Tag: Australia

Tracking the end of the consumer society

One statistic illustrates how economies are changing

I’m currently researching a presentation about the retail industry.

One of the things that leaps out when researching consumer behaviour is the savings rate.

For twenty-five years from the early 1980s to mid 2000s, the savings rate collapsed in Western economies; below are the US and Australian rates.

The US Personal savings rate shows the rise of consumerism
US Savings rates 1950 to 2020 – St Louis Federal Reserve
How did the Australian savings rate fall during the consumer boom
Australian Savings Rates 1980 to 2012 – Reserve Bank of Australia

 

The graphs show the same thing; households spent their savings over the 25 years which drove the consumer economy. It’s no accident that period was a good time to be a retailer.

Being on a deadline, I don’t have time to analyse these number further right now, but one thing is clear; most of the consumer boom from the Reagan Years onwards – or the equivalent from Maggie Thatcher or Paul Keating – was driven by households reducing their savings.

That couldn’t last and didn’t. Businesses and governments that are basing their decisions on what worked through the 1980s and 90s are going to struggle in the next decade.

Looking at these figures raises another suspicion – that graphs showing non-real estate investment by businesses and government would show similar declines over the 1980-2005 period.

It might be that golden period of what appeared to economic success was just us living off society’s collective savings.

Similar posts:

What if Bill Gates had been born in Australia?

Can a society that puts property speculation before innovation succeed in the 21st Century?

Microsoft founder Bill Gates is today one of the world’s biggest philanthropists having built his business from an obscure traffic management software company to what was at one stage the world’s biggest technology corporation.

But what if he’d been born in Sutherland, New South Wales rather than Seattle, Washington? How different would things have been for an Australian Bill Gates?

The first thing is he would have been encouraged to study law; just like his dad. In the 1970s lawyers had far more status and career prospects than software developers in Australia.

Causing more concern for his parents and career counselor would have been his determination to run his own business. It’s far safer to get a safe job, buy a house then start buying investment properties to fund your retirement.

The Funding Drought

If Bill still persisted with his ideas, he’d have hit a funding problem. No bank wouldn’t be interested in lending and his other alternatives would restricted.

In the Australia of the 1970s and 80s they’d be few alternatives for a business like Micro Soft. Even today, getting funding from angel groups and venture capital funds depend upon luck and connections rather than viable business ideas.

Bill Gates’ big break came when IBM knocked on his door to solve their problem of finding a personal computer operating system; the likelihood of any Australian company seeking help from a small operator – let alone one run by a a couple of twenty somethings – is so unlikely even today it’s difficult to comprehend that happening.

Eventually an antipodean Bill Gates would have probably admitted defeat, wound up his business and gone to work for dad’s law firm.

Invest in property, young man

Over time a smart, hard working young lawyer like Bill would have done well and today he’d be the partner of a big law firm with a dozen investment properties – although some of the coastal holiday properties wouldn’t be going well.

While some things have changed in the last thirty years – funding is a little easier to find in the current angel and venture capital mania – most Australians couldn’t think about following in Bill Gates’ path.

Part of the reason is conservatism but a much more important reason are our taxation and social security systems.

Favoring property speculators over entrepreneurs

Under our government policies an inventor, innovator or entrepreneur is penalised for taking risks. The ATO starts with the assumption all small or new businesses are tax dodges while ASIC is a thinly disguised small business tax agency and assets tests punish anyone with the temerity to consider building an business rather than buying investment properties.

At the same time a wage earner is allowed to offset losses made in property or shares against their income taxes, something that those building the businesses or inventing the tools of the future are expressly forbidden from doing.

Coupled with exemptions on taxing the capital gains on homes, Australian households – and society – is vastly over invested in property.

Making matters worse, the ramping up of property prices over the last thirty years has allowed generations of Australians to believe that property is risk free and doubles in value every decade.

That perception is reinforced by banks reluctant to lend to anyone who doesn’t have real estate equity to secure their loans.

So we have a society that favours property speculation over invention and innovation.

