as noted previously, many credit unions and CDFIs cited an increase in demand for small business loans from viable small businesses.

Reduced confidence
– A number of small businesses reported that declining sales made them more cautious about seeking credit. Some commented that the danger in waiting too long was that, by the time they sought a loan, their financial position had deteriorated to a point that raised underwriting concerns. Many small businesses expressed uncertainty about business prospects in the near future, affecting current credit and business decisions. Some owners reported making decisions based on the perception of tight credit without having explored credit options.

In Annapolis, a former small business owner reported selling her health-care business because of concerns that her line of credit would be cut while addressing challenges associated with the extension of payment terms by her clients. Her core business was fine, but she was concerned about liquidity and the ability to meet obligations, such as payroll, in a timely way.

Increased demand for technical assistance – Small businesses described the challenges associated with operating under distressed economic conditions. Many described working with reduced staff and the impact of labor reductions on the resources necessary to manage the credit process. Several bankers indicated that small businesses need help locating suitable lenders and technical assistance to prepare business plans and loan applications.

Technical assistance providers indicated that a growing portion of their clients are existing businesses and the long-time unemployed who hope to start a business. Meeting participants also noted the need for technical assistance among minority-owned businesses, which face particular challenges in accessing credit.

In St. Louis, a participant stated that demand for technical assistance is up 150 percent at Small Business Development Centers (SBDCs). Some of this demand stems from increased interest in entrepreneurship among recently unemployed or underemployed individuals.

At several meetings, participants mentioned that minority business owners often do not have strong networks, limiting their access to financial resources, technical assistance, or mentoring.

In Miami, several meeting participants noted that Hispanic businesses face unique challenges due to the lack of tools and training in Spanish. They stated that Hispanic business owners may not be aware of the programs and resources available to assist small businesses or the types of documentation and information that banks require for credit decisions.

In Omaha, nonprofit leaders expressed the view that improving the financial management skills of minority business owners is a critical step in enhancing their creditworthiness.

Interest in government contracting – Participants at several meetings mentioned that government contracting is an opportunity for minority-owned businesses, yet they need access to credit to fulfill the contracts. Minority-owned businesses often do not have the working capital needed to make up-front purchases or to sustain operations during the significant payment lag with government contracts.

In Omaha and Nashville, government officials said that they have seen increasing interest among small businesses in becoming a certified minority-owned business for government contracting purposes.

In Birmingham, an SBDC representative said that government contracting is a great opportunity for minority-owned businesses, but the payment lag is a significant challenge.

Interest in entrepreneurship
– The high-unemployment environment is generating demand as more individuals who are jobless seek to start their own business.

Participants in the Morgantown meeting noted that start-ups are being created by retirees, people seeking a second career, and people looking for first or second jobs.

At the Phoenix meeting, a number of CDFIs and microlenders reported increased interest in their loan products -- one said demand had quadrupled -- from people who lost their jobs and are seeking to start a small business.

Identified Credit Gaps
A combination of disruptions on the supply and demand sides of the small business credit market, as discussed above, has resulted in notable credit gaps.

Lines of credit and working capital – Small businesses reported that existing lines of credit had been reduced, hampering their ability to offset lower cash flows that stem from slower sales or slower customer payments. As a result, small businesses reported that they had to scramble to meet intermediate financing needs and change their business models to adapt to less credit availability. Banks, on the other hand, reported reassessing outstanding lines of credit in order to reduce their exposure to losses and minimize their capital needs.

Banks noted that small businesses had changed how they used their lines in the economic downturn, using them for major purchases and salaries rather than as short-term revolving credit. Some banks noted that, in such situations, they have converted lines of credit into term loans, which have higher finance costs.

In Detroit, the CEO of one auto supplier noted that while most of the manufacturers in the auto industry have restructured so that they are profitable, the companies toward the bottom of the supply chain are still struggling to obtain working capital and to finance their equipment purchases. Other auto suppliers at the meeting noted that many lines of credit were frozen in 2009 and that banks that had historically provided credit to the industry have continued to limit their lending, such as by reducing lines of credit, pricing them higher, or renewing them for more limited periods of time.

Refinancing credit
– Small businesses expressed concern about their ability to refinance loans, particularly those related to commercial real estate. In some cases, business owners faced an immediate need for cash to repay the balance of their maturing balloon loans, even where the firm still had an ability to repay the loan, because of reduced collateral values or tightened underwriting standards. To address their immediate needs for credit, many small businesses reported using credit cards and personal credit resources, such as 401(k)s and home equity lines of credit. As a result, many small businesses noted the need for loans to refinance these credits at lower rates.

Small-dollar loans – Several small business participants cited the need for smaller dollar loans, particularly in amounts under $200,000. Microlenders in some markets were able to help address the need for loans under $35,000. Larger bank participants acknowledged that they reduced or curtailed small dollar loans altogether because of the expense in time and resources required to make these loans.

In Des Moines and St. Louis, larger banks indicated that they reduced or stopped providing loans under $200,000 because such loans require as many resources as larger loan amounts but do not provide the needed income to offset these costs.
In Tampa, several technical assistance providers reported that very few banks would offer loans under $100,000, leaving a significant credit gap.

The SBA Community Express loan was cited as an option (although some considered it too expensive), but there were no local lenders who offered this product.

Commercial real estate
– Banks reported that they suffered significant losses in their commercial real estate portfolios. One bank stated that 50% to 60% vacancy rates were not uncommon in his area. Many banks reported that they have tightened underwriting standards in this segment, including requirements for higher borrower equity, stronger debt coverage ratios, lower vacancy rates, as well as stronger personal guarantees.

Small businesses confirmed these tighter loan standards and noted that, for existing loans, they were required to pledge additional cash or other assets to make up gaps created by commercial real estate that appraised at lower market values.

Patient capital – Both banks and small businesses cited the need for sources of patient capital to assist small businesses in financing equipment and other large purchases. For capital-intensive businesses, such as manufacturing, a larger loan for equipment or materials needs a longer repayment period to provide sufficient time for sales to pick up and generate cash flow for repayment of the loan.