Every year in the run up to Federal budget time tax reform becomes an issue, the real effects of negative gearing and other subsidies for housing speculation – the distortion of our economy and societies investment attitudes – are never discussed.

In Australia there are thousands of smart young kids today who could be the Bill Gates’ of the 21st Century.

The question is do we want to encourage them to lead their generation or steer them towards a safe job and an investment property just like grandpa?

Similar posts:

Should Australia pass a jobs act?

Can legal reform help Australian start ups?

Last week the US President signed the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act into law.

The US law seeks to make funding easier for new businesses by lifting the burden of regulations like the Sarbannes Oxley Act (SOX) and various other financial rules.

One of the main planks of the reforms is it changes shareholder thresholds, for instance allowing 2,000 investors rather than 500 maximum before it has to go public, and allows companies to advertise their shares subject to certain restrictions.

Whether it achieves the stated aim of allowing new innovative businesses to raise funds or triggers a new generation of “boiler rooms” and investor fraud remains to be seen but it begs the question of should Australia pass a jobs act.

The funding crisis

There is no doubt Australia has a business funding crisis. Before the global financial crisis of 2008, it was difficult for smaller business to access finance.

In the aftermath of the GFC, it became even harder for businesses to raise funds as banks withdrew from the small business sector, increased their lending rates and tightened criteria.

While this situation has eased somewhat, partly due to the entrance of new angel and VC investment funds, financing of startup and small business is patchy and still tough.

An Australian Jobs Act would make it easier for business to raise funds and well crafted one might encourage both self managed and public superannuation funds to allocate some of their investments into the startup and innovation sectors.

A Scammer’s dream?

One of the big criticisms is that it reduces investor protections; while it restricts investors with less than $100,000 in annual income from punting more than 5% of their income, it’s quite clear in a full blown mania the Jobs Act will enable plenty of shoeshine boys and self funded retirees will do their life savings.

The question of course is how well the existing regulations protect investors or the community given the financial disastersof 2008.

Despite tough rules like SOX and the Basel Agreements, massive institutionalised fraud occurred and it’s surprising there have been no reforms in these rules given the huge and unprecedented costs of rectifying the problems.

In an Australian context, it’s clear local regulations aren’t working when thousands of investors are defrauded by their financial advisors in financial planner led scams like Westpoint. So reform is due.

While it’s clear the legislation isn’t working, it’s also clear the Australian financial planning industry doesn’t have the skills or ethics to advise clients should a local Jobs Act be passed.

Perhaps we should be accepting there is risk in investing and an Australian Jobs Act could help by simplifying business rules and improving transparency in accounts rather than bogging business and investors down in masses of unread paperwork.

Is the US experience valid?

Looking at the US Jobs Act it appears the Silicon Valley insiders are finding ways to extend their business models, whether this is successful creating new American jobs or just enriching the good folk of Sand Hill Road will pan out in the next few years.

For Australia it’s important we reform our laws to make business and innovation easier though we need to be careful we don’t ape the worst aspects of the Silicon Valley business model.

Similar posts:

Playing with Dragons

We should be careful how we treat our customers.

Chinese manufacturing has been in the news recently with various exposes of factory conditions by the New York Times, the now discredited Mike Daisey and a fascinating look at US store chain Wal-Mart’s supply chain by Mother Jones’ Andy Kroll.

In his examination of Wal-Mart’s Chinese suppliers Andy Kroll interviews factory owners and managers with a common theme, they are all loath to be identified for fear of incurring Wal-Mart’s wrath.

This is wall of silence is familiar in Australia; the reluctance of local suppliers to speak about the conduct of the Coles’ and Woolworths’ policies has hobbled enquiries into the domestic retail market.

Another aspect Chinese and Australian have in common is how the retailers drive down costs with big buyers insist upon regular price reductions from their suppliers.

This is what happens when your business is a price taker that relies on one or two suppliers; you accept what you’re offered or lose a large chunk of your business.

With many of Australia’s industry sectors now dominated by one or two incumbents, this way of doing business is now the norm rather than the exception.

As a nation Australia’s finding itself in that position as well. Now our governments and business leaders have decided Australia will only dig stuff up with a few favoured, uncompetitive industries like car manufacturing being being protected, the entire country is in a position not dissimilar to a Foshan coat hanger manufacturer.

Having that dependency on one or two major customers is a risk and when the commodities boom turns to bust – commodities booms always do – our relationships with these customers will be tested.

When that test comes, the clumsy way the Federal government has banned Chinese companies from tendering to the National Broadband Network or blocked investment in mining projects may turn out to be mistakes.

This is the problem with being a price taker selling a commodity product, you become hostage to fortune and when the market turns against you there isn’t a great deal you can do.

In the early 2000s computer manufacturers like Dell and HP decided to sell commodity products then watched with despair as Apple captured the premium, high margin end of the market. Neither business has truly recovered.

Being trapped at the commodity end of a market is not a comfortable place to be, particularly if you don’t have a plan to move up the value chain.

If your business is currently selling low margin, commodity goods then it’s worthwhile considering what Plan B is should the market turn against you. You might also remember to be nice to your customers

At least you’ll show you have more forethought than our leaders in Canberra who seem to like to play with dragons without thinking through the consequences.

Similar posts:

Competing in a high cost world

Business can compete when costs are high and currencies are strong

It’s often said that Australian businesses can’t compete and the nation can no longer can support manufacturing or high tech industries.

With the high Australian dollar, many economists, business leaders and politicians have said industries have to adapt to being an expensive economy. Interestingly, few of these experts explain how businesses should, or can, adapt.

At the recent Kickstart forum I had the opportunity to meet two Australian companies succeeding with high tech products and using the high dollar to their advantage.

David Jackman of Pronto Software, a thirty year old business intelligence company, is proud of the fact the business he leads does most of its development in Australia. As business owned by it’s employees – Pronto had  an employee buy out in the late 1990s – he sees his role as building the business to last centuries like some European businesses.

Linus Chang developed his Melbourne based business, Backup Assist, when he discovered the data backup tools built into Microsoft Windows weren’t very good. Taking the basic Microsoft products, he added the features that made these tools usuable at a fraction of the cost of bigger companies’ data backup software.

Today Backup Assist is sold in 124 countries with the US as the biggest market.

Both Backup Assist and Pronto find keeping the bulk of the software development in house in Australia makes sure they are producing high quality, effective products.

Software development isn’t the only sector dealing with the high cost evironment, David Jackman says Pronto has many customers in the Australian manufacturing industry who have adapted to a high cost environment with niche and high value added products.

Identifying these opportunities is where the challenge lies; what do our businesses do well that customers in international markets are prepared to pay for?

We also have an advantage in being a relatively open economy with first world standards. This is another reason why investment in new infrastructure like the National Broadband Network is important.

One thing is for sure, selling low priced commodity products with small margins is not where the future lies, even if the Aussie dollar collapses.

We have success stories and businesses adapting to being a high cost economy, it’s a matter of understanding how our industries can add value while  do this.

Similar posts:

Why Dick Smith is wrong about overseas buyers

Foreign investors are desperately needed in Australian retail

Last week’s announcement that Woolworths will sell their Dick Smith chain of electronics stores wasn’t surprising and neither was the reaction of the chain’s founder to the idea of the business being sold to a foreign buyer.

For all his legitimate concerns about Woolworth’s growth model, Dick Smith is wrong about the sale of the stores. It’s almost essential for Australian consumers and business that the chain is sold to a foreign retailer.

When Dick sold his business to Woolworths in the early 1980s it was the beginning of a long consolidation process across Australian industry that now sees most business sectors dominated by duopolies or – at best – three or four incumbents.

In retail, the Coles and Woolworths duopoly dominates groceries, liquor and petrol. The power of these companies was illustrated yesterday with Coles’ announcement of price cuts to various greengrocery lines.