In Annapolis, service businesses, such as small law firms, discussed the need to hire staff to meet an expected increase in clients or contracts. They cited a lag between the hiring and the receipt of revenues from services provided. Small business participants indicated that banks are not willing to finance this particular need.

In Detroit, a meeting participant pointed out that sustained advancements in technology in the auto supply sector depend on the availability of longer-term financing for the same small businesses that are finding it difficult to finance working capital and the long-overdue replacement of basic equipment.

Loans to distressed industries – Banks reported that they are reducing their exposure to certain industries with high loss rates.

In New York, bankers noted that certain sectors, such as construction, real estate, and services were particularly hard-hit by the recession, making new loans within these sectors more difficult to finance.

In Cleveland, bankers reported similar constraints on lending in the residential construction, commercial real estate, and automobile sectors. Small businesses affected by the reduction in credit within these industries expressed frustration over their inability to secure loans regardless of the quality of their financial condition.

In Detroit, an automotive supplier industry official noted that credit availability for the tooling required to support new vehicle launches is constrained, given the continued level of industry, customer, and supplier risk. He expressed the view, however, that it is precisely such innovations that will improve the industry's risk/return ratios and investment attractiveness.

Start-up capital
– Small businesses and bankers agreed that start-up businesses have always had difficulty obtaining financing, and that now it is almost impossible to secure bank credit. At several meetings, participants noted an increased demand for this type of financing, particularly given the number of unemployed workers who are now looking to start businesses.

In Memphis, start-up capital was identified as a significant need, yet some financial institutions indicated that they lend only to firms with five years of operating experience.

A Cleveland meeting that focused on venture capital highlighted the downward trend in the availability of venture capital equity. Participants noted that until financial returns improve, this avenue for funding new and innovative businesses will likely remain suppressed.

Identified Recommendations


The following are key recommendations for potential next steps that were identified by participants at the July 12 capstone event at the Board of Governors as well as throughout the System's series of meetings. In addition, the Reserve Banks are planning a variety of efforts for the remainder of 2010 to follow up on the information and recommendations from the previous meetings or to hold further meetings in other locations. Attachment B contains a list of some of these activities.

Regulatory and Legislative Environment
Participants expressed the need for continued and consistent dialogue between financial institutions and examination staff and greater clarity of supervisory expectations from regulators. They recommended continued use of guidance that includes real-world examples. Another suggestion focused on establishing a means through which institutions can report concerns about or appeal an examiner's decision to the regulatory agency through a neutral intermediary such as an ombudsman.

Some participants emphasized the need for greater Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) consideration for community development loans and investments such as Equity Equivalent Investments (EQ2s) or program-related investments. They also noted that banks should receive greater consideration for investments and grants that increase access to lending capital, loan-loss reserves, loan packaging, and technical assistance. Such favorable consideration could encourage banks to engage in activities such as purchasing SBA loans or a participating interest in notes or portfolios; extending lines of credit for the warehousing of SBA loans prior to sale; or providing operating grants to assist CDFIs in obtaining or maintaining authorization required by the SBA or other licensing bodies.

There was a recommendation to make the New Markets Tax Credit program more supportive of small business lending by establishing a safe-harbor provision or taking other steps that could encourage investors to make equity investments in community development entities that lend or invest in small businesses.
There was support expressed for the Administration's proposal for a $30 billion small business lending fund, including: $2 billion to support innovative state programs that seek to stimulate and leverage additional private funds, $1 billion for equity financing for start-ups, and $300 million for CDFI loan funds.

SBA-Related Issues

Participants, particularly banks, expressed strong support for the SBA enhancements that extend fee waivers and increase the guarantee limits for the 504 and 7(a) programs. They also emphasized the need for certainty and clear expectations regarding the duration and terms of the enhancements, noting the challenges of adapting to periodic and temporary changes in the programs.

Participants recommended improving access for CDFI loan funds to participate as guaranteed lenders in the SBA 7(a) program in order to increase the availability of credit to the underserved markets that CDFIs serve.

There was general support for more simplification and consistency in SBA regulations, guidelines, and processes to reduce confusion for both lenders and borrowers. One suggestion focused on the possibility of using additional technology, such as a web-based system, to streamline the loan application and notification process.

Participants commented on the need for more education about SBA programs for financial institution examiners. For example, the Federal Reserve recently partnered with the SBA to conduct this type of training, and similar trainings could be arranged with the other financial institution regulators. Additionally, it was suggested that local and regional SBA field examiners could provide more frequent instruction and guidance to lenders.

Other recommendations regarding SBA loan programs included setting higher ceilings for loan amounts, such as increasing the microloan limit from $35,000 to $50,000, and expanding the Community Express Pilot program to encompass participation by CDFIs and other mission-driven lenders with sufficient capacity. There was also support for allowing the 504 program to be used for refinancing owner-occupied commercial real estate.

Some participants recommended the issuance of regulatory guidance related to SBA 504 first mortgages, including suspending the requirements for extra reserves for classified loans and allowing the refinancing of owner-occupied businesses, even when the loan-to-value ratio has increased.

Lender-Related Issues

Participants noted the success of financial institutions' use of "second look" or similar programs to help ensure that viable applicants are not overlooked and that decisions such as credit-line reductions are warranted. Participants recommended broader use of such programs by financial institutions. A lender recommended that, as part of a second-look review, financial institutions consider a borrower's interim financial statements for the most recent six-month period in cases where a borrower has experienced recent improvement and the denial was due to a weaker condition of the borrower as reflected in annual financial statements.

Lenders emphasized the need to receive complete and accurate documentation from small business loan applicants so that loan decisions can be made in a timely manner. Items such as reliable financial statements and accurate tax identification numbers were highlighted as examples.

Participants noted the use of innovative credit programs to encourage small business borrowing, such as a "loan-for-hire" program that reduces the interest rate for an existing small business borrower if the business commits to hiring employees.
Participants also encouraged lenders to demonstrate a greater commitment to and process for referring borrowers to alternative lenders, technical assistance providers, and counselors for appropriate technical assistance and financing solutions.

CDFI-Related Issues
There was support expressed for more low-cost, longer-term capital for CDFIs. Such capital, for example, would allow CDFIs to add a risk premium and still be able to make small business loans to meet demand from viable small businesses that may not qualify under conventional bank standards and products. In addition, increased grants or other operational subsidies would help CDFIs to cover the costs of providing technical assistance and advisory services to small business clients as well as to boost their loan-loss reserves.

One participant recommended that policymakers consider capital models for CDFIs that further leverage private dollars and create innovative incentives for the private sector to partner with experienced CDFI fund managers with strong risk-management capacity. For example, the potential allocation of $300 million to CDFI loan funds as part of the proposed $30 billion small business lending fund could be efficiently distributed through the CDFI Fund by a competitive process giving more points to proposals that combine experienced CDFI fund managers with private-sector capital sources and that put the private debt in a first-loss position relative to the public-sector debt capital.

Participants recommended that banks and CDFIs set up more effective and consistent processes for banks to refer small business applicants whose credit needs they cannot meet to CDFIs.

One participant noted that while CDFIs have demonstrated the ability to successfully underwrite the risks inherent in small business loans, this success has been achieved at relatively small volume levels in comparison to the need. He stated that efforts to significantly increase CDFI small business lending capacity must recognize the critical need for scalability in areas such as the receipt and review of applications and the underwriting, servicing, and collections of small business loans. He recommended that CDFIs consider outsourcing some of their operations to providers with more cost-effective approaches, systems, and technologies, including other CDFIs or mainstream financial institutions.

Participants urged greater use by financial institutions and investors of existing evaluation and ratings systems for assessing CDFI performance and impact, such as the CDFI Assessment and Ratings System (CARS) administered by the Opportunity Finance Network.

Other suggestions included expanding the access of CDFIs to government small business lending programs such as the Department of Agriculture's Rural Development Program and CDFI Fund financial assistance. One CDFI participant urged modifications to provide improved access for CDFIs to become members of the Federal Home Loan Bank System as well as greater access to Federal Home Loan Bank affordable capital.
Some participants expressed the need for limited regulation and oversight of CDFIs to help them improve their performance and access to capital. Comments cautioned against applying the same framework to CDFIs that currently applies to traditional financial institutions in order to ensure that CDFIs continue to have flexibility in underwriting and can focus on their mission-driven activities.

Small Business Support Services

Participants emphasized the importance of both pre- and post-financing technical assistance and the critical need for a dedicated source of funding to adequately compensate providers of such services. They noted the effectiveness of post-loan technical assistance as a risk-mitigation tool, helping to reduce the number of business failures, as well as a way to support business expansion.

Additional suggestions focused on increased use of the SBA Service Corps of Retired Executives (SCORE) and other similar business counseling program as well as initiatives that connect small businesses with each other to facilitate peer mentoring.

Participants noted the need for advisory services to provide guidance to small businesses on the type of capital – from equity to debt – that best matches their financial state and funding needs. Some participants noted that the current dialogue about small business finance tends to emphasize debt even in cases where other forms of capital are more appropriate. Participants also noted that the multitude of government, non-profit, and private sector efforts around small business finance should include consideration of the entire capital structure.

Research and Data

Participants expressed the need for timely, meaningful, and accurate data related to small business lending. Some participants also noted a trade-off between potential benefit of additional data and the increased resources and time needed to gather such data. Potential data collection issues included:

More frequent data collection, such as on a quarterly basis.

Time-series data, to allow for a more complete understanding of historical trends and more effective comparative analysis.

Greater access to private-sector data.

Enhanced segmentation of data, such as by firm size (e.g., number of employees) and loan amount.

Greater collaboration and coordination of data collection among federal agencies.


Some participants noted data gaps and suggested gathering additional information related to a variety of categories of small business lending including:

Loan application and origination information.

Appraisal and collateral values for commercial and personal real estate.

Intangible assets and their valuation, particularly for virtual or knowledge-based businesses.

Improved CDFI lending and microfinance activities.

Advisory services and other technical assistance for small businesses.

Business start-ups and "restarts," firm size, and firm age.

Factors related to small business growth.



Note:
The Google Editor update is making it hard on my editing. This is just the small business section of the Addendum .

Monday, July 12, 2010

Preparing For A QDR

Title: Bridging the Gap Between Defense Strategy And Execution

This was her prepared speech.

Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Strategy, Plans, and Forces Kathleen Hicks, As Prepared to the Aviation Week Conference, March 11, 2009

Thank you for that very kind introduction. I would also like to thank Aviation Week magazine and McAleese Associates for organizing this timely conference and inviting me to speak here this morning. As we embark on a new political season in Washington and begin deliberating on this administration's major defense choices, it is critically important to me that we seek the best advice and expertise of all the various defense stakeholders.

Those of you sitting in this room represent a rich American heritage: the greatest technological base and most innovative culture in history, which, in turn has helped train, equip, and protect the nation. I think it is safe to say that we all share a deep commitment to the men and women who serve this nation in uniform.

As you may know, my position is a newly created one. It does have its predecessors, though. In fact, although the title and portfolio have gone under different names, there has been, time and again, throughout the 60-plus years of DoD, a seeming desire to improve the link between our desired ends and the plans, programs, and activities we undertake to support them.

Bridging this gap is at the heart of strategy development and execution. Yet the Defense Department often comes under scrutiny for its failures in doing so. I don't believe systemic failure is attributable to individual incompetence or a lack of attention to planning. We fail because the incentives of many participants in the process are pitted against one another, obscuring a common, objective picture of reality. These differences, and the competition of ideas they generate, can be tremendously beneficial to the nation. But they can also too often create great inefficiencies and even complete disconnects in our approach.

This paradox of American defense planning is long-standing, and I am not naïve about its ability to undermine an idealized, single, rational view of defense strategy. I do believe, however, that there are ways to align incentives better without unduly sacrificing the independent, expert perspectives of various communities of interest. A common customer focus, having the right stakeholders at the table, and holding components accountable for executing the Secretary's and the President's vision are three tools I hope we can explore in the coming year.

Moreover, I think we can significantly improve the Department's ability to demonstrate convincingly that its actions and programs do indeed relate to a set of clearly stated and prioritized objectives. Strategy should not be seen not as a glossy document that sits on a shelf to be bi-annually updated, but as a continuous process of rationalizing ends, ways, and means. We don't “do” strategy every four years in a QDR; like your companies, we live and execute strategy every day, continuously balancing present and future demands across a customer base. Secretary Gates has made clear his intention to invigorate defense governance with fresh approaches and effective organization. Ensuring that we have a strategy-driven, budget-informed, and analytic way of making choices is a key element of his approach.

In my organization, we have three offices that work in the defense strategy realm: strategy, plans and force development, each led by a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense. Our Strategy office focuses on the long-term, and of course, develops the defense strategy in consonance with the national security strategy. Its staff also constantly scans the horizon for long-term trends, opportunities and challenges. Our Force Development office focuses on the mid-term, principally the Future Years Defense Program, or FYDP, by translating the defense strategy into guidance for developing forces. These policies inform FYDP decision-making in the requirements and acquisition processes. Finally, our Plans office focuses on the near-term employment of our forces. Its staff guides the development of operational plans and then helps tie our forces to these plans and ongoing operations through the Global Force Management process. Taken together, this joining of strategy, plans and force development now gives Policy a more effective and coherent voice in the PPBE system and related processes.

In my remaining time this morning, I would like to touch upon three key issues with which our new organization is grappling. The first is the range, complexity, and dynamism of the threats and challenges we face today and into the future. Second, I will highlight some of the key capability areas and cross-cutting force sizing, shaping, and posturing drivers that we should explore to better grapple with these threats. Finally, I will bring us back to the difficult challenge with which I began: that of setting priorities and making choices.

The only thing certain about the future is our inability to predict it. Choices we make today about new systems will affect the capabilities of our forces 20-30 years hence, yet our ability to forecast with precision the demands of the world of 2030 – or even 2015 – is limited. Indeed, both the unexpected demise of the Soviet Union and the shock of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks provided this generation of strategists lessons in modesty about our ability to anticipate changes in the security environment.

As strategists, though, we cannot become debilitated by uncertainty. Some things we do know with relative surety. The most important, without question, is that the geostrategic environment is becoming more challenging for the armed forces of the United States.

What is the primary distinguishing feature of this emerging security environment? I believe it is the ability of increasing numbers and types of potential adversaries to blend challenges across the spectrum including: diplomatic, informational, military, and economic approaches; low-end and high-end military capabilities; conventional, irregular, and strategic forces. Various state and non-state adversaries may have different statuses and capabilities, but we now see each use tactics formerly thought to be the province of the other. For example, we see terrorist groups like al-Qaida conducting sophisticated media engagements and others like the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka developing air, naval and ground forces. Likewise, many states incorporate irregular approaches into their security policy.

Areas formerly thought to be the jurisdiction of diplomats and development specialists are now recognized as security threats in their own right. Poor governance and injustice in regions previously overlooked as having little intrinsic strategic significance can present direct threats to Americans and our allies and partners. These factors can weaken alliances and reduce the number of states willing and able to work with us on common goals.

As we know all too well, terrorist groups have the potential to surpass attacks, such as 9/11, by harnessing to their radical agendas destructive WMD forces that can threaten the lives of hundreds of thousands. At the same time, large, prosperous, and technically advanced states are mastering the components of multi-dimensional, anti-access strategies. By employing precision conventional weapons, long-range strike systems, sophisticated sensor, electronic attack means, and other systems, states can put U.S. power-projection forces at great risk. US space-based assets, many of which our forces depend upon heavily, may also be threatened by kinetic and non-kinetic weapons. Collectively, these threats will challenge us to devise new concepts for conducting operations against technologically savvy adversaries.

As if this weren't challenge enough, regional adversaries such as North Korea and Iran have been striving for what might be called the “poor man's anti-access force” – fission-type nuclear weapons mated to medium-range ballistic and cruise missiles. Our assessments of future conflicts against regional adversaries must take account of the need to find ways to deter nuclear use and to protect US forward bases and allies.

Various societal and environmental trends are also likely to affect the projected security environment. The world is witnessing rapid and far-reaching changes in such areas as global climate, the competition for scarce resources, demographic trends in critical regions, and economics. Defense policy, nested within a holistic U.S. national security strategy, must attend to these transnational issues since they may very well generate new risks and present hidden challenges.

In the presence of these troubling security trends, I believe that much of the world will continue to look to the United States as the security partner of choice. Americans share deep and abiding interests with like-minded nations and peoples around the globe. The U.S. armed forces remain a potent force for the protection of these common interests, especially when combined with other elements of U.S. national power. That places great responsibilities on all of us to ensure the United States maintains its military strength and limits its vulnerabilities.

Over the next year DOD will conduct a series of reviews that address these major challenges. Foremost is the Quadrennial Defense Review, the QDR, with which I am sure many of you are familiar. It will consider force size and composition, modernization, and posture changes necessary to implement the President's and the Secretary's defense agenda. At the same time the Nuclear Posture Review, the Homeland Security Review and other efforts will provide further opportunities to inject a whole-of-government approach into security issues.

In his speeches and testimony, Secretary Gates has underscored some key themes to help shape our work. Of these I would like to focus on the issue of “balance.” The Secretary does not use this term in the simple sense of an equal division of resources or emphasis among missions. Rather, he wants to ensure that our limited resources are allocated appropriately to minimize the risk to our forces and our country now and in the future. Thus, this balance reflects the prudent allocation of risk across time.

In the coming year, we have an opportunity to examine what balance looks like for the Department. This includes assessing the force's capabilities for irregular warfare; asymmetric, high-end threats; and support to civil authorities at home and abroad and whole-of-government approaches to problems. Examining balance may require us to review the extent to which key low-density/high-demand capabilities and other enablers can be resourced in adequate numbers.

Achieving balance between conventional and strategic forces, on the one hand, and institutionalizing capabilities for irregular warfare and stabilization tasks, on the other, has been a consistent theme for the Secretary. Support for most of our major ongoing modernization efforts is well-established across the Department, on the Hill, and by many in this audience I suspect as well. We also, however, need to expand our institutional, long-term support for the kinds of non-traditional capabilities required to prevail in today's wars. Whether we like it or not, terrorist and insurgent tactics will remain attractive to a wide range of states and groups that seek to challenge our interests, our allies, and our partners. The need to keep these groups under pressure will remain an important component of our defense strategy for many years to come.

This being the case, we should not treat the demands of irregular warfare as ad hoc requirements that can be addressed with forces and assets optimized for other missions. Expanding special operations forces and rebalancing the general purpose force for the proper mix of IW skills and capabilities are major challenges. Some key irregular warfare capabilities include:

•Improved and expanded Civil Affairs & psychological operations capabilities and capacities;
•Persistent ISR;
•Language and cultural skills;
•Rotary-wing assets; and,
•Next-generation, long-range, clandestine infiltration and exfiltration capabilities.
Our plans and concepts of operation may need to accommodate more unconventional thinking and greater use of indirect approaches, where possible, to achieve our security goals. Activities such as building the capacity of partner governments and their security forces is arguably as important as any direct fighting the US Armed Forces will conduct themselves. To this end, we will explore the expansion of our forces' capacity to train, advise, and assist the forces of partner countries threatened by terrorism and insurgency.

Irregular warfare, in which adversaries are likely non-state or sub-state actors, is only one form of asymmetric warfare facing the United States. We should expect all adversaries to challenge us where they perceive us to be most vulnerable.

At the high-end of the threat spectrum, we will want to assess our capabilities to project power in the face of sophisticated anti-access capabilities. In this effort, we may find the need for more survivable ISR, undersea superiority, enhanced theater missile defenses, new concepts and technologies for cyberspace and EW, and the ability to engage and attack enemy forces and assets in the absence of air superiority.

These examples point to the need to reshape our investment in low¬-density/high-demand capabilities. Such capabilities are not limited to platforms. The skills of our workforce are a key capability. In particular, developing and maintaining cultural and linguist expertise, developing cyberspace operators, and maintaining expertise in nuclear surety and logistics are likely areas for focus and attention.

Finally, we will need to take a fresh look at the posture of U.S. military forces around the world to support our strategy. The positioning of our forces not only enables DOD and other USG operations, it signals US interests, providing assurance and deterrence. Posture choices have very visible economic costs and often invisible political costs at home and abroad. It requires a thoughtful approach.

The nature of the threats I outlined earlier and the capabilities I just described illustrate the need for whole-of-government approaches to most security problems. The DOD should not develop forces in a vacuum. Yet we are faced today with the planning challenge of distinguishing what is planned and possible for our civilian partners and what is present and prudent. We anticipate the growth of other departments' and agencies' capabilities for such critical missions as domestic disaster response and overseas stabilization and reconstruction missions. In time, I trust that, as a nation, we will invest the resources necessary to deploy and operate experienced and expert civilians quickly, and in numbers.

We all understand, however, that these transformations of civilian capacity will take time. In the interim, and in contested environments over the long term, DOD must be prepared to be called upon to perform these functions. To close this window and improve civilian capacity, we will work in close cooperation with any civilian agency that seeks DOD assistance in strategy, planning, and resource management approaches.

The demands on our Armed Forces can seem endless, but our resources are not. We must prioritize our needs and our wants with clear-headed risk assessment. Tradeoffs and choice are the essence of strategy, too often missing. We therefore expect in the QDR to help the Secretary take a hard look at our investments and potential divestments. Balance does not imply taking undue risks in high-intensity conflict. Rather, we must ask whether we should adapt our future forces to address threats that are migrating away from America's overwhelming conventional advantages to areas where adversaries can exploit asymmetric avenues for success.

As an example, countering the proliferation of advanced capabilities in ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons, anti-satellite weapons and offensive cyber capabilities require prudent investment. Recent operations and adversary strategic writings on using such weapons with new employment strategies may soon challenge our notions of what constitutes “conventional” in major theater conflict.

I made the mistake of writing about many of the issues I've discussed here today in my think tank days. Now, apparently, the chickens are coming home to roost.

My former CSIS colleague, Tony Cordesman, recently told an audience, “If God really hates you, you may end up working on a Quadrennial Defense Review.” I've worked on or around all of them, so I guess I know where I stand with the Almighty.

I am in week five back in the Pentagon, and as much as I am still learning, and relearning, our strategic task is already clear. We face hard choices going forward, both as a nation and a Department. Although the decisions may not be easy, they must be made.

Secretary Gates has stated his determination to “create a unified defense strategy” to guide budget priorities. It is my job, with partners throughout the DOD, to make this happen. As key partners in national security, you too have a role to play shaping the future of America's defense. I welcome your ideas, your collaboration, and your concepts.

Thank you.

Thursday, July 8, 2010

Remarks by the President Announcing the President's Export Council

11:50 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. (Applause.) Everybody, please be seated. Well, good morning. Thank you, Jim McNerney, for being here. And thank you to members of my Cabinet and my administration for coming. Thank you, Gary Locke, for that introduction and the outstanding work that you’ve been doing at Commerce to move America’s economy forward.

Now, that work has been my driving focus since we walked through these doors a year and a half ago. And at that time, our economy was shrinking at an alarming rate. Nearly 3 million jobs were lost in the last half of 2008. In January 2009 alone, more than 750,000 jobs had been lost here in the United States. So every alarm bell was ringing at the prospect of a second Great Depression.

So our imperative was to stop that freefall and reverse direction -– to get our economy moving and get jobs growing again, which meant we took a series of dramatic and, frankly, sometimes unpopular actions. But as a result of those actions, we broke the recession’s momentum, and we’re in a much different place today.

Our economy has now grown for three consecutive quarters and created nearly 600,000 private sector jobs in the first half of this year –- a stark contrast to the 3.7 [million] we lost over the first half of last year. And despite uncertain world events and the resulting ups and downs in the market, we are moving America forward again.

But the progress we’ve made to date isn’t nearly enough to undo the damage that the recession visited on people and communities across our country. Our businesses are hiring again, but there are still five unemployed workers for each job opening. The economy is growing, but empty storefronts still haunt too many Main Streets. And the truth is the middle-class families that are the backbone of our economy have felt their economic security eroding since long before this recession hit.

So we’ve got much more work to do to spur stronger job growth and to keep the larger recovery moving. The question is, over the months and years to come, how do we encourage the strong and lasting economic growth required for America to lead in this new century? Where are we going to find the growth necessary to help us address all of our priorities -– from creating jobs and prosperity, to boosting our businesses and our workers, to improving our fiscal health and reducing our long-term deficits?

One thing we know is this growth won’t come from an economy where prosperity is based on fleeting bubbles of consumption, of debt; it can't rely on paper gains. We’ve seen where that led us, and we’re not going back. The truth is we’ve had to face over the past year and a half the truth that if we want to once again approach full employment and fuel real economic growth, then we need to put an end to the policies that got us here, tackle the challenges we’ve put off for decades, and move this economy forward. We need to lay a new and stronger foundation on which businesses can thrive and create jobs and rising incomes, on which innovators and entrepreneurs can lead the world in generating new technologies and products and services. We have to rely on a new foundation on which America can harness what has made our economy the engine and the envy of the world -- the talent and drive and creativity of our people.

So as business leaders and labor leaders representing some of America’s largest corporations and America’s workers, that’s what I want to talk to you about all today -- because America’s success ultimately depends on your success. It’s the private sector that has always been the source of our job creation, our economic growth, and our prosperity; and it’s our businesses and workers who will take the reins of this recovery and lead us forward.

Same time, some might argue that government has no role to play at all in our economy. But everybody in this room understands that the free market depends on a government that sets clear rules that ensure fair and honest competition, that lives within its means, that invests in certain things that the private sector can’t invest on its own. In the absence of this kind of responsible government -– whenever government is dragged too far to one end or the other of the spectrum –- we see negative consequences for our economy.

Too much regulation or too much spending can stifle innovation, can hamper confidence and growth, and hurt business and families. A government that does too little can be just as irresponsible as a government that does too much -- because, for example, in the absence of sound oversight, responsible businesses are forced to compete against unscrupulous and underhanded businesses, who are unencumbered by any restrictions on activities that might harm the environment, or take advantage of middle-class families, or threaten to bring down the entire financial system. That’s bad for everybody. That’s the reason we pursued Wall Street reforms. And when the Senate takes up its business again, I hope it moves as quickly as possible to finish this chapter and settle this issue.

In the absence of sensible policies that invest in long-term public goods like education or basic research, roads, railways, broadband, a smart electric grid -- an absence of those investments can be equally disastrous. Over time, failure to make such investments slowly degrades our competitiveness, leaving us without the skilled workforce or the technologies or the basic infrastructure that a 21st century economy requires.

So to make sure our workers can out-compete anybody, anywhere in the world, we’ve invested in the skills and education of our people. Through the Race to the Top, we’re challenging our schools to raise their standards. And I’ve pledged that by 2020, America will once again lead the world in the percentage of students graduating from college -– and by making higher education more affordable, we’re on our way to achieving that goal.

To strengthen our standing in a 21st century economy, we’ve invested in upgrading our critical infrastructure, from high-speed rail to high-speed Internet. We’ve enacted reforms that will reduce the drag of health care costs on businesses and consumers alike. And we are committed to bringing down the unsustainable debt that has ballooned over the past 10 years.

To spur lasting growth, we’ve invested in science and technology, research and development, and clean energy projects that will strengthen our global leadership. Eighteen months ago, for example, American companies commanded just 2 percent of the global capacity for advanced battery technology. Today, the seed money we provided has helped leverage substantial private investment, and by 2012, we expect America’s capacity to reach 20 percent of the global market -– and as high as 40 percent in 2015.

But government has another responsibility, and that is to remove barriers that stand in the way of opportunity and prosperity so that our people –- all of our people -- our workers, our entrepreneurs, our CEOs –- can build the future that we seek. And that’s what I want to focus on now.

In my State of the Union address, I set a goal for America: Over the next five years, we will double our exports of goods and services around the world -– an increase that will boost economic growth and support millions of American jobs in a manner that is deficit-friendly.

Export growth leads to job growth and economic growth. In 2008, American exports accounted for nearly 7 percent of our total employment, one in three manufacturing jobs, and supported 10.3 million jobs in all -– jobs that pay 15 percent more than average. So at a time when jobs are in short supply, building exports is an imperative.

But this isn’t just about where jobs are today; this is where American jobs will be tomorrow. Ninety-five percent of the world’s customers and fastest growing markets are beyond our borders. So if we want to find new growth streams, if we want to find new markets and new opportunity, we’ve got to compete for those new customers -– because other nations are competing for those new customers.

As I’ve said many times, the United States of America should not, cannot, will not, play for second place. We mean to compete for those jobs -– and we mean to win. But we’re going to have to change how we do business.

To meet this goal, we launched the National Export Initiative -– an ambitious effort to team up with America’s businesses, large and small, and help them unleash their energy and innovation, grow their markets, support new jobs selling their goods and services all across the globe. And we’re bringing to bear the full resources of the United States government.

One of the first things we did was establish an Export Promotion Cabinet made up of Cabinet members and senior administration officials whose work affects exports. Yesterday, I assembled this cabinet for an update on our efforts so far. We’re going to hold these meetings every few months -– and I’ve asked for a progress report at our next meeting in September.

But this is about more than what government can do; this is about what our businesses can do. And that’s why we are re-launching the President’s Export Council, a group that includes business and labor leaders who will offer their unfiltered advice and expertise on how best to promote exports. We’ve also included congressional leaders and senior representatives of my administration.

And earlier today, members of my Cabinet and I met with this council to begin soliciting advice. And I want to, again, thank Jim, President and CEO of Boeing, as well as Ursula Burns, CEO of Xerox, for agreeing to serve as the chair and vice chair.

Our efforts are off to a solid start. American exports grew almost 17 percent over the first four months of this year compared to the same period last year. Part of this, of course, is due to the global recovery. But we’re also moving forward on improving conditions for America’s exporters. And since we launched the National Export Initiative, we’ve made progress across its five objectives.

First, we said that America would be a strong partner and better advocate in the international marketplace for its businesses and workers. And we’re going to go to bat for everyone from the largest corporations to the smallest business owner with an idea that she wants to market and sell to the world.

So, for example, already this year, the Commerce Department has coordinated 18 trade missions with over 160 companies that compete in 24 countries, and we’ve got 8 more planned over the next three months. Their Advocacy Center has assisted American companies competing for export opportunities, supporting $11.4 billion in exports and an estimated 70,000 jobs.

Secretary Clinton recently held a roundtable with businesses in Shanghai, and next week, she’ll host another one with Secretary Locke to discuss removing barriers that stand in the way of their success.

Meanwhile, we’re moving forward with strengthening our business assistance centers across the country, and in our embassies and consulates abroad, so that they can provide a comprehensive toolkit of services to help potential exporters gain a foothold in new markets and expand -– especially small businesses that might not know how to sell their products abroad.

Second, we’re increasing access to export financing for small and medium-sized businesses that want to export their goods and services, but just need a boost. So the Export-Import Bank has more than doubled its loans in support of American exporters since last year, and that step alone has helped support nearly 110,000 jobs.

Third, we’re upping our efforts to remove barriers to trade and open new markets and new opportunities for American business. On a global level, this begins with pushing hard in the Doha Round to improve those negotiations so that they have a higher level of ambition in the way that will translate directly into more opportunities for American exporters. Regionally, we’re working on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement to expand our commercial presence in some of the most dynamic markets in Asia. And where our businesses run up against barriers in individual markets, we are acting.

In March, for example, we reached an agreement with China to reopen their market to American pork and pork products. And last month, during President Medvedev’s visit, we reached an agreement with Russia to reopen their market to American poultry. And these steps are worth more than $1 billion to American business.

We’re also reforming our own restrictions on exports, consistent with our national security interests. And we hope to move forward on new agreements with some of our key partners. I’ve instructed U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk to begin discussions to help resolve outstanding issues with the pending Korean Free Trade Agreement before my visit to Korea in November. It’s an agreement that will create new jobs and opportunity for people in both of our countries.

We also want to deepen and broaden our relations with Panama and Colombia. So we’re working to resolve outstanding issues with the free trade agreements with those key partners, and we’re focused on submitting them as soon as possible for congressional consideration. And we’ll make sure each agreement we pursue doesn’t just advance the interests of our businesses, workers, and farmers, but also upholds our most cherished values.

Fourth, as we help American businesses access new markets, we’re making sure that the access is free and fair. The United States offers some of the world’s lowest barriers to trade, and when we give other countries the privilege of that free and fair access, we expect it in return. Where American producers face unfair trade practices, we’ll use every tool at our disposal to enforce trade agreements. Last week, for example, the WTO ruled in favor of the United States on a case that found European governments were subsidizing planes that Airbus manufactures. That practice was unfair and hurt American workers. This ruling will help keep the playing field level and boost American jobs.

And finally, we continue to coordinate with other nations around the world to promote strong, sustainable, and balanced growth. At last month’s G20 summit, we built on the actions we took last year -– actions that have replaced global contraction with global growth, and trade that was plummeting with trade that’s bounced back.

Sustaining that recovery, however, also involves rebalancing our economies. As I told other leaders at the G20, after years of taking on too much debt, Americans will no longer borrow and buy the world’s way to lasting prosperity. We alone cannot be the engines of economic growth. Furthermore, a strong and durable recovery requires that countries not have an undue advantage.

So we discussed the need for market-driven currencies -- and I welcome China’s decision to allow its currency to appreciate in response to market forces. Our discussion with China has also addressed the important challenge of how to create a more level playing field for American companies seeking to expand their access to the growing Chinese market. And I made it clear to all that the United States of America is prepared to compete aggressively for the jobs and industries and markets of the future.

The bottom line is this. For a long time we were trapped I think in a false political debate in this country where business was on one side, labor was on the other. There were partisan divides. The argument was either you were pro-trade or you were anti-trade. What we now have an opportunity to do is to refocus our attention where we’re all in it together. Businesses, workers, government -- everybody is focused on the same goal.

We live in a interconnected world. There are global challenges and global opportunities. This nation has never shied away from the prospect of competition. We thrive on competition. And we are better positioned than anybody -- as uniquely positioned as ever -- to compete with anyone in the world. We’ve got the most respected brands, the best products, the most vibrant companies in the world. We’ve got the most productive workers in the world. We’ve got the finest universities in the world. We’ve got the most open, dynamic and competitive market in the world. When the playing field is even, nobody can beat us. And we are upping our game for the playing field of the 21st century.

But we’ve got to do it together. We’ve got to all row in the same direction. There’s no doubt that these are challenging times. But I’m absolutely convinced that we will rise to meet them -– to grow our economy, to put our people back to work, to forge our own future once more. We are Americans, and that is what we do.

I appreciate all your participation and I’m looking forward to getting busy working with you. Thank you. (Applause.)

END
12:11 P.M. EDT

Washington Full Throttle Economic Rescue

Ran: 10/08/2008
Moved Here 07/08/2010
Links no longer work.


Washington, (People Port) This story is huge, global. England (UK) has taken an equity interest (bought their stock) in their banks. Banks there are considered, slightly nationalized. Countries across Europe and elsewhere around the world have done some of that. Here, we put that and so much more into our economic plan. There is so much news, if you are not glued to a financial news network, you are going to miss it. We are also watching our presidential race. Then there is regional state and local news. For almost two years our presidential race has dominated the evening news. They are reluctant to part with three minutes of air time.


•Shop GemStuddedNails.com
•Treasury's New Point Man
•Federal Reserve: We'll Take That Paper
•Hope Now Foreclosure Solutions For Home Owners
•Mortgage Foreclosure Resources
•Commercial Paper (CPFF) Terms And Conditions
•FED: Commercial Paper Rates and Outstanding Amounts


That meant the stock market had to crash everyday for a week to get a little air time. Forget energy, the presidential candidates each want their own sound bites on that issue. It did come up in last nights debate. maybe after the election... Washington decided not to wait. Some of the underpinnings to sound energy planning are in that economic rescue plan. The economic rescue plan has already worked, because, There are two banks fighting over an almost failed bank. True, they may not have money to loan (at a rate a small company can afford), they have plenty to fight over another bank. It is working.

Odd, even the presidential candidates voted to pass this rescue. Too early to announce a success, the rescue package is too new. Watch the fight over that bank, they are in a cooling off period. We will see what is worked out between the banks, government, and the courts. Two greedy Wall Streeters fighting over another. Nice to see. Our economy is beginning to heal. Home sales are up (40% are bank owned). Wall Street is crying everyday over a chance at buying some of that toxic debt. Each exchange wants the trades listed on theirs. We will work our way out of this. Greed works, so does fear. The market keeps melting down from fear. See we are about to have a bad quarter, because sales are down.

Sales are down because our credit markets froze in August. Banks lending to businesses has been cut in half One would expect banks not to want to loan to other banks, they work with each other, side by side, they know exactly why they are not loaning (greedy bastards). Not loaning to companies is a different story. Most commercial paper (short term loans to companies) has become so scarce, The Federal Reserve will shortly be offering those loans. Not to worry, we have those sharks, I mean Wall Streeters, working for US. They run our Treasury Department, they are all over the place. They have the tools (bully clubs and blow torches), to get our economy moving. The part I like the best, they have to focus on helping homeowners and small businesses. I am cheering for Wall Street. Hey, a new reality TV show, Wall Street as a hero. Save those homes and businesses.

Our economy will start moving again when credit flows again, people are not facing cuts in hours or job losses. Now, companies are raising money internally. That means they cut hours, delay making payments, and spending, to fund short term cash needs. OK when one company here or there is working out a problem not when all companies are doing the same thing. Those workers are the ones that buy things, some examples, homes, cars, TVs, gym memberships, internet access, and even pay their debts.

Yesterday, President Bush visited Guernsey Office Products in Chantilly, Virginia, and discussed the Emergency Economic Stabilization legislation he signed last week in response to the financial crisis. As our markets begin to stabilize over time, it will help calm markets overseas.

The Administration Is Taking A Series Of Steps To Help American Businesses And Families

These steps will help bring stability to our volatile markets, and help protect the value of Americans' retirement accounts and 401ks – but it will take time for them to have their full effect. Thawing the freeze in the financial system will not happen overnight. It will be a process that unfolds over several stages:

•The Treasury Department is now moving aggressively to implement the new authorities in the most effective way. This legislation ensures that these authorities will be implemented in a responsible way that protects taxpayers. Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve and the FDIC will continue using their powers to help stabilize the market.

•This rescue plan will be a gradual process that will take time to have its full effect. We expect it will begin to kick into gear a few weeks from now. As banks rebuild their capital, they will be able to increase lending to each other and begin approving new loans for families and businesses – but this will not happen all at once.

•Eventually, we expect that much – if not all – of the tax dollars will be paid back. As the banking sector and the market for troubled assets recover, the government will begin to recoup some of the taxpayer funds invested in this recovery effort.

The financial rescue plan will provide the government a range of tools to help banks rebuild capital in order to get more credit flowing to consumers and businesses. The bill also protects responsible, hardworking Americans by:

•Preventing failed executives from receiving massive bonuses or windfalls from taxpayer dollars;
•Establishing a board to oversee the plan's implementation; and
•Temporarily expanding Federal insurance for bank and credit union deposits from $100,000 to $250,000 – this is a safeguard for consumers and small businesses.

President Bush has remained in close contact with European leaders to ensure that our actions are closely coordinated. Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors from the G-7 and other leading nations will be meeting this weekend.

In Addition To The Financial Crisis, We Must Address All Challenges Of Our Economy

President Bush has proposed targeted and practical steps for the Federal government to help our economy through this difficult period. Although the passage of the financial rescue legislation is helpful, the economy continues to face several additional challenges.

•To address the high cost of energy, the Administration has dramatically expanded funding for research into alternatives to oil and natural gas. The financial rescue package the President signed last week extends tax incentives for alternative energy sources such as wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass, including a new tax credit for qualifying plug-in electric vehicles. This summer, Congress responded to the will of the American people by lifting the legislative ban on offshore energy exploration. The Interior Department is now exploring all options to bring these energy resources online as quickly and efficiently as possible.

•President Bush has launched two initiatives to help responsible Americans keep their homes. Hope Now brings together homeowners, lenders, mortgage service providers, and others to find ways to prevent foreclosures. The other initiative is aimed at making it easier for homeowners to refinance into affordable mortgages insured by the Federal Housing Administration. So far, these programs have helped more than two million American families stay in their homes

• (1-888-995-HOPE (4673)).

•President Bush calls on the next Congress to provide more certainty in the tax code and encourage more job creation by making all of our tax cuts permanent. Last week, Congress took a step in the right direction by extending several key tax credits. Congress also acted to protect 26 million taxpayers from an average of $2,200 in higher taxes as a result of the Alternative Minimum Tax.

•Congress can level the playing field for American businesses and workers and provide a needed boost to our struggling economy by approving our pending free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea. Over the past year, exports have increased a remarkable 17 percent.

Copyrighted, 2008, J John Swanko, All rights reserved. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License Permission is granted for web based usages; the internal links must link back to store. For more information Click