Having a new player enter the market is always an improvement; in neighbourhoods where foreign retailers like Costco and Aldi operate or where a keen, smaller operator decides to compete with the big boys the response is always better prices and service.

More importantly bringing in overseas owners will bring in fresh thinking and new ideas. New blood in the retail sector may even stem the brain drain where many young, innovative future business leaders are forced overseas because of the limited opportunities in the incumbent duopolies.

Where Dick is right is that the electronics retail business is dying as fat profits in the sector are a distant memory in what is now a tight margin, fast moving consumer goods industry. To make things worse, consumer electronics aren’t even fast moving in the post GFC economy.

Adding to the retailer’s pain the collapse in margins has happened at the same time commercial rents have risen dramatically with Sydney now being cited alongside Hong Kong, London and New York as the world’s costliest shopping strips.

While suburban shopping centres don’t have the same rents as the Pitt or Bourke Street Malls, they still have risen dramatically in the last decade, catching all retailers in a vice between rising costs and falling margins.

In order to maintain profits, training and staff development have been slashed. Once up a time, a customer would go to a Dick Smith or Harvey Norman store to get informed advice on the best gadget, those days are also long gone as poorly trained staff fight to sell the products with the best commissions.

Owners of the stores have made it harder to recruit and train motivated staff when employer consider hospitality and retail jobs to be temporary, low esteem positions with few prospects.

This deskilling isn’t just an issue for the retail industry – it’s something we’ve seen across the Australian economy in the last thirty years. As training and skills development has been seen as an unnecessary business cost.

Tourism Australia chairman Geoff Dixon’s recent comments about the Australian tourist industry having to accept being a high cost destination is a symptom of this disconnect. The local tourism industry has no chance of moving up the value chain when there is no service culture among staff and no long term management vision to develop one.

It would be unfair to just pick on any one individual or business for these problems. We have a structural problem in the Australian economy that’s fuelled by entrenched beliefs and habits of a stagnant senior managerial class.

We desperately need new people and ideas in Australian management to shake up the staid duopolies and oligopolies we’ve allowed to develop in the last three decades, that’s why Dick Smith is wrong to say a foreign owner for the electronics chain he founded would be bad for the country.

Image courtesy of Icelandit on SXC.hu

Similar posts:

The saddest sign you’ll ever see

When a landlord takes possession of a business, there’s a lot of pain behind the signs.

The sign on an abandoned business announcing “Landlord taken possession” usually hides a pile of pain and distress.

It’s not cheap or easy for a landlord to take possession of a business premises and for most to do so it’s usually the end of long period of unpaid bills and broken promises.

Behind that sign is usually months, if not years, of stress and despair as a business owner has held onto a failing enterprise, bluffing their landlord, their suppliers, their staff, their own families and often themselves.

Almost every one of those signs has a story of failed relationships, destroyed friendships and ruined marriages.

Often they didn’t understand the cost of doing business and in many cases because they hadn’t consulted a bookkeeper or accountant earlier they didn’t understand their venture was always loss making despite what appeared to be a healthy cashflow.

When the truth about the businesses becomes obvious, life for the honest owner of a failing enterprise tries to bluff themselves and those around them that things will be okay, that the dream is still alive.

This is what worries me about many of the businesses that participate in group buying deals, they are desperate to keep their business afloat and believe the cashflow or publicity will save their failing venture. Even worse, many don’t understand how that “50% off” deal will affect their ability to pay staff and the landlord.

Even where the failed proprietor has been one the “two percenters” – the 2% of our society that runs their affairs with no regard for the pain and suffering of those they hurt – many people, particularly the smaller suppliers and low paid workers, have taken a hit as bills went unpaid and promises were not kept.

Most business owners though believe in their idea or vision and work long and hard in an attempt to achieve it. The majority of those who end up with the landlord taking possession are often those who ignored the signs and believed things would come good next season, next month or next week.

I’m always saddened when I see a “landlord taken possession” sign like the one near me in the window of what was an Italian restaurant until recently. What’s the saddest business sign you see?

Similar posts